Impact of Democratic Principles and Policies Application on War Incidence - Essay Example

Liberals have argued that a range of instruments- democracy, economic integration, and international s- make war less likely. Explain thisargument and evaluate its relevance today Introduction Human history has been riddled with various incidents of violence and wars. Wars have had causes, including poverty, social stratification, ethnic differences, as well as political differences. Wars have been seen within states, but mostly, it has involved one or more countries. Liberals argue that various instruments – democracy, economic integration, and international institutions – make wars less likely. They argue that where people have more freedom, they are less likely to take arms against the government or other countries; where they are more economically coordinated with each other, they are also less likely to declare wars against each other; and where international institutions are in place, the incidence of wars can be reduced or even eliminated. Others are however not convinced of these possible preventive measures for wars. This paper shall therefore discuss the argument of liberals on democracy, economic integration, and international institutions making wars less likely. Each of the specific points – democracy, economic integration, and international institutions and their relation to wars shall be discussed separately. This paper will review the various points of this argument and its actual viability; and its relevance today will also be assessed. This paper is being undertaken in order to establish the specific impact of democracy as well as economic integration and international institutions in the prevention of wars and how their concepts and applications impact on the actual occurrence of war and of any other violent encounters within and among states. Body Democratic pacifism seems to be the main basis of the contention that democracy makes wars less likely (Ostrowski, 2002). Its ideas are based on the following premises: democracies rarely if ever go to war against each other; democracies tend to be more peaceful than dictatorships; democracies tend to have less internal violence; and this proclivity towards peacefulness is structural or that it refers to the nature of democracy (Ostrowski, 2002, p. 19). However, in assessing these views, an incorrect consideration is being raised because it does not exactly matter if democracies in general support peace (Ostrowski, 2002). Assuming that most democracies are peaceful, the statistics would indeed show that democracies are generally peaceful. However, it may also be apt to consider that the more aggressive democracies are the stronger democracies. In these instances it would not be fair to strongly maintain the argument that democracies are generally peaceful (Ostrowski, 2002). The query of whether or not democracies are peaceful may not be the ideal issue to consider, however, a more appropriate question may be raised: is the United States peaceful? Are the other democratically aggressive countries peaceful? Their history indicates otherwise. Gowa (2011) declares that based on various studies, major democratic powers are actually more likely than other states to engage in armed disputes. The definition of war which has often been used for surveys seems to be tainted because researchers simply declare that conflicts with 1000 or more dead are considered as wars (Ostrowski, 2002). It is not logical to lump all these incidents as wars because there are other variables involved in these conflicts. The more significant way of approaching the task is to consider which incidents were more violent and which of these incidents caused more long-term damage to human civilization (Oneal and Russett, 1997). The two most violent and significant wars in human history were World War I and II. The American Civil War was considered to be one of the bloodiest confrontations during the 19th century as it produced about 620,000 deaths and thousands more injured (Ostrowski, 2002). In considering these aspects, it is not relevant to ask whether or not democracies are peaceful, however it is better to ask if the most powerful democracy peaceful? Better yet, is the United States peaceful? Studies show that the US is not because since 1861, it has been involved in numerous violent skirmishes which have resulted to the deaths of thousands (Ostrowski, 2002). In actuality, the US has hardly been a peaceful country. Supporters of the democratic pacifism ideas also argue that democracy supports peace and they can prove this by citing the decreased frequency of wars in democratic countries (Oren, 1995). They further argue that as democratic countries would not likely fight with each other, there may be strong merit in democratizing other countries in order to ensure peace. Although it seems to be favorable to avoid wars among nation-states, the argument however does not consider other criteria (Oren, 1995). Without doubt, one of the biggest threats to peace is the use of nuclear weapons, and the more states carrying this weapon, the greater the threat to peace. And yet, democratic countries are actually the leaders in such weapons – in inventing them, producing, and in testing them. Out