When do democratic mechanisms increase political risks to waging war - Essay Example

?When do democratic mechanisms increase political risks to waging war? Democratic process is multi-dimensional in its scope and is inherently linked to the wider expectations and collective will of the masses. Democratic states are therefore constrained by their political and constitutional paradigms to evolve ways for peaceful resolution of conflicts. In the current times, the inter-dependency of resources becomes one of the most critical issues for peaceful negotiations of crisis across borders. It can also be argued that technology has redefined communication and has helped transform international political economy that relies on global consensus and global views. “The relation between military organization and the civilian environment can be shaped in different ways: in some countries, the civilians are executing firm oversight over the armed forces, whereas in some other countries the military can perform its duties regarding national security in its own, autonomous way, if not even in the way where the military imposes its principles of governance over the citizens. In the contemporary society, the last, i.e. military-dominated political systems are rare”(Jelusic,2007). But at the same time, Shultz (1999) points out that within democratic mechanisms, the political leaders tend to face higher political cost to waging war and therefore the threat to war is often resisted by the target nation. Indeed, the wider ramifications of threats by democratic state are less likely to be taken seriously by rogue nations than by threats from non-democratic states. However, history is witness to the fact that this is not always true. Moreover, according to Jelusic the idea more common are civilian-dominated political systems, in which civilian political leaders control the military in very authoritative way, or where the whole civilian environment through the channels of the democratic control over the military imposes the tasks, the execution of tasks and respect for democracy in the inner-military organizational structures. America’s war against Iraq was fought not for political leverage but for personal gain vis-a-vis access to the vast resources of oil and gas (Habermas, 2006). The democratic constraints and reasons for waging war have therefore become increasingly contentious issues that need to be looked from the wider perspectives of emerging new equations of political economy that has redistributed wealth and created new power structure. Globalization has brought huge changes not only in the economic circles, but also in the political circles. For example, America and China were not in good terms before the introduction of globalization. However, both the countries realized the importance of meaningful cooperation for mutual benefits. At present, China is one of the major trade partners of America. Moreover, plenty of American companies are operating in China and America is one of the major markets for Chinese products. In short, the magnitude of interdependencies between China and America is huge at present and hence these two countries are not at all clashing each other aggressively when political differences widen in between these two countries. It should be noted that China is supporting Palestinians whereas America is supporting Israel in the Middle East conflict. At the time of writing this paper, intense fight is going on in Gaza between Israelis and Palestinians. However, neither China nor America seems to be interested in interfering in this issue even though both these countries have contrasting views regarding this war. The silence of these two superpowers clearly suggests that they do not want to spoil their economic relationships for political gains. The case is not much different as far as the problems in Syria are concerned. Yet despite the grisly murders by the Syrian regime, the Arab League remains silent. The Arab regimes remain silent. In the meantime, Walid al-Muallem, the Syria Foreign Minister, had the chutzpah to chide the Arab ambassadors in Damascus for not condemning the United States and the European Union for imposing sanction against certain individuals in Syria. None of the ambassadors dared to remind the foreign minister of the Syrian regime’s crimes against the Syrian people. Arab and international response has been slow and feeble. With a few exceptions, (Qatar and Saudi Arabia) most Arab regimes and media remained silent (Ismail). The silence of Arab leaders on Syrian conflicts clearly reveals many things. It should be noted that in majority of the Arab countries, Islamic dictatorship is prevailing. These dictators are sticking in power by exploiting religion in favor of them. The lessons learned from Libya and Egypt prevents these dictators from interfering in the Syrian matters. They know very well that the current Syrian administration resembles with the administrations in other Arab countries. So, if the Syrian public succeeds in dethroning Syrian president, the consequences may not be confined within the boundaries of Syria alone. This awareness put them in a dilemma. It is difficult for them either to support and criticize Syrians president’s effort to suppress the agitation. So they are keeping meaningful silence on this issue. In other words, the interdependencies or resemblances of administrations in Arab world prevent Arab leaders from interfering meaningfully in crisis situations in Middle East. The international political economy and technology are highly interlinked at present. In other words, international political economy is undergoing rapid changes along with the progress in science and technology. “Tweets were sent. Dictators were toppled. Internet = democracy. QED. Sadly, this is the level of nuance in most popular accounts of the Internet's contribution to the recent unrest in the Middle East” (Morozov). The recent Egyptian and Libyan revolution are often labeled as facebook revolution. In other words, social