I Say What I See: Mutual Respect — The Measure of Our Maturity

Before we speak about practice, we must first understand the meaning.
The Oxford University Press Dictionary defines respect as “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements,” and also as “due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others”. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary expands the meaning further, describing it as “high or special regard”, “esteem”, and “consideration”. These definitions, though concise, underline two essential elements: recognition of value and acknowledgement of rights.
Turning to our local understanding, an English–Myanmar dictionary commonly renders respect as “လေးစားမှု” (Lay-zar-mu) — a term that conveys reverence, regard, and mindful consideration. The Myanmar expression does not merely imply admiration; it carries a cultural weight of humility and restraint. In our social context, to “လေးစားသည်” is not only to admire but also to behave properly towards others according to moral and social boundaries.
When we combine these perspectives – global definitions grounded in rights and esteem, and local interpretations rooted in humility and conduct — we begin to see that mutual respect is more than politeness. It is reciprocal recognition. It is the conscious balance between self-worth and the worth of others. It is neither submission nor superiority, but an equilibrium.
This, at least, is what the dictionaries say. What I say – and what I see – may go further.
During my years with an international organization, I had the opportunity to travel abroad to attend meetings, seminars, workshops, fora, conferences, and congresses. Before each gathering, I would carefully read the agenda documents circulated to delegates. These documents were often detailed, outlining procedures, speaking time, seating arrangements, voting mechanisms, and codes of conduct.
Yet among all procedural matters, one principle was consistently highlighted: Mutual Respect.
It was not presented as a decorative phrase. It appeared as a clear reminder – sometimes even as a formal rule – urging delegates to uphold mutual respect throughout the event, regardless of gender, nationality, political system, or the relative size and influence of their countries. The wording was simple, but its implication was profound. Participants came from across the globe — large nations and small states, developed and developing countries, men and women alike — yet within the conference hall, equality in dignity was emphasized.
What struck me most was that this reminder was necessary. These gatherings involved highly educated individuals – diplomats, policymakers, experts, and senior officials. And still, the organizers found it essential to underline mutual respect at the very beginning.
Why?
Because diversity, while enriching, also carries the potential for misunderstanding. Differences in culture, language, economic power, and political standing can quietly influence tone, posture, and even listening habits. Without mutual respect as a conscious guideline, discussion can easily shift from dialogue to dominance.
Inside those halls, each country had its nameplate. Some nameplates represented powerful nations; others represented small countries rarely mentioned in global headlines. Yet when the chair recognized a speaker, each delegate was granted the same floor, the same microphone, the same allotted time. In that moment, respect was institutionalized. It was procedural. It was protected.
From this small but meaningful experience, I began to see that mutual respect is not automatic. It must be declared. It must be structured. And, above all, it must be practised – not only internationally, but also within our own communities.
This is what I saw.
If mutual respect is essential in international halls, it is even more crucial at home, especially in the aftermath of an election.
An election naturally produces two visible groups: winners and losers. The winners celebrate; the losers reflect. Victory brings confidence; defeat often brings disappointment. Yet democracy, at its core, is not designed to humiliate one side or glorify the other. It is designed to allow peaceful competition and orderly transition.
This is where mutual respect becomes a true test of maturity.
For the winners, respect means restraint. It means recognizing that triumph at the ballot box does not erase the dignity of those who voted differently. It means governing not only for supporters, but for the entire nation, including those who stood on the opposite platform.
For the losers, respect means acceptance. It means acknowledging the outcome without resorting to hostility or bitterness. It means understanding that disagreement does not justify division.
In many societies, I have observed that elections do not create division; they reveal it. The real question is what happens afterwards. Do citizens speak to one another with civility? Do leaders choose language that heals rather than inflames? Do institutions function with fairness and composure?
Mutual respect in such moments is not weakness. It is discipline. It prevents political competition from turning into social fracture.
In those international conferences I once attended, countries with vastly different systems and ideologies still agreed to speak with respect under one roof. If nations can do so across borders, surely citizens within one country can do the same after an election.
Victory is temporary. Opposition is temporary. But the nation is permanent.
This is what I see.
In the end, mutual respect is not tested when we agree. It is tested when we do not.
It is easy to respect those who think like us, vote like us, and stand beside us. The true measure of our maturity is how we treat those who stand across from us, politically, socially, or ideologically. A nation does not weaken because of differing opinions. It weakens when disagreement turns into disdain.
History has shown that power changes hands. Governments rise and fall. Political tides shift. Today’s winner may be tomorrow’s opposition. But if mutual respect remains constant, stability endures beyond any electoral cycle.
Respect does not silence criticism. It refines it.
Respect does not eliminate competition. It civilizes it.
Respect does not demand surrender. It demands dignity.
If we expect fairness when we lose, we must practise humility when we win. If we demand recognition of our rights, we must recognize the rights of others. Mutual respect is reciprocal; it cannot move in only one direction.
From international conference halls to our own communities, I have seen one simple truth: where mutual respect is upheld, dialogue continues. Where it collapses, division deepens.
In the quiet space between victory and defeat, between agreement and disagreement, lies a choice. That choice defines not only our politics, but our character.
This is what I see.

gnlm