Democracies Do Not Go to War with One Another.
For many years, the pragmatic observation that democracies, even though no less aggressive than non-democracies, do not fight one another, has been a key debated when studying about conflicts and peace. Democracies are forms of government in which people choose leaders by voting. For better understanding of why democracies do not go to fight with one another, it becomes necessary to define the term of war. War can be described as deliberate armed conflict between communities with the aim of achieving politically. Another definition of war made by a Prussian military strategist known as Carl von Clausewitz described war as an act of savagery to force an opponent to fulfill the will of the aggressor. According to Rummel, even though there are numerous arguments supporting various nations’ warmongering policies in the past few decades, still there are numerous debates as to how such policies might be essential as is in the case that democracies do not fight with other democracies (Ray 2008, p.125).
This paper will scrutinize the existing arguments relating to the Democratic Peace Theory as to why democracies do not fight each other. Further, it aims at summarizing the key characteristics of the theory. First, the paper will give an explanation relating to the broad inferences of the theory that includes its origins, as well as descriptions. Secondly, the paper will identify the practical application of the theory and will finally give conclusions on the effectiveness of the theory in today’s world.
According to Clinton, in the very end, the best policy of ensuring security and build durable peace is by holding up the advancement of democracy elsewhere (Foreignaffairs.com, 2015). Moreover, democracies do not attack each other. Instead, they make superior trading partners and partners in diplomacy. The general implications of the Democratic Peace Theory additionally referred to as Mutual Democratic Pacifism grants probable explanation as to why democracies do not attack each other. The origin of the theory can be hunted back to Immanuel Kant, who was the first to delineate the initial applicable proposal in his article entitled “Perpetual Peace.”Kant, Perpetual Peace theory is founded on a hypothetical world in which countries have a common constitutional republic as their political regime (Ellis 2007, p.766). Additionally, people in this abstract world petition for uninterrupted peace as the ideal way of life. The idea behind Kant’s suggestion is that citizens will not choose to go to war except in circumstances where there it is necessary to protect themselves. Moreover, Kant is of the idea that if all nations practiced democracy, then there would be no antagonist nations, and, therefore, the need for war could not be present.
According to Kant, the unwillingness of statesmen, to hold up war, as well as associated costs, holds back democratic leaders from engaging in conflicts with other countries (Ellis 2007, p.767). According to Kant’s school of thought, the premise that democracies are unenthusiastic in using aggressive means against other democracies persisted for centuries. Eventually, the Kantian notion of a conciliatory union, promoted by mutual values, cosmopolitan rights limited to a universal hospitality as well as the right of nations established on a Federation of Free States gained popularity after World War 1. After World War 1, the proposal of the right of a country to self-government stirred the formation of the League of State. Later on, significant academics have added to the theory by demonstrating using empirical evidence that democracies do not attack each other. The absence of conflicts between democratic states cannot attribute to bogus causal relations (Maoz and Russett 2002, p.262).
Currently, three different schools of thought try to elucidate the Democratic Peace Theory. First, is the structural approach which asserts that organizations and institutions limited in their options for going to war by the various economic, social along with political expense for the government as well as the population that war going to war demands. Subsequently, this makes war an unattractive alternative for solving misunderstandings between countries. Additionally, the significance of individual freedoms with free elections takes advantage of the political responsibilities of the leaders because they can be substituted if they do not preserve and uphold a satisfactory foreign policy. Geva, DeRouren, and Mintz supported this argument citing that the principal rationale as to why making use of force in other democracies is counterproductive from a legislative point of view (Geva, DeRouren and Mintz 1993, p. 123). That was because the populace supposed it as a collapse and failure of the country’s foreign policy.
Democratic institutions which include intelligibility, political pluralism as well as legal rights minimize the likelihood of governments and leaders of government from coming up with bogus justifications aimed at convincing the populace to go to war with another state. In relation to democratic duo, transparency and accountability are essential elements as they infer that both states can noticeably distinguish and understand the goal of the other states. According to Starr (2007, p.157), this transparency means that parties have access to a great deal information relating to the other state. This information is enough to generate compelling rival descriptions for both the elites and group of people.
On the other hand, second normative explanation sometimes referred to a cultural explanation, asserts that widespread liberal and democratic theories are the rationales behind stability and peaceful dealings among democratic states. In line with this explanation, the existing information and traditions relating to democratic political ideals and ways of resolving conflicts, sustains open transactions between states as well as their leaders. Furthermore, these leaders anticipate that their corresponding persons will also recognize the inevitability of resolving their discrepancies without making use of aggressive means. However, it is also imperative to note how this democratic awareness of one state by another may affect and change the incentive for policies that are pro-war. Supporting this argument, Elman (1997) asserts that to a great extent, political ideology establishes how democracies differentiate between friends and hostiles. Democracies that stand for and operate in the best interest of its citizens are treated with high esteem and thoughtfulness, while non-democracies that draw on aggression and tyranny against their people treated with distrust and doubt.
