Democratic Peace Theory; Its Strengths and Weaknesses - Term Paper Example

Democratic Peace Theory; Its Strengths and Weaknesses A significant number of empirical studies have validated the assertion that democracies rarely go to war with each other. This assertion is conceptualized in the theory known as the democratic peace theory. It has been argued that the assertion of this theory is one of the most empirically robust and important findings in the field of international politics. The Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) states that democracies across the world rarely or entirely do not go to war with one another (Beeson and Bisley, 2010: 101). The theory further states that democracies may go to war with non-democracies, but will never fight each other. The empirical association between peace and democracy has been challenged and debated since the inception of this theory to the current times. Statistically, the likelihood of democracies going into war is considered to be very low (Art and Jervis, 2005: 256). This theory not only challenges the existence and validity of other systems of politics such as communism and fascism, but also challenges the prevailing international relations realist view, which emphasizes that common strategic interests and calculations of balance of power are what explain stability and peace which characterizes liberal democracies relations (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010: 424). It is no doubt that DPT is a fundamental aspect in understanding international relation and politics. Therefore, this essay will focus on understanding DPT in detail, as well as focus on its advantages and disadvantages. The proponents of DPT have offered several explanations regarding the assertion that democracies rarely or never go to war with each other. Some of these explanations include: democracies often peaceful conflict resolution norms that they employ in external relations; democracies relate and trade heavily with other democracies and war will be very costly and of little or no gain at all; democracies are made up of democratic institutions like powerful legislations and competitive elections which may prohibit governments from going to war; and democratic leaders are answerable to voters for issues such as war and therefore they have an incentive to find alternatives (Art and Jervis, 2005: 257). Fundamentally, there are four main explanations for the democratic peace theory: structural, monadic, dyadic, and normative explanations. The structural explanation holds that it is the representative government institutions which hold decision makers and elected officials accountable to a wide electorate, which make a war to be greatly unattractive option for the citizens and the government as well. Since the risks and costs of war will directly affect a considerable portion of the population, it is expected that voters will vote out the party or leader in office if they initiate unnecessary way. Consequently, this provides an institutional incentive for leaders in democracies to make rational decisions prior to going to war. Democratic processes and aspects such as political pluralism, competitive elections, and speech freedom make it difficult for democratic leaders to convince the public to go to war (Beeson and Bisley, 2010: 104). The other explanation that informs DPT is monadic explanation which holds that democracies are less likely to use force, the regime type opposing it notwithstanding. This explanation also postulates that democracies are more likely to get into low-level conflicts rather than high-level or full-scale wars. Besides, they will be more willing to desist from increasing disputes into a real war and less likely to start the use of force against another democracy (Gat, 2005: 73). This explanation further holds that democracies that do not initiate war have an increased likelihood of winning compared to non-democracies. Due to the fact that public support for war in democracies decline considerably over time, there is an enhanced urge for decision makers and democratic leaders to choose not to initiate war. However, there are certain notable exception such as the United States- led wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010: 426). Dyadic explanation also informs the democratic peace theory; this explanation holds that democracies create a joint and separate peace among other democracies. It further asserts that when an autocratic-democratic dyad is replaced with a democracy, the likelihood of it engaging in conflict is reduced by 33 percent (Beeson and Bisley, 2010: 107). Additionally, this explanation argues that interstate rivalries between democracies are increasingly rare and that regime change from non-democracy to democracy will not just minimize the possibility of interstate conflicts, but also speed up this trend over time. More importantly, the coalition of democracies will better facilitate and, maintain mutual obligations and commitments because institutional democracies of democracy make it difficult to reverse obligations and commitments which have been through accountable and autonomous political institutions. The explanation holds that this predictability is absent in non-democracies because they lack openness and transparency in their political systems which make it difficult for them to win wars. Based on the trends observed, this explanation argues that the incidence of conflict will continue to decrease across the world as more countries become democratic (Art and Jervis, 2005: 259). This is because while democracies are more likely to receive threats and challenges to their security, they can still maintain international peace “separately.” Moreover, normative explanation is the other explanation that informs the democratic peace theory assertion that democracies do not go to war with one another. The proponents of this explanation argue that shared liberal and democratic values best explain the peace which exists between democracies. According to this explanation, democratic political culture and values encourage peaceful approaches of conflict resolution which ought to be extended beyond the domestic political process to other democratic states due to the fact that leaders of involved countries hold an expectation that their counterparts will peacefully work out their differences (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010: 430). In this case, therefore, political ideologies determine how democracies distinguish between their allies and adversaries. Democratic states that act and represent the interests of their citizens tend to be treated with consideration and respect. On the other hand, non-democracies that use oppression and violence against their own people are treated with suspicion and mistrust. Normative explanation thus holds that perception is very important in ensuring that democracies do not go to war with one another (Art and Jervis, 2005: 251). This explanation combines both the normative and institