Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful - Essay Example

? Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful? Introduction 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. 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 would be hesitant to engage in any activity that would ruin the country’s resources and money and this situation in turn may minimize the possibility of armed conflicts between democracies. Hence publicly accountable democratic leaders would like to establish diplomatic institutions for dealing with international tensions rather than fighting wars (lecture 3). Referring to the democratic peace, many scholars indicate that the democratic culture significantly influences the way democratic leaders resolve conflicts. By the end of the 19th century, there was an emerging social norm that democracies should not engage in armed conflict each other and this norm notably strengthened the democratic culture. In addition, democracy advocates claim that democracies do not begin fighting wars with non-democracies; they engage in armed combat only if it becomes the only effective defensive measure. It is important to note that alliances between democratic countries during the two World Wars and the Cold War had greatly emphasized this social norm. It is obvious that many leading democratic countries like United States, Britain, and France united its powers to fight World Wars. The proponents of the democratic peace theory opine that this alliance was the real effect of the democratic peace because democratic countries might have a tendency to ally with one another. As Kinsella points out, according to Rosato, United States intervened in the internal affairs of other democratic countries many times although the country had never engaged in open war with other democracies during the Cold War; for instance, the Chilean coup of 1973, the 1953 coup in Iran, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala. Rosato perceives these interventions as the US efforts to maintain an ‘imperial peace’ in the world. With the end of the World War II, people in many autocratic countries realized the significance of a democratic government and they organized many movements for the establishment of democracy. The concepts suggested by the democratic peace theory may not be really true while evaluating those concepts in the context of World Wars because most of the democracies identified the dreadful consequences of armed conflicts only after the end of the World War II. Referring to many studies, Gieseler gives empirical evidences to support the applicability of the democratic peace theory. According to a study conducted by Rudy Rummel about major international wars between the period 1816-1991, it was found that none of the wars over this period was between two opposing democracies. In an examination of all major international wars since the inception of US in 1945, Moore found that only one war could be attributed to international aggression on the part of democratic countries. This was the Suez War of 1956 where Britain and France attacked Egypt in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal (as qtd in Gieseler). Studies also suggest that democratic leaders are very cautious and they think many times before entering in armed conflicts with other nations. In order to evaluate the level of peacefulness in democracies, it is better to consider India which is the largest democracy in the world. It is meaningless to evaluate India’s contribution to World Wars as a democratic country because India was ruled by Britain at the time of World Wars and hence the country was forced to fight against the Axis powers. However, it is better to assess how India played their part in international conflicts after the country got independence from the British rulers. India adopted a non-alignment policy as a consistent feature of its foreign policy in late 1940s so as to protect the country’s freedom of action internationally by refusing to align with any bloc or alliance. According to Arora, the five principles of the non-alignment policy are mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence (36.4-36.5). While analyzing the post-independence history of India, it seems that the non-alignment policy has assisted the country to abstain from unnecessary international conflicts and to maintain good diplomatic relations with other countries. Although India fought some wars against China and Pakistan after the formation of the non-alignment policy, those wars were not initiated by India. Despite many issues like growing corruption, sexual assaults, poverty, and unemployment, India still remains to be a peaceful nation as a result of its strong policies based on democracy. More precisely, diplomatic and strategic operations based on democratic notions have greatly benefited the country to eliminate unjustifiable aggression to a great extent and hence to become one of the leading economic powers in the world. As compared to other forms of governments, democracies are increasingly dependent on each other because they promote commercial ties to achieve fast economic growth. This increased interdependence and the spirit of cooperation and the ‘zone of peace’ established between them significantly reduce the possibility of wars (lecture 1). The armed conflicts organized by nations as part of humanitarian interventions cannot be considered state-sponsored aggression because such interventions are inherently aimed at the establishment of peace in other territories. According to many scholars, a major factor keeping democracies more peaceful is that they have a variety of diplomatic institutions to resolve international conflicts. Those arrangements provide democratic countries a common platform to raise their concerns and to resolve conflicts diplomatically. Furthermore, democracies obtain the assistance of reputed mediators to resolve cross border conflicts and other issues between them. Such diplomatic arrangements often force democratic countries to compromise each other for maintaining better diplomatic relations and this situation in turn would reduce the possibility of armed conflicts. In contrast to this, monarchists do not need to depend on others to make decisions and therefore they may do what they think true. To be more specific, monarchists may choose armed negotiations to resolve conflicts if they are dissatisfied with the act of another state. They are less likely to seek the assistance of intermediaries or third parties to resolve border conflicts or other international issues because monarchists believe that war is the only potential solution to bring an end to such issues. In democracy, majority opinion is accepted by others even though they have strong objections. While analyzing the history of wars, it seems that personal interests of an individual or a minority group were the primary causes leading to wars in most of the cases. Majority of the people in state do not support fighting wars because they are the primary victims to price hikes, unemployment, and infrastructure damages caused by wars. Since a democratic government system considers the majority opinion, it may not be possible to initiate wars for entertaining the interests of some individuals or a minority group. To illustrate, recently the UK Prime Minister David Cameron was forced to abandon his decision to attack Syria in alliance with the US because his decision did not gain a majority support in the British parliament. If Britain was an autocratic country, it would support the US decision to attack Syria. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is clear that democracies are inherently peaceful because they support fighting wars only as a defensive measure. In a democratic country, it is possible for the general public to successfully oppose individuals’ decision to fight and finance wars for unfair reasons. Today, leading nations and other global leaders strive to establish a democratic government system in all countries because they have identified democracy as an effective strategy to promote cross border peace. In a democratic country, leaders are accountable for their actions and therefore they are less likely to engage in unjustifiable armed conflicts so as to maintain their public support. The democratic peace theory indicates that democracies would not fight each other because they have different diplomatic institutions to resolve conflicts. A number of studies describing the history of wars assert that two opposing democracies have not engaged in armed conflicts over the last two centuries. India, the largest democracy in the world, has adopted a non-alignment policy to avoid unnecessary international conflicts and to maintain good diplomatic relations with countries worldwide. The alliances between democratic countries during the World Wars underpinned the social norm that democracies would not engage in armed conflict each other. Obviously, democratic governments give particular focus to the overall well being of the country rather than the interests of some individuals or a minority group. As a result, democratic countries may try their best to refrain from fighting wars and thereby sustain their economic growth. Works Cited Arora, N. D. Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2010. Print. Bass, Gray J. Are Democracies Really More Peaceful? The New York Times (January 1, 2006). Web 4 Sep 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01wwln_essay.html?_r=0 Buchanan, Patrick J. A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny. US: Regnery Publishing, 2013. Gieseler, Steven. A debate on the democratic peace: A review. American Diplomacy, Commentary and Analysis. Web 4 Sep 2013 http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2004_01-03/gieseler_debate/gieseler_debate.html Kinsella, David. “No Rest for the Democratic Peace”. American Political Science Review. (99 (3) August 2005). Web 4 Sep 2013 http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/offprints/apsr05.proof.pdf Pace, Cris A. Republicans and Reincarnation: The Conscience of A New Age Conservative. US: AuthorHouse, 2011. Print. Lecture Read More