Secrets to a Lasting Peace, What is Democracy - Essay Example

Secrets to a Lasting Peace This paper discusses the topic of why democratic s might be more peaceful in their relations with each other than with States that are not democracies. The first part summarizes the notions of society, State, and democracy. The second part looks at the relationship between democratic States and presents a set of reasons why democratic States behave more peacefully towards each other. Society and the State The starting point is the definition of a State. From many definitions (Ranney 2001; Masters 1989; Dahl 1984) can be proposed the following simple one: a State is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. A State is formed when a group of people organize themselves and decide to live together peacefully in society on the bases of common goals, identity, ancestry, language, culture, religion, ethnicity, history, customs, and territory. Society may also be defined as a broad grouping of people living in a common area and having common traditions, institutions, activities, and interests (Laswell and Kaplan 1960). The family is the basic unit of society, and a family is formed when two or more human beings decide to live together to pursue common goals. From these commonly accepted definitions can be distinguished one characteristic that defines families, societies, and states: they share common interests. Social scientists have observed that, normally, sharing common interests help people to live together peacefully, because each one is different and unique in terms of capabilities. Through personal experience, people learn that they cannot do everything, so they have to depend on each other. In the process, they realize they cannot have everything, so they surrender some of the things they want to get others they want more or that would help them survive. In society and among States, the balance of power between two or more agents is what ultimately decides their courses of action. The same holds true for nations and States, which is why until now, wars are fought and peace has been elusive. It has been only some sixty years since a bloody world war was fought, and less than two decades since the Cold War ended (Kennedy 1999). These show that more than common interests and balance of power, there is a third factor that governs the relationships among States: ideologies. An ideology is "a set of ideas that are in some logical way related to one another" (Ranney 2001, p. 69-70). Macridis (1992) suggested four criteria to distinguish ideologies from ideas: comprehensiveness, pervasiveness, extensiveness, and intensiveness. Ideologies that are well-developed contain five basic components: values, vision of the ideal polity, conception of human nature, strategy of action, and political tactics. Among the well-known ideologies (Ranney counted at least fifty-five, mostly ending in -ism), this discussion focuses on democracy, one of the most difficult to understand and define because many along the wide spectrum of political ideologies use it to support their aspirations, from left-wing Communists to right-wing Fascists, from liberals to conservatives. What is Democracy Ranney (2001, p. 95) defines democracy as a "form of government organized in accordance with the principles of popular sovereignty, political equality, popular consultation, and majority rule." This definition specifies that there are four principles of democracy (p. 96-98). The principle of popular sovereignty requires that "the ultimate power to make political decisions is vested in all the people rather than in some of them or one of them". The principle of political equality requires that "each adult citizen has the same opportunity as every other adult citizen to participate in the political decision-making process"; this is also known as the "one person, one vote" principle. The popular consultation principle has two requirements: first, there should be an institutional machinery through which public officials learn what public policies the people wish to be adapted and enforced; and second, having known what these policies are, the public officials must then put these preferences into effect whether the officials approve or not. Lastly, majority rule requires that when the people disagree on an issue, the government should act according to the wishes of the majority rather than the minority. Despite these definitions of the principles of democracy, there are many ways to put each and all into practice, resulting in different models of democratic states. Some such as the U.S., the U.K., and Australia are closest to the ideal democratic model, while others such as Cuba, Libya, and Saudi Arabia are classified as dictatorships but claim that they are people's democratic republics (Ranney 2001, p. 95). Regardless of where they fall along the democratic spectrum, or the ideology that influences their domestic and international politics, almost all States have common goals: security, economic prosperity, territorial expansion, defending and spreading their political ideology, and peace. However, the behavior of people and States depend on their own aspirations reflected in the ideologies that drive them and the balance of power among them. Thus, two States driven by differing ideologies may decide to wage war on each other if their aspirations and ideologies demand it, and if each perceives an advantage in the power balance. Every State that goes to war always thinks it has the advantage. As we continue to observe in present-day conflicts, this holds to be true. Take away that advantage, and these States begin to sue for peace. However, a fourth explanatory factor exists: economics. Democracy and Economics Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (Bartleby 2001) studied the causes of economic growth and concluded that it results from managing the factors of production or output: labor, capital, and land. He argued that growth in production would lead to growth in wealth and greater happiness from social equity. This sets the rationale for governments to find ways to ensure freedom in the management of the factors of production, the improvement of labor and land productivity, and attaining higher economic output. Przeworski and Limongi (1993) and Easterly and Reblo (1993) argued that democracy and economic growth and prosperity go together, but this is difficult to explain with empirical data available, so researchers continue to define the adequate theoretical model that scientifically proves the relationship. Several academics have linked democracy, economic progress, and peace. Gilpin (1975) presented a dynamic model of the relationship between politics and the economy which closely resembles a boat-shaped graphic depicting the reciprocal interaction between agents and the system. Politics determines the context within which the economic process occurs, a process that initially favors, is arranged by, and channels wealth to the most powerful political groups. Second, the economic process redistributes power and wealth, transforming power relationships within the system. Finally, the transformed arrangement of wealth and power enables a rising political group to redefine the structure of economic relationships. Gilpin concluded that in the international political economy, government and business have a working arrangement where the economy is subservient to the business interests of political leaders and State elites who shape economic systems to reflect their interests. They have a vested interest to preserve their wealth and its growth, something they can achieve by preserving the general condition of peace. Abdelal (2005) accurately captured the democracy-economy-peace linkage: "What societies want depends on who they think they are (p. 5)." Abdelal links the efforts of democratic States to re-orient their economies and foreign policies depending on how they perceive dependence (or domination) in the light of political security, and presents a model to justify the behavior of democratic States to wage war in democracy's name when what they really want is economic peace. He maintains that democracy provides economic policy a social purpose; encourages the sacrifice needed to attain social goals; lengthens the time horizon of society and government; and serves to direct policy toward a shared cultural space. Conclusion: Democracy, Economics, and Peace The hypothesis of this paper is that democratic States are more peaceful in their relations towards each other. Peace in this context does not always mean the absence of war, since there is no war currently going on between the U.S. and Cuba, but each has imposed an economic embargo against each other which may be classified as an economic war. There is also no war going on between the U.S. and Japan and the U.K., democratic States with a monarch as Head of State, but these three democratic States carry out economic wars in the global stage. Does this mean our hypothesis is false On the contrary: ongoing economic wars among democratic States are peaceful and less violent than previous wars because democracy provides these States with the means to relate peacefully with each other to achieve common goals of prosperity, territorial expansion, and security. Since democracies are prosperous by providing guarantees to economic freedom so that every citizen can pursue a goal of wealth creation, each State ensures that their respective economic systems are preserved from harm. The U.S. is in a unique situation: it can use its power to advantage by spreading democracy in the world. The only problem is if people want to support democracy, they should be willing to pay the price. Reference List Abdelal, R. (2005). National purpose in the world economy: Post-Soviet states in comparative perspective (Cornell Studies in Political Economy). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bartleby (2001). Wealth of nations. The Harvard Classics.1909-14. Book III. "Of the natural progress of opulence". Smith, Adam. Wealth of Nations, edited by C. J. Bullock. Vol. X. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909-14. Dahl, R. A. (1984). Modern political analysis, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Easterly, W. and Rebelo, S. (1993). Fiscal policy and economic growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32 (3), 417-458. Gilpin, R. (1975). U.S. power and the multinational corporation: The political economy of foreign direct investment. New York: Basic Books. Kennedy, D. M. (1999). Freedom from fear: The American people in depression and war. New York: Oxford University Press. Laswell, H.D. and Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society. New heaven, CT: Yale University Press. Macridis, R.C. (1992). Contemporary political ideologies, 5th ed. New York: HarperCollins. Masters, R. (1989). The nature of politics. New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press. Przeworski, A. and Limongi, F. (1993). Political regimes and economic growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7 (3), 51-69. Ranney, A. (2001). Governing: An introduction to political science, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Read More