Empirical Evidence in Democratic Ideals: Peace at Domestic and International Levels - Essay Example

Does Democracy Promote Peace? Introduction Democracy is a system of government where the will of the people prevails in the selection of their rulers. Peace is widely regarded as the most critical global concern of the modern generation. It basically refers to the absence of war or violence that may harm people and cause destruction of property. The idea that liberal governments which are democratically elected can prevent war is perhaps the most influential and appealing idea of the modern era, but very controversial at the same time. The focus of this essay is on the proposition that democratically governed nations are bound to coexist peacefully with each other. Empirical evidence so far in support of the proposition that democratically governed nations have not instigated violence to resolve disputes among themselves is substantial. Despite the strength of statistical evidence established by specialists in the 1970s, there has been a fair share of criticism on this proposition, most of which has received substantially persuasive counterarguments from protagonists of the democratic peace proposition. The Democratic Peace Theory In democratic peace theory, it is argued that elected leaders are likely to be restrained by the populations. This implies that in democracies, people may not readily accept to bear the burden of war, in regard to loss of human life and the financial implications. Secondly, it is believed that domestic disputes are likely to be better resolved by use of political institutions (Baldwin, 1993). In the event of a conflict between different democracies, international institutions such as the United Nations and the G-8 summits are likely to be called upon to resolve such international disputes. Under the democratic peace theory, it is also believed that democratic governance breeds a culture of conciliation and negotiation, thereby undermining violence as a suitable means of resolving conflicts. In the event that a war-prone leader is democratically elected, institutions such as the congress will provide checks and balances that will prevent a head of state from leading a country into war and conflict with other nations. Finally, under democratic theory, it is believed that people are likely to be more tolerant and empathetic with other democracies. Thus, democracy is regarded to be an effective system that prevents conflict and war, either through institutional constraints, common norms, popular will or mutual respect. Political science scholars have in the past century held that the world would be more peaceful if more countries had democratically elected governments. As stated by Immanuel Kant in the essay “Perpetual Peace”, democratic countries are less warlike. Despite the essay having been cited overwhelmingly in the discourse concerning democracy as a vital prerequisite to peaceful coexistence among nations, Kant himself was however not an enthusiast of democracy. He instead proposed the use of civil institutions to establish republics as a more practical means of achieving peace among nations. According to Kant, a republic was a system of governance that that had respect for private property and ensured legal equality of its citizens, who should be regarded as subjects. There are several theoretical notions that are well developed in regard to relationships between democracies, most of which are complementary. An updated recount by Rummel (1997) provides an expansive theoretical defense of the proposition that democratic space actually serves as a significant pacifying force in international relations. In his recast, more emphasis is laid on the implications of public opinion in creation of democracies, the cross-pressures that are inherent in democratic societies, and the differences that often emerge in the political processes of both autocratic and democratic societies. In a theory advanced by Russet (2010), he lays emphasis on cultural and structural theoretical frameworks that support the democratic peace proposition. He recasts on propositions that are largely interrelated regarding the impact of the type of regime on international relations. In his structural framework, he discusses institutional constraints that result in peaceful conflict resolution. In the cultural framework, he lays more emphasis on the impact of normative and cultural restraints that influence collective bargaining and negotiation between democratic states. From reviews done regarding the democratic peace proposition, it is evident that normative explanations on this proposition have emerged to be more persuasive and coherent than structural explanations. Indeed more research has been undertaken on normative explanations than structural ones. Normative approaches have realized distinctive supportive evidence regarding types of regimes and factors that influence and enhance peaceful relations among democratic states. The idea of democracy promoting peace has been embraced by a majority of world leaders over time, with the United States being at the forefront of this advocacy. President Woodrow Wilson openly advocated for creation of a less confrontational world through creation and support of democratic governance across all nations. Based on his ideas and perspective on foreign policy, Wilson rose to become one of the most influential leaders especially after the First World War. The international relations discourse was essentially dominated by arguments advanced by Wilsons’s arguments (Friedman, 2000). These ideals did not last long, as they were overtaken by the events of the Second World War which gave rise to what is referred to in political science discourse as “realism” or “neorealism". Henry Kissinger, the most influential protagonist of realist ideals had an expansive perspective on the impact of Wilson’s arguments on the American political system and international relations. According to Kissinger, the American “exceptionalism” tradition was the brainchild of President Wilson, and was the origin of the United States foreign policy. As once said by Harry S. Truman, an imposition of a totalitarian regime on free peoples destabilized foundations of global peace thereby compromising the security of the United States. Indeed the United States strongly holds that international peace is largely determined and depended on establishment and promotion of strong democratic institutions. According to the American foreign policy that has had vast influence on international relations, democratically governed states do not rise up against each other in war, (Kissinger, 1994). Kissinger’s perspective is widely regarded in political and international relations discourse, but the reality is that the North American foreign policy is largely shaped by realism and neorealism” ideals. Oneal & Russet for instance, provide empirical evidence democratic states involved in international trade are likely a pacifying effect that effectively complements regime type. Additionally, Russet (2010) established that the existence of international organizations immensely contributes to peaceful relations between democratic states. In his report, Russet established that democratically governed states may inevitably be involved in disputes, but will more often than not employ conflict resolution mechanisms such as arbitration and mediation to resolve their disagreements. He goes further to point out that conflict resolution techniques have a higher chance of success in democratic states than undemocratic ones. Nonetheless, it may be regarded as a common norm that democracy will conventionally evoke normative commitment to peaceful resolutions to conflicts and disagreements. Heads of states in democratic nations are more likely to avoid wedging war against other states that they regard to be democratic and likely to embrace dialogue and other available means of resolving conflicts. Leaders in this position may consider it irrational to go to war without pursuing other conflict resolution techniques as this may jeopardize their chances of being reelected. Moreover, heads of state may consider interstate war to have detrimental consequences on the political regime , as there are chances that a leader can easily fall from power in the event of a lost war, especially in democratic states. Criticism of Democratic Peace Theory It has been contented that the democratic peace theory is widely misinterpreted, and this is largely attributed to cultural bias, or is limited to the Western cultural area that is relatively narrow (Milner, 1992)Additionally, according to Milner (1992), it is argued that essentially democracy does not create peace, but the reality is vice versa, where peace leads to creation of more democratic governance. A foremost rejection to the Democratic Peace Theory was probably that presented by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 6, where he stated: “Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well regulated camp; and Rome was never staed of carnage and conquest”. From recent research that has been carried out on this proposition, it has been acknowledged that the establishment of correlations of the factors and variables in this proposition is relatively easy, the challenge arises when causation of this variables has to be established. It is evident from the research, previews on the subject that most of the researchers and scholars have no consensus on the actual factors that make democratic states to be more peaceful. Additionally, research findings have been heavily criticized for not finding a common definition of key terms such as “war”, “democracy” and “peace”, implying that evidence will inevitably vary depending on how these key terms are defined. Recent research has also established that the democratic peace theory may only hold valid in democratic states that have achieved high economic development standards. This insinuates that those democracies with poor economic standards are likely to disregard democratic ideals and opt for war to resolve their differences, regardless of their foreign policy and impact on international relations. Conclusion Empirical evidence cannot be deemed to be entirely definitive, as the decision on whether a government will wage war against another may well be influenced by other factors outside democratic ideals. It is possible that the increase in the number of democratic states after the cold war may increase chances of new disagreements and conflict, thereby negating the democratic peace proposition that has so far garnered substantial support internationally. Nonetheless, Streams of arguments in support of the proposition are highly diverse, ranging from formal, philosophical, historical, experimental, and even psychological. As it stands now, theoretical bases that have been developed through in-depth research and numerous empirical analyses support the proposition that democracy indeed promotes peace both at domestic and international levels. Bibliography Baldwin, D. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism:The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press. Henry Kissinger. 1994. Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster: New York. Russett, B., Sterling-Folker, J., Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. 2010. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milner, H. International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses. World Politics, 44 (1992), 3, 466-496. R.J. Rummel. 1997. Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Thomas Friedman. 2000. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books. Thomas Friedman. 2005. The World is Flat. USA: Farrar. Read More