of the eight states which have nuclear arms capability, only two of them are non-democratic nations (Ostrowski, 2002). The leader of nuclear arms proliferation is the US and at some point, the US gained much political power and influence in the world because of its nuclear arms capability (Brown, et.al., 1996). Other states also immediately followed suit and the US found more excuses to develop and acquire these weapons. When the first nuclear arms were developed, the US claimed that it wanted to defeat Hitler with these weapons and when Hitler was defeated, they then declared that they wanted to defeat Japan (which they did) with these weapons (Ostrowski, 2002). During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race proceeded at a fast and furious pace, causing much tension between the US and the Soviet Union. But when the Cold War ended, still, the US did not stop producing these weapons (Brown, et.al., 1996). When the Iraqi War broke out, these weapons remained at the ready. With the recent threats of North Korea and terrorism, these nuclear weapons are within the United States’ easy reach (Vazquez, 2012). In recent years, terrorism has become one of the major threats to international peace and security. These terrorists always present their argument against Western imperialism being the main cause of their economic difficulties (Wilkinson, 2011). The foreign and domestic policies which the Western countries have set are also objectionable to these terrorists. In making a rough judgment of the terrorist situation, including its causes and its targets, democracy does not seem to pacify conflicts (Wilkinson, 2011). In fact, democracy, which is the dominant political regime in Western countries, seems to be triggering these wars and conflicts. In relation to ethnic and religious conflicts, many of these conflicts have also involved democratic countries. Although many of these conflicts have occurred under dictatorial regimes, 22 out of 25 of conflicts involving ethnic or religious concerns have involved democratic regimes (Ostrowski, 2002). In some cases, democratic regimes have been overthrown because many people believe that their interests have not been given attention under their regime. Although ethnic conflicts have also been apparent under the dictatorial regime, converting these regimes to democratic governments has not resolved the problems of the people (Barkawi and Laffey, 2001). An assessment of the processes involved reveals that in democracies, people usually vote based on ethnic and religious considerations. In effect, people who belong to one ethnic group vote for their own, or people belonging to a certain religion vote for their fellow follower (Barkawi and Laffey, 2001). This is the case in the US where Republicans and Democrats tend to vote for their party members. These same premises apply for candidates voting against those identified in other ethnic groupings. As those voters oppose the other party’s or other religion’s candidate, it often follows that there is a certain amount of resistance and resentment against the other candidate (Ostrowski, 2002). In some cases, voters may perceive any increase in the population of other ethnic groupings as a significant threat to their belief system and their interests. It seems to be inherent for people to vote for others who share their ethnicity and religion and this is the basic nature of democracy (Ostrowski, 2002). Democracy allows one vote for each person. One voter would not likely decide the outcome of an election with his vote. The chances of placing one’s precious vote in a candidate that does not share one’s beliefs, ethnicity, or religion are very slim in a democracy (Nagel, 2003). The more alarming effect of this is the fact that since they are already inclined to vote in a certain way, they often have little cause to educate themselves about the policies involving candidates and issues. It seems to be easier for them to vote based on ethnic considerations. In effect, democracy can potentially promote ethnic conflicts (Nagel, 2003). Accounts indicate that under some conditions, people who belong to some ethnic minorities prefer to engage in wars in order to avoid being controlled by majority ethnic groups (Barkawi and Laffey, 2001). Various incidents of democracy stimulating war have been seen throughout history. For instance, at some point, the Irish Catholics in the North did not want to be controlled by the English Protestants and vice versa, and this resulted to a violent conflict which in some ways is yet to be resolved (Ostrowski, 2002). The argument that democracy promotes peace and prevents war is at best still a matter of debate among scholars and theorists. In relation to economic integration however, there seems to be a better outlook on its impact on violent conflicts. Many states were able to discover that in the wake of the Second World War, establishing a more integrated alliance allowed them to fend off their enemies more efficiently. Economic agendas have often emerged during times of conflict and it seems to have remained a major part of warfare (Brou and Ruta, 2007). Economic integration seems to have served as opportunities for states to interact with each other and coordinate their resources and skills in order to create mutually beneficial arrangements (Vahabi, 2004). In the current age of globalization, economic integration has become an even bigger phenomenon, especially with its various prospects and possibilities for profit among member nations. In effect, less competition for resources has become a better business practice with nations swapping improved terms for trade (Vahabi, 2004). As a result, these nations have shifted their goals away from conflicts and wars, but towards economic integration and cooperation (Krieger-Boden, et.al., 2008). Aside from economic integration, international institutions also seem to have a more favorable impact on the prevention of wars. In fact, the United Nations which is the biggest and most widespread institution has sought to achieve such goal for many years now (White, 1997). The UN is the major authority in dealing with threats to international security; and it has become active in managing these conflicts. In some instances, it has failed in its functions, however, in general, most nations have managed to adhere to the UN’s mandates on security and conflict settlement (White, 1997). International institutions like the UN serve as the international agency which seeks to manage and oversee international relations, specifically, peaceful relations. Without these institutions, states would likely act lawlessly without considering the effects of their actions on other states (White, 1997). Although the authoritative power of the UN is not as strong as the authority of single states, the fact that is has reached international support and acceptance implies how the member states can approve sanctions on violators and on any violations of international laws (Murphy, 1983). In effect, international institutions help prevent wars and conflicts by condemning these acts to be against the basic tenets of nationhood, cooperation, and peaceful coexistence. Conclusion In considering the above points, it is appropriate to note that there is a degree of merit which can be given to the arguments of liberals on democracy, economic integration, and international institutions on the prevention of wars. Democracy, as argued by democratic pacifists, prevents wars and conflicts among democratic nations. However, this argument is difficult to support in the face of the fact that democratic ideals, acts, and policies seem to trigger and provoke wars and conflicts. Human history exemplifies how conflicts have arisen from democratic countries and from the implementation of democratic policies. However, in considering economic integration and international institutions, there is significant support which can be attributed to the argument that these elements to prevent war. Integration allows for nations to cooperate with each other in order to maximize economic gain; and international institutions allow peaceful relations among countries. Although both economic integration and international institutions are part of democratic principles and policies, other elements of democracy may not necessarily prevent conflicts or wars. Nevertheless, potentially, democratic tenets present ideal foundations for peace and security and, against any other regime, democracy would likely provide the better option in the prevention of wars and conflicts. References Barkawi, T. and Laffey, M., 2001. Democracy, liberalism, and war: rethinking the democratic peace debate. California: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Brou, D. and Ruta, M., 2007. Economic integration, political integration or both? World Trade Organization [online] Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/gtdw_e/wkshop08_e/ruta_e.pdf [Accessed 25 May 2012]. Brown, M., Lynn-Jones, S., and Miller, S., 1996. Debating the democratic peace. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Gowa, J., 2011. The democratic peace after the Cold War. Economics & Politics, 23(2), pp. 153-171. Krieger-Boden, C., Morgenroth, E. and Petrakos, G., 2008. The Impact of European integration on regional structural change and cohesion. New York: Routledge. Murphy, J., 1983. The United Nations and the control of international violence: a legal and political analysis. UK: Manchester University Press. Nagel, S., 2003. Peace, prosperity, and democracy at the cutting edge. New York: Nova Publishers. Oneal JR, and Russett BM., 1997. The classical liberals were right: democracy, interdependence, and conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2), pp. 267-293. Oren, I., 1995. The subjectivity of the democratic peace: changing U.S. perceptions of imperial Germany. Int. Secur 20(147), p. 84 Ostrowski, J., 2002. Does democracy promote peace? State University of New York at Buffalo [online] Available at: http://mises.org/pdf/asc/2002/asc8-ostrowski.pdf [Accessed 25 May 2012]. Vahabi, M., 2004. The political economy of destructive power. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing. Vasquez, J., 2012. What do we know about war? Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield White, N., 1997. Keeping the peace: the United Nations and the maintenance of international peace and security. UK: Manchester University Press. Wilkinson, P., 2011. Terrorism versus democracy. New York: Taylor & Francis. Read More