networks contributed heavily to these revolutions. “If three decades of violent repression and despotic rule were kindling for the Egyptian revolution, social media was both a spark and an accelerant for the movement” (Gustin).It should not be forgotten that until recent times, these dictators were smoothly sticking in power. However, technology has caused problems to them. Technology or social networks has enhanced the communication between the people across the world. Thus, people in autocratic countries became more aware of their pathetic conditions after getting in touch with people in democratic countries. The political systems in the contemporary world can be divided into two broad categories; military-dominated political systems and civilian dominated political systems. For example, India is a democratic country and its political system is dominated by the people. On the other hand, Pakistan is also a democratic country at least on papers; but its political systems are dominated by military rather than people. It is often said that Pak military functions in one way and the administration functions in another way. Because of the contrasting interests, these two entities often keep different views on international matters. For example, Pak administration is trying to strengthen its relations with India whereas Pak military is trying to make problems in India. It is believed that the actual villain behind recent Mumbai attack is none other than Pak military itself. According to a Pak journalist Saleem Shahzad “The Mumbai operation was actually the revival of an old ISI plan. The idea was to deflect the Pakistan Army away from Waziristan and get it to fight India instead”(Ahamad). On the other hand, the political systems in America like country are entirely different from that of the Pakistanis. In fact, America’s foreign policies will be analyzed microscopically when people elect their future president or administration. It should be noted that majority of the people in America were against war on terror and that is why Republicans failed in the 2008 presidential elections. In short, the over influence or interference of military in politics is not so good as far as the issue of solving international problems are concerned. The objectives of the military and that of the administrations or the people need not be the same always as discussed in the examples of Pakistan and American politics. True democratic countries always analyses the political and economic costs before taking decisions to attack other countries. For example, America and Iran are currently engaged in an undeclared war of word of mouth. Both the countries accuse each other for their contrasting foreign policies followed. In fact, the differences between Iran and America have widened immensely in recent times and many people thought that a war is inevitable. “Romney and many other leading Republican figures have called for pre-emptive war against Iran, and have continually upped the ante in terms of threats of military action throughout the election campaign”(Hussain). However, Obama was hesitant in attacking Iran because of political as well as economic reasons. America has already a bad name for attacking the Muslim dominated countries. Many Muslims in the world believe that America is trying to eradicate Islam from this world. Under such circumstances, it is illogical for America to attack Iran at present. Moreover, the economic conditions in America have already worsened because of the ongoing war on terror and recent recession. In short, America rightly calculated that a war with Iran is not good at present for protecting American interests. It should be noted that the prevalence of democratic administration helped America to reach such a decision. There are plenty of cases in which, the rogue nations took the threats from democratic nations without any seriousness. However, their judgments may not be true always. For example, it is a fact that Libyan revolution met success immediately because of the interference of America or NATO in this issue. At the same time, Syrian president is currently hanging in power only because of America’s reluctance in interfering in this issue. “Syria’s civil war has been a humanitarian and political tragedy for that country”(Carpenter). Human right violation was the reason cited by America for interfering in Libya and Egypt. However, they are staying away from Syria even though human right violations are taking place plenty there. In short, America has adopted contrasting stands towards Syria and Libya even though the issues in these countries were similar in nature. To conclude, democratic mechanisms can support wars at times. When the influence of military increases over administration, even democratic administrations support wars. Same way, economic and political climates play a vital role while democratic administrations take decisions either to support or oppose wars. Works Cited Ahmad, Khaled. “Owning up the Mumbai Attack”. Web. 21 November 2012. Carpenter, Galen. “The Syrian Civil War's Global Implications”. 2012. Web. 21 November 2012. Gall, Sandy. “Why it all Went Wrong in Afghanistan”. War against the Taliban. London: Bloomsbury, 2012. Print Gustin, Sam. “Social Media Sparked, Accelerated Egypt’s Revolutionary Fire”. Web. 21 November 2012. Habermas, Jurgen. “Time of Transitions”. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006. Print Hussain, Murtaza. “Why War With Iran Would Spell Disaster”. 2012. Web. 21 November 2012. Ismail, Nehad. “Massacres in Syria, Silence of the Arab Lambs”. Web. 21 November 2012. Jelusic, Ljubica. “Democratic Control Over the Armed Forces”. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2007):161-176. Doi: 10.1016/S1572-8323(07)04007-6. Print Morozov, Evgeny. “How Much Did Social Media contribute to Revolution in the Middle East?”. Web. 21 November 2012. Schultz, Kenneth. “Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform?” International Organization 53 (1999): 233-235. Print Read More