 Governance, if you think about it, is fundamentally about power. Who has it? How it's exercised? For whose benefit? And when we talk about governance for peace, then we have to think about the exercise of power that is equitable, that is representative, that is inclusive, and that is accountable to social concerns. So we find that the systems of governance that are most associated with peace are those in which there is a broader, more inclusive participation, where the institutions are accountable to the communities they are intended to serve, where social services are provided equitably to all rather than to one group or another. And where the use of force, if it's employed at all, is always at a very limited scale with a recognition that coercive means are much more costly and ineffective compared to cooperative mechanisms, where we often refer to as soft power, and Joe and I talks about soft power, which is the power of attraction. People participate in institutions in which they are included, in which they have a voice, and they do so willingly because they benefit from that participation. That's a form of governance, an exercise of power, if you will, in which there's a basis for cooperation that's sustainable, that is voluntary, and that has a momentum that can be sustained beyond what would be required for a more coercive form of power. So I view power as an inevitability, of course it's part of society, and the question is not what to do with power, but how to share it and how to make it more inclusive and how to ensure that all of the key constituencies that are affected by decision making, by the exercise of power, have a voice, and where that power system is then held accountable to the public. A lot of times in political science we use the terms voice and veto as fundamental characteristics of governance, and I think it's a good way of summarizing the basic characteristics. People need to have a voice, they need to have a say and be fully included in how decisions are made, and then there need to be mechanisms for veto, for holding the power system accountable so that when it becomes excessive, when it violates the interests of the people, it can be restrained and changed and reformed. So I see that as the kind of the way in which the power question relates to governance and to the prospects for peace.