Democratic Peace Theory - Essay Example

of the History and Political Science of the Concerned 2 July Democratic Peace Theory Introduction When one attemptsa critical study of the international relations, the one big difficulty that one comes across is that what on the surface appears to be an insignificant or unrelated event, on a deeper analysis tends to have grave implications on the attributes, features and conceptual nature of the discipline that it seeks to grasp or understand. Varied experts and academicians tend to hold that the nonexistence of war amidst democratic states tends to be the only and perhaps significant empirical fact that one comes across in one’s study of international relations. Even a general perusal of the related historical facts tends to establish the fact that in case of the democratic states there is a stark aversion to the use of military power to settle the impending political, economic or geographic issues (Newman & Rich 2004, p. 5). In that context the democratic peace theory not only directly challenges the validity and efficacy of the alternate political systems, but also the existing accounts of international relations that lay emphasis on the concepts like the strategic common interests and balance of power machinations, while delving on the international relations between salient democratic powers (Newman & Rich 2004, p. 5). Democratic Peace Theory In a simplistic context, one could ascribe the democratic peace theory as a theory that upholds the fact that the democratic nations seldom engage in war with each other (Schraeder 2002, p. 17). There exist varied other terms aimed at explaining and grasping this theory like ‘inter-democracy non aggression hypothesis’ or ‘mutual democratic pacifism’. To explain it more clearly, the democratic peace theory tends to hold that it is not the actual peace between the democratic nations that is democratic, but, rather it is the democratic configuration of the involved countries that gives way to this cordiality and peace. The proponents of the democratic peace theory tend to convey varied hypothesis to explain away the logic inherent in this theory. As per some, the democratically elected leaders are accountable to their constituencies and voters; hence they have a greater predilection for seeking alternatives to war (Schraeder 2002, p. 17). The other hypothesis that is put forward in the support of the democratic peace theory is that the democratically elected leaders are conversant in resolving issues through negotiations, and hence they carry on with this attribute in their approach towards foreign relations (Schraeder 2002, p. 17). No wonder, there are many people who tend to deny or criticize the democratic peace theory. What is Democracy? To a great extent the validity and relevance of the democratic peace theory is dependent on as to how one tends to define or explain a democracy. Although there is no single paradigm that grasps a holistic definition of democracy, yet, experts have identified varied salient features that delineate an ideal democracy. On most important attribute of the democratic nations is that they do have a democratically elected constitutional form of government that is answerable to people. Besides, these constitutionally elected governments happen to be representative in their scope and nature, directly responsible to the public sentiments, beliefs and aspirations. A workable and pragmatic democracy is always subservient to the principle of the separation of powers, where the powers of the state are judiciously allocated between the varied pillars of democracy like the executive and the judiciary. All the worthwhile and true democracies do extend varied judicial and legal rights to their citizens, which are legally and ethically upheld by the constitution and the state. Last but not the least, democracies do believe in extending avenues for participation to varied sections and segments of the society. Hence, in the interest of practicality, while delving on the democratic peace theory; one does need to take into consideration the above mentioned attributes of democratic nations. History of Democratic Peace Theory Though the democratic peace proposition is the most readily accepted principle in the realm of international relations, still it is worthwhile to analyze the concept of democratic peace in the light of the contributions made by luminaries and scholars in more contemporary times. The idea of democratic peace though being an old one, its flares could be traced back to the 18th century writings of Immanuel Kant (Calleo 2001, p. 357). Kant believed that democracies rarely engage in military conflict because in the democratic states, the citizenry is always averse to paying the high price of war (Calleo, 2002, p. 358). However, Kent rested his hypothesis of democratic peace on some salient imperatives like the need for the constitution of any democratic state to be Republican, the limitations of cosmopolitan rights to the conditions of universal hospitality, the democracies being the federations of Free States and a total and absolute rejection of the idea of a world government (Calleo 2001). There is no denying the fact that the idea of democratic started gaining an importance and relevance on the international stage at some time in the 990s. Structural Explanation A structural argument for the democratic peace theory tends to put forward the argument that the democratic states are mostly averse to war because they have democratically elected representative forms of governments that are directly accountable to the citizens (Nagel 2000, p. 120). Hence, in the democratic states their always exists the possibility that the leaders venturing for a military response to the international issues may lose elections. Hence, this possibility makes war unviable for both the citizens as well as the leaders. The citizens in the democratic states do understand that eventually it is they who will be required to pay the cost of any war and hence they are more inclined to put down the governments that are trigger happy (Nagel 2000, p. 120). Besides, considering the fact that the citizens in democratic states do enjoy constitutionally valid individual freedoms, this democratic attribute many times magnifies and consolidates the role of the people before the political parties and the leaders (Nagel 2000, p. 120). Moreover, the provision of the separation of powers in the democratic countries makes it really impossible for the political leadership to chase an individual agenda in the realm of international relations (Nagel 2000, p. 120). Normative Explanation The experts and scholars vying for a normative explanation of the theory of democratic peace attribute the pacifism inherent in this theory to the salient attributes and sentiments that constitute the conscience of a true democracy (Schultz 2001, p. 12). As per them, the political leadership in a democratic nation has a firm grounding in democratic values and norms. The leaders in democratic countries are more used to resolving issues and conflicts through compromise, negotiations and third party settlements (Schultz 2001, p. 13). Hence, when it comes to dealing with impending issues with other foreign nations, the political leadership in democratic nations tends to carry forward the same democratic values, norms and aspirations to the realm of international relations. In their dealings with other countries, the political leadership of a democratic country is more open to compromise, protracted negotiations and third party mediations (Schultz 2001). Such an approach totally obfuscates the need for a war. Besides, the political leaders of democratic nations also expect and motivate the leaders from other countries to do the same. Levels of Analysis The democratic peace theory could be analyzed at three levels that are Monadic, Dyadic and Systemic. Monadic Analysis There are varied critics of the democratic peace theory who put forward the findings that corroborate to the assertion that the liberal democracies are not less prone to war like the non-democratic states (Dedaic & Nelson 2003). However, the available evidence do tends to establish the fact that the liberal democracies are much less poised to engage in warfare as compared to the non-democratic states, thereby setting aside the Monadic assertion (Dedaic & Nelson 2003). Perhaps this could be attributed to the fact that the democracies are still functioning in a world where they have just emerged to be a majority form of government as compared to the other ways of governing states. Hence, warfare and military options still stand to be a viable option for the democracies considering the problems they have to grapple with in their dealings with non-democratic states. This predilection gets many times magnified considering the power politics being resorted to by the non-democratic states. The political leadership in democratic nations only tends to engage in those wars that they can win because of the fact that the public support for war in democratic states tends to dilute over time. Dyadic Analysis An assertion that upholds the Dyadic approach towards the democratic peace theory is that hitherto in a realistic context it has seldom been seen one democracy engaging in a protracted warfare with other democracy (Tucker 1997). In fact many political thinkers vehemently assert the proposition that in case the autocratic states tend to convert to democracy, their chances of engaging in a military conflict tend to reduce manifold (Tucker 1997). There is also ample evidence to deduce that the interstate rivalries amongst the democratic states happen to be much less and comparatively mildly vicious and protracted (Tucker 1997). Besides the change of regime in the democratic states is mostly less likely to foment military conflict and warfare (Tucker 1997). However, the same could not be said about the autocratic states. The mutual commitments agreed to with each other by the democratic states are more likely to be upheld and systematically validated because there are institutions and pressures groups in the democratic states that stress on the upholding of mutual understandings and agreements (Tucker 1997). This does not hold for the non-democratic states because of a lack of transparency and commitment inherent in their political systems and institutions. Systemic Analysis Even a commonsensical observation bolsters the fact that the number of democracies in the world is augmenting over time. As the number of democracies will increase in the world, the likelihood of wars will reduce manifold. There is no denying the fact that the peaceful and pacific impact of the democratic values is gradually augmenting with time. Besides, considering the rising numbers and magnitude of the democratic states at a global level, the democratic coalitions are playing a more salient and expanding role in the affairs of non-democratic or autocratic states. However, many studies do suggest that in case the nations tend to democratize under circumstances when the democratic institutions within them are weak or the vested interests in them resent the change to democracy, under such circumstances, the democratization in a nation may gravitate to a more nationalistic sentiment, thereby flaring into unwarranted conflicts and warfare (Bukovansky 2002). Criticism Much criticism focusing on the democratic peace theory hovers around the methodology adopted by its proponents while selecting the salient attributes imperative to a democracy. It is argued that the intense subjectivity resorted to by the proponents of the democratic peace theory while defining democracies is very likely to impact the assertions and results deduced from this theory. In other words many critics of the democratic peace theory press for a more loose and flexible definition of democracy (Gat 2006). Also many critics of the democratic peace theory tend to assert that in a historical context, the peace between the democratic states has been more of a necessity rather than being an automatic outcome of the democratic political systems inherent in them (Gat 2006). For instance, many scholars hold that the relative peace between the democratic states during the cold war was more a strategic necessity supported by the shared strategic interests, rather than being a natural outcome of democracy (Gat 2006). Many other critics believe that in terms of magnitude, democracies and wars happen to be rare in the contemporary world. Hence, it is a mere coincidence that the democratic states seldom engaged in war with each other (Gat 2006). More conservative critics hold that the democratic peace theory is a myth and that the democratic states are as much prone or vulnerable to war as the non-democratic states (Gat 2006). Conclusion Conclusively speaking, the institutional aspects and values associated with the democratic peace theory do extend much reason to hold that a democratization of the modern world will give way to greater peace and international cooperation. Democracies not only encourage and facilitate a peaceful approach towards conflict resolution, but also the political class in the democratic states being accountable to the electorate is more likely to be averse to war and in the favour of a peaceful resolution of impending issues. Reference List Bukovansky, Mlada 2002, Legitimacy and Power Politics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Calleo, David P 2001, Rethinking Europe’s Future, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Dedaic, Mirjana N & Nelson, Daniel E 2003, At War with Words, Mouton de Gruyter, New York. Gat, Azar 2006, War in Human Civilization, Oxford University Press, London. Nagel, Stuart S 2000, Critical Issues in Cross-National Public Administration, Quorum Books, Westport, CT. Newman, Edward & Rich, Roland 2004, The UN Role in Promoting Democracy, United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Schraeder, Peter J 2002, Exporting Democracy, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO. Tucker, David 1997, Skirmishes at the Edge of Empire, Praeger, Westport, CT. Read More