The last few years witnessed strong people’s movements against monocratic rule in countries like Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The experience of these countries clearly indicates the awfulness of monocracy and military rule…
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Extract of sample "Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful"
Download file to see previous pages
The main reason people oppose monocracy and military rule is that countries led by such ruling systems are more likely to engage in wars and other type of international conflicts as compared to democratic system. Citizens of those states cannot obtain a peaceful living environment and this situation adversely affects their quality of living. As compared to monocracy, oligocracy, or military rule, democracies are inherently peaceful unless they are unjustifiably attacked by external powers. Giving specific focus to the era of World War I & II, this paper will discuss how democracies are inherently peaceful. Democracy and Peace Many authors opine that democracies strive to provide a peaceful living situation to their people and ensure that living standards of citizens are improved continuously. Undoubtedly, a country’s citizens are the primary stakeholders of a war as they actually bear the miseries of engaging in or financing wars. Therefore, common people are less likely to support wars or cross border intrusions. In a democratic country, people have more say in making decisions, and hence they can successfully veto individuals’ decision to fight and finance wars. In contrast, king is the sovereign ruler in monarchies and people have little participation in decision making. As a result, kings can individually take decisions to start or support wars with little personal risk. In order to improve this worse situation, leaders worldwide are strongly supporting democracy. In the opinion of Bass, the Clinton administration’s efforts to form a global ‘community of democracies’ was an attempt to bring peace to the whole world and it was greatly encouraged by many nations. As Bass notes, in their book ‘Electing to fight’, political scientists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder opine that emerging democracies are often unstable and are more likely to fight wars. To justify their claim that new democracies without having fully formed domestic institutions are aggressive, the authors cite the examples ranging from France’s attack on Prussia in 1870 and Vladimir Putin’s ongoing monstrous clampdown in Chechnya. However, sometimes even fully formed democratic countries become warlike because of several reasons. To explain, it is better to consider the 1959 attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel or Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. Those wars were fought because the democratic governments often found it difficult to trust dictators for serious negations. Similarly, the US attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was in response to the 9/11 terror attack by Afghan militants. More clearly, some wars or interventions organized by democratic countries cannot be termed as aggressive or unpeaceful because they are ultimately aimed at the protection of fundamental democratic notions. As Buchanan points out, Elihu Root, Theodore Roosevelt’s secretary of state stated in 1917 that “to be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can” (np). The democratic peace theory, often referred to as democratic peace, strongly supports the argument that democracies are inherently peaceful. According to Pace, the democratic peace theory states that democracies are not likely to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies (269). The democratic peace is contrast to the theories describing war engagement and it can be considered as a ‘theory of peace’ explaining motives that discourage state-sponsored violence. The democratic peace theory is mainly based on the premise that democratic leaders are to bear the responsibility of war losses and they are responsible for answering a voting public. In order to retain their public support, democratic leaders
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Indeed, democracy is not so simple and straight forward. Can an entire cluster of 'people' really run a government Even directly and indirectly elected representatives of the 'people' also cannot really - all of them together - run a government and State at one go.
The philosophy of Social Science provides generally, the ‘Ideal’ state of being. It projects what ‘should’ be, rather than what is, and therefore, sets a higher degree of expectation and equivalent performance to be drawn.
The civil rights and their liberties were protected and were safeguarded in the Constitution of the United States in 1788 while it was presented for the elected government. Democracy has become a complete guideline and the way of living; having its root deep down in social, economic and political equality on the American frontline.
American style liberal democracy is something that is admired by citizens from nations all over the world. There are no other nations that receive as many requests for citizenship like America. It is because people from all over the world realize that their families are more likely to thrive and overcome problems in a society that prizes hard work.
The democracy is really meant for the people for the people and by the people. This really means that in the democracy the people choose the government by their own choice for their own development. The democratic government works for welfare of the people by maintaining a balance with the other democratic countries with the world.
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.
He is recognized for his pro-market policies which are in contrast with the more collectivist policies that are previously espoused (Jones 2004). I agree that the Labor Party should be given attention to any economy since human capital is essential both in developed an developing countries yet the interest of other sector in the society should also be taken into consideration when making national policies.
Ever since its emergence as a Communist power in 1949, China has sought to challenge existing global and regional balance of power, notwithstanding the Confucianist philosophy of harmony over confrontation. Over the last 50 years, it has not hesitated to use force, or threaten to use force, as evidenced by conflicts with Russia, India and Vietnam, and its aggressive stand over Taiwan, the South China Sea and other disputed island territories.
According to the research findings, with the arrival of the Dutch, much of the previous warfare among the Dani people ended, along with some familiar traditional customs. With Indonesian Independence came a multitude of changes for the Dani. Women were more recognized and allowed to do varied tasks while the men’s roles seemed to be diminished.
This essay argues the belief that euthanasia is a right choice. This essay tries to prove that euthanasia is immoral. It is naturally immoral, but is also not right to interpret euthanasia from the perspectives of self-centeredness and of convenience. Before laying down arguments against such belief, it would be important to provide an accurate definition of ‘euthanasia’.
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Save Your Time for More Important Things
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
"Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful"
with a personal 20% discount.