Understanding the Democratic Peace Theory - Essay Example

Introduction Many before have tried and rationalize the theory that originated more than two hundred years earlier. We, here, are discussing about the theory of Democratic Peace Theory, which found its origins in the famous essay called “Perpetual Peace,” that was authored by Immanuel Kant, the eighteenth century philosopher. The theory explained that the “democracies do not war with each other” as was noted by this famous philosopher. While the author or his work did not get any recognition back during his time (1795), it was in late twentieth century that saw a lot of research happening in this field and thereby acceptance of the ideologies propagated in the essay by Kant. In this report, we are to discuss the Democratic Peace Theory in detail, while also arguing for and against the ideologies published. Many researchers have throughout taken examples and tried to prove that democracy might not be in the end the substantial basis that led to the decline in wars. However, there are still many more researchers that have inevitably proven that democracy or conversion to democracy did indeed reduce the chances of the democratic going on wars. While the reasons underlying are several, we are here to discuss exactly this. Many nations have believed in democracy, many have converted, while several others are attempting to convert further on. What is the basis of this conversion and is this the right step to take for any converting nation? Is there an intermediate state and are there factors that actually lead to reduction in aggressive behavior or actions by nations on the path to democracy? Then again, what is democracy and how will we define wars. The main motive behind this paper is to explain all these questions. So let us begin our tryst with the understanding of Democratic Peace Theory (DPT), undertaking all possible arguments withheld by researchers before. Understanding the Democratic Peace Theory In his essay, Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant cited his belief that nations on a republican path will be more inclined towards peace; hence, either not warring at all or minimizing the war to extent. According to him, being constitutional republic was one of the immaculate conditions for nations in order for peace to prevail. He also cited that people following the republican view would never agree to go on war, unless they do so in self defense. Keeping this in mind, he further suggested that in order for the peace to reside in the world, it is extremely important that all nations become republic. This was the view in the eighteenth century, when republic was the word of the day. In the modern world, however, the world republic has been replaced by “democracy.” With the works of Michael Doyle in early 1980s, the theory of Kant became highlighted and research issued in the field. Doyle and his fellow researchers cited that to say that democratic states did not go for wars was correct, however, only with an addition that the chances of democratic states being prone to war were less, though not completely nullified (Kyle Grayson, March 2003). It was then realized that the fact of Democratic Peace had huge impact in terms of sociology and international relations. While the need to define democracy and war in order to reach a correct conclusion to the theory or DPT became necessary, the entrance of social science researchers also entered. With every research, new aspects regarding the DPT emerged. While some researchers claimed DPT as bogus, others brought to light variables and factors, which did in fact, enabled the democracies to fall less into the trap of war or lesser conflicts. Explaining few of the factors, which make for the Democratic Peace Theory in present context, DPT can be defined as an amalgamation of factors and variables owing to presence of democracy and peace in a country enticing to live in a peaceful manner with the fellow democracies or other nations, except in times of perpetual threat. The main idea behind the DPT is that democracies do not fight with each other owing to the very fact that the democracies can organize their systems themselves. Secondly, though the chances of democracies going for war are less, they are not zeroed at all. Democracies are, in fact, prone to conflicts (war or lesser conflicts) with non-democratic nations (includes semi-democracies, non-democracies, initiating democracies). While the very definition of DPT depends on what we describe as “democracy” and what “war” is, the very meaning of DPT would differ with each definition of democracy and war. There are various systems and categories by which we can analyze the essence of DPT. However, the one most commonly used and which has the researchers divided into two sects is the monadic and dyadic definitions of DPT. Monadic Effect – according to this, it is implied that democracies do not generally go to war and pose peaceful relation with all nations (democracies and non-democracies) in general. Dyadic Effect – This explains that democracies do not fight with other democracies or amongst one another only. With the basic of Democratic Peace Theory understood, let us now move on to understanding the definitions of “Democracy” and “War” for a deeper understanding of DPT and the researches that followed. Understanding “Democracy” While, there are many nations, which claim that they were democratic, some of the most recent definitions, which have stemmed in the wake of researches in DPT convey the opposite. Keeping certain factors and measurements in order to address a democracy in actuality, there came only few nations that withstood the test. However, before we launch into discussing the new democracy definitions, let us take a review from the beginning. Starting from Kant (1795), democracy was “necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty.” Thus, Kant was opposed to the concept of democracy, wherein he favoured republican nations instead. Map of the World defining political ratings (Source: Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey, 2008)      Free, electoral democracies      Partially free, electoral democracies      Partially free, not electoral democracies      Not free, not electoral democracies In 1976, researchers Small and Singer brought in a new definition to democracy. According to them, a democratic nation is one that holds regular elections, with complete freedom for opposing parties and allows 10% of its adult citizens to vote. They also suggested that dmeocratic nations have a parliament which controls or works in conjunction with the nation’s executive department as well. 1983 saw yet another definitoin of democracy spring up by the researcher Michael Doyle. Doyle was more stringent in his requirements of democracy. According to him, a democracy is a democracy if it fulfils: a) democracies or liberal regimes should sport market or private property economics; b) have externally sovereign politics; c) endows the citizens with juridical rights; d) have representative governments; e) 30% of the adult male population has voting rights or anyone who attains enough property can acquire voting rights. 1995 and 1997 researches (Ray and Rummel) claimed that a democracy is a democracy when it endows 50% and above of its population with voting rights; gives complete freedom of speech, expression, religion; has experienced at least one peaceful and complete transfer of executive power from one party to another via elections or secret ballot. No matter how much the definitions differ, most of the researchers (Doyle 1983; Russett 1993; Rummel 1997; Weart 1998) consider that democracies older than 3 years can only be considered when researching for peacefulness. According to them, democracies younger than the above mentioned criterion are more prone to falling into violence or war in the process of maturing and settling down (Mansfield and Snyder (2002, 2005)). While we have understood some of the most common and understood perceptions of dmeocracy, we will understand why democracy is supposed to lead the nations towards peace in the later segments of this paper. In the meantime, let us now move on to the next segment of understanding War, before we analyse the pros and cons of each in the wake of DPT. Understanding “War” Many wonder what importance the topic of war is when we are in truth researching about peace and democracy. The fact is that peace prevails only once wars have ceased. However, not all extents of struggle can be termed as war. In such a scenario, how do we contemplate on the effectiveness of democracy in the DPT. In order to understand this, we do require a study of war and related issues. We have already noticed, that DPT has and rightfully, employed the wrath of a few researchers who claim that DPT does not prevent the democracies for going on war. We have already witnessed several exmaples in the past. Democracies such as United States, Israel, India, Pakistan etc have all been involved in wars, proving to be exceptions to the Democratic Peace Theory. For the same reason, we need to discuss the warring aspect of the natoins as well. The first amongst the researchers to define “War” were J. David Singer and Melvin Small, who were also the pioneers of the The Correlates of War Project in 1963. according to Singer and Small, a war is defined as a military conflict involving the loss of more than 1000 lives in the battle (The Wages of War, 1972). While, this is a generally accepted definition of war, some other researchers in the field beg to differ. Weart (1998) defines war as when there is a loss of 200 and more lives, while Russett (1993) describes war as simply a real battle engagement with autorisation from both sides. However, according to the defines of “Correlates of War Project”, another term is coined. Called as MIDs or Militarized Interstate Disputes, these qualify in the lesser conflicts section than wars. Such disputes involve military functioning, but do not involve any deaths. Hence, when referencing to wars in the future debate, we will take into account two types – wars and lesser conflicts or MID. Moving onto the next section where we will now be discussing the various aspects of DPT in accordance to Democracy and War, while also contemplating the arguments against and in favor of the Democratic Peace Theory. Analyzing The Democratic Peace Theory In Detail This is the second most important section in this paper. Here we examine the forces for and against the notion of DPT and try and examine from our own resources the authenticity and dependability of the Democratic Peace Theory in the present day world. Let us first understand all the statements that state their arguments for the DPT. Favoring DPT As mentioned, several researches have been conducted in the way of the world and the causes of the war. Evidence has it that the last few years, ever since the end of the colonial era, the world has faced lesser conflicts, wars and civil wars (Human Security Report, 2005). It is clearly stated in the Human Security Report 2005 that the decrease in the wars are owing to the fact that more nations are now walking the path of democracy than they were before the World War II. According to the report, due to the democratic and peaceful inclinations of many nations after the World War II, many bigger powers stopped fuelling the proxy wars by their support. This led to a considerable downfall in the number of conflicts as “many of these conflicts simply petered out, or were ended by negotiated settlements” (Page 148). According to the report, taking a look at the statistics, the number of international war saw a steep decline in the period ranging 1980 and 1990. What is more, there have been no wars at all in the most of 1990s and early twenty first century with the exception of three wars in 1999. Graph International wars, 19466–2004 (Source: Democratic Peace Clock, R.J.Rummel) (The graph shows the annual number of wars expressed as a five-year moving average.) Many researches have been conducted and it has been realized that the factors owing to the decline in wars and conflicts are many. However, the major contribution can be attributed to the increasing number of democracies around the world. According to the report, “in 1946, there were 20 democracies in the world; in 2005, there were 88” (Page 148, Human Security Report 2005). Graph of the Democratic shifting around the world (Source: Democratic Peace Clock, R.J.Rummel) What is it exactly that leads to the democratic states into passiveness? Democracy is of course to be credited for this. However, let us explain the various reasons that have come to light that result in democracy leading to passiveness of nations. Most democracies have certain norms and conditions, which call for a non-violent nature and conflict resolution. Since most democracies have their internal and foreign policies based on the non-violent context, most democracies respects and trust each other, lending them the saying that “democracies never war with each other.” For those who argument taking the recent US war on Iraq, there is a perfectly linear explanation to that too. United States of America is a well respected and matured democracy. According to democracy facets, “war may be necessary and permissible to free the people from dictatorship; democracies may also want to introduce the idea of human rights and democratic government to the population” (The Democratic Peace Theory (AÌ Concept)). Then again, in democracies, the leaders are all accountable for their actions directly to the citizens. Any step (such as ensuing war) might result in the leader being claimed as a hoax and thus, lose his power. Therefore, most leaders leading the nation are wary of falling into the war trap and losing their power. The reason that people oppose the wars in a nation can be many such as economic issues, interruption of trade and investments, political reasons and so on. Secondly, no surprise attacks can ensue on behalf of democratic nations due to the complete transparency of actions and policies. In addition, to add on to the point, most democracies are not involved in a war that was begun by them. Most democracies involved in a fight were incited into the war. With so many arguments to favor DPT, let us now look into the counter-arguments. Against DPT Many researchers have argued against the functionality of DPT. While the world faced several wars during the political shifting and reconstruction phase of the World War I and World War II, the theory of DPT stood completely at loss of explanation. However, the number of democracies at the time of the world wars was considerably low. But how can one explain the phenomenon of war between two democratic nations or democratic nation at all? Citing a few examples from the years following the world war II, we can explain how the DPT is not an accurate ensemble of ideas and theories. India Pakistan War 1947 – There were experience dmore than 100 battle deaths. However, many researchers do claim that at the time of this war, both the nations (both were democracies too) were in the initiation stages, under 3 years old and hence, the war can be completely identifiable. (However, is it?) Arab Israel War 1948 – while Syria, Israel and Arab were the nations involved in the war. While Syria was a democratic nation, Israel too had the leader selection on the basis of suffrage. US had provided unofficial support to Arab. There were more than 1000 battle deaths. With a number of democracies and part democracies involved in this war, DPT again loses its reasoning here. Operation Ajax 1953 (US, UK, Iran) – Though there were less than 100 battle deaths, the three nations involved were all democratic. While Britain and America were matured democracies, the democracy in Tran was newly established, with the Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh elected the democratic way. Aftermath of the coup resulted in the loss of democracy from the nation of Iran altogether. No one can justify the coup by UK and US at that time, not even the DPT. These are only a few examples. There are many such incidences where the democracies have used violent means for reasons other than self defense. Considering all this, the Theory of Democratic Peace stands no chance at all. Conclusion We have considered both the arguments and counter-arguments for Democratic Peace Theory. Now it is time for us to reach a conclusion and make a decision completely our own, made from our own understanding of the subject. I think that semi-democracy, new democracy and authoritarian rule are NOT to be considered as true democracies and liberal in nature, rather direct and representative democracy ARE rightfully to be termed as true democracy. Secondly, Democratic Peace Theory, while has its own exceptions and black holes, which render the theory inept at times, I sincerely feel that some credit should definitely be given to the DPT. Democracy has changed the outlook of the world, and it is clearly evident in the reports and researches made by many of the researchers and historians world wide. Even the readers can successfully point to the fact that the number of wars and conflicts has reduced remarkably when compared to the years falling in the early twentieth century and before (check the figure above). Hence, despite the fact that many before me feel that Democratic Peace Theory is not quite correct, I feel that some of its short falls should be ignored. After all, even in general terms, almost every phenomenon in world explained till now have had their share of exceptions too. Hence, being too judgmental and harsh on the theory might not be fair on our part. DPT has proved to be true to a certain extent and it does the world no harm if there is more peace to enjoy – be it due to democracy or any other reason! References Bennett, Scott D. (2006). "Toward a Continuous Specification of the Democracy-Autocracy Connection". International Studies Quarterly Bovard, J. (23 May, 2008). The Democratic-Peace Fraud. Freedom Daily. Daily Journal. Available at: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0803c.asp Bremer, Stuart A. (1992). "Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816-1965". The Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (Vol. 36, No. 2. (Jun., 1992)): 309–341.. Bremer, Stuart A.. "Democracy and Militarized Interstate Conflict, 1816-1965". International Interactions (Vol. 18, no. 3 (1993)): 231–249 Dean. Defining "Democracy" and The Democratic Peace Theory. Dean’s World. Journal. Available at: http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1121320184.shtml Democratic peace theory. Available at: http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774190177/ Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): 205–235,.  Doyle, Michael W. (1983b). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2". Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Vol. 12, No. 4. (Autumn, 1983)): 323–353, Doyle, Michael W. Ways of War and Peace. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997 Freedom House (January 16). Freedom in the World 2008 Survey Release Freedom House Press Release (17 January, 2008). Freedom in the World 2008: Global Freedom in Retreat. Available at: www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=612 - 36k George, Alexander L.; Andrew Bennett (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Grayson, Kyle (March 2003). Democratic Peace Theory as Practice:(Re)Reading the Significance of LiberalRepresentations of War and Peace. University Paper Jaggers, K., Gurr, T. R. Tracking Democracys Third Wave with the Polity III Data . Journal of Peace Research, Available at: http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/4/469; John M. Owen IV (November/December 2005). Iraq and the Democratic Peace. Foreign Affairs Kant, Immanuel. "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch". Köchler, Hans (1995). Democracy and the International Rule of Law: Propositions for an Alternative World Order. Springer. Mansfield, E. and Snyder, J. (2005). Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War.. MIT Press, P 288 Müller, Harald & Jonas Wolff (2004), "Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back", Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9-11, 2004, Müller, Harald (2004). "The Antinomy of Democratic Peace". International Politics Natasha Jackson. How to Understand the Democratic Peace Theory. Electronic Source. Available at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2158111_understand-democratic-peace-theory.html Polity IV Project. Retrieved on March 4, 2006 Ray, Lee, J. (1995). Democracy and International Conflict. University of South Carolina Press Ray, James Lee (1995). Democracy and International Conflict. University of South Carolina Press.Book.  Ray, James Lee (1998), "Does Democracy Cause Peace?", Annual Review of Political Science 1: 27–46, Ray, James Lee (2000). Democracy and Peace Through the Ages: According to Spencer Weart. Prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, August 30-September 3, 2000.  Ray, James Lee (2003), "A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program", in Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman, Progress in International Relations Theory, MIT Press, Ray, James Lee (2005), "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads)", Conflict Management and Peace Science 22: 277–292, Rosato, S. (22 September, 2005). The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory"Vol. IV, Book Chapter, Peace Studies: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Also available in Among Nations: Readings in International Relations (book). Pearson Custom Publication, 2006 Rummel, R. J. (23 November, 2002). The Democratic Peace Clock. Available at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM Rummel, Rudolph J. (1983). "Libertarianism and international violence". Journal of Conflict Resolution 27: 27–72..  Rummel, Rudolph J. (1997), Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, Transaction Publishers Rummel, Rudolph J., with Peace Magazine Editors (1999), "A Reply to Shimmin", Peace Magazine. (Journal Article) Russett, Bruce (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton University Press. Russett, Bruce (October 1995). "The Democratic Peace: And Yet It Moves". International Security 19(4): 164–75, Schwartz, T. and Skinner, K.K. (1999). The Myth of Democratic Pacifism . The Wall Street Journal, January 7, 1999, , Available at: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3512216.html Singer, David, J. & Small, M. (1972). Wages of War, 1816-1965 a Statistical Handbook .: John Wiley & Sons Inc . Small, Melvin & David J. Singer (1976), "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816-1965", Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1: 50–69 The Democratic Peace Theory(AÌ Concept) http://daphne.palomar.edu/pbowman/PS%20110/Democratic%20Peace%20Theory.pdf. University of British Columbia (2005). The human security report 2005, "War and Peace in 21st Century". New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Page 148-150. Weart, Spencer R. (1998), Never at War, Yale University Press "Who Should Apologize to Whom?". Arab News. Retrieved on April 22, 2007. Read More