With comparative simplicity, the Democratic Peace Theory has defied the realist interpretation of International Relations (IR) that have prevailed in the international platform for a number of centuries. In the course of the past decades, research conducted has to an extent substantiated the authenticity of the Democratic Peace Theory (Danilovic and Clare, 2007). According to these studies, statistically the possibility of a war involving two democratic nations is very minimal. Democratic leaders are not as much of interested in employing the use military force or aggressive acts against when compared to democracies as against non-democratic states. Nonetheless, by itself, the theory as well as the outcome of these studies is profoundly subjected to debate. Regardless of its weakness, it is possible to draw some fundamental conclusions from the theory
Many studies indicate that democracies states constantly influenced by the need for diplomatic coexistence with their other countries. Democracies use similar policies that typify their domestic policies and do not scrupulously determine alliances or profit-related associations. Additionally, democratic states anticipate that other democracies will find a solution to conflicts through the use of deliberation and a diplomatic design. It is expected that democratic leaders will continually promote shared and peaceful relations with other heads sharing the same goal. For instance, in his speech in 1994, George H.W. Bush affirmed that the reason, he is so keen on democracy is because democracies do not grapple each other. Also, people of most societies do not like war, and they are aware of the outcomes of war. War is expensive for the parties involved both in terms of resources and leads to loss of lives. Consequently, most democracies try as much as possible to avoid going to war.
The Democratic Peace Theory tests the utility of other political perspectives that are different from those of democracy in the contemporary world. Rummel supports this theory when he argues that democracy is an all-purpose remedy for political or joint violence of any sort because it is a system of peacefulness (Ray 2008, p.125).. A considerable number of scholarly works recognize democracy as a political system not as much predisposed to the formation and endorsement of foreign policies that promote aggression. With reasonably unlimited levels of civil rights and involvement, it is feasible to imply that democracy is a more attractive political arrangement in comparison to authoritarian or autocratic regimes. Finally, political practices such as intelligibility, collaboration, democratization as well as integration develop relations among nations.
The theories of the integration highlight the function of learning in the improvement of forms of support as well as a sense of neighborliness. That is done by stressing the importance of shared benefits and the affirmative impact of the interdependence in managing mutually dependent relations. Nonetheless, it is imperative to draw attention to the fact that shaky democracies are not totally peaceful. Political instability of democracy may come about if the institutions are not well-built to sustain the structure or when the change process threatens leading sectors resulting in conflicts and instability. In 2014, Russia and Ukraine almost went to war over Crimea. Nonetheless, quick intervention for peace talks by the European Union prevented a full scale war between the two countries. According to Doyle, the major imminent is that relations between liberal democracies are likely to be peaceful. Doyle asserts that it is this separate peace that provides a basis for alliances such as NATO among other forms of international cooperation (Doyle, 2015).
In conclusion, historically, both democracies and authoritarian governments have traditionally avoided conflicts with other regimes like their own. According to proponents of Democratic Peace Theory, a number of factors motivate the peace between democratic states. Essentially, democracy is a representative government. Therefore, democratic leaders are required to recognize the responsibility for war losses to the voting public. Moreover, because leaders are publicly accountable for their actions, it means that they will be more disposed to come up with ambassadorial and peaceful institutions for resolve international conflicts. Another possible explanation as to why democracies do not go to warfare is because democracies are less likely to deem countries with similar policies and administering doctrine as aggressive. Lastly, democracies are more probable to be in possession of greater state wealth than other countries that are not democracies. Therefore, democracies avoid going to war in order to maintain and protect existing infrastructure and resources.
References
Boix, C. (2011). Democracy, Development, and the International System. Am PolitSci Rev, 105(04), pp.809-828.
Choi, A. (2003). The Power of Democratic Cooperation. International Security, 28(1), pp.142-153.
Dombrose, L. and Levinson, D. (1950). Ideological “Militancy”and “Pacifism”in Democratic Individuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), pp.101-113.
Doyle, M. (2015). Liberal Peace: Selected Essays. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 14 January 2015, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137538/michael-w-doyle/liberal-peace-selected-essays
E-International Relations, (2015). Is Democracy a Cause of Peace?. [online] Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2014/06/20/is-democracy-a-cause-of-peace/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2015].
Ellis, E. (2007). Immanuel Kant, Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History :Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. ETHICS, 117(4), pp.765-769.
Farber, H. and Gowa, J. (1997). Common interest or common polities?. Princeton, N. J.
Foreignaffairs.com,. (2015). Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror | Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 14 January 2015, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58621/thomas-carothers/promoting-democracy-and-fighting-terror
Fukuyama, F. and Rummel, R. (1997). Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence.Foreign Affairs, 76(6), p.151.
Ikenberry, G. and Lipson, C. (2004). Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. Foreign Affairs, 83(1), p.167.
Maoz, Z. and Russett, B. (1992). Alliance, contiguity, wealth, and political stability: Is the lack of conflict among democracies a statistical artifact? 1. International Interactions, 17(3), pp.245-267.
Owen, J. (1994). How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security, 19(2), p.87.
Rahman, C. (2012). Empowering Our Military Conscience: Transforming Just War Theory and Military Moral Education – Edited by Roger Wertheimer. Political Studies Review, 10(3), pp.427-428.
Ray, J. (2008). R. J. Rummel’s Understanding Conflict and War: An Overlooked Classic?. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 16(2), pp.125-147.
Richmond, O. (2006). The problem of peace: understanding the ‘liberal peace’. Conflict, Security & Development, 6(3), pp.291-314.
Russett, B. (2009). Democracy, War and Expansion through Historical Lenses. European Journal of International Relations, 15(1), pp.9-36.
Society must be defended”: lectures at the College de France, 1975-76. (2004). Choice Reviews Online, 41(07), pp.41-3976-41-3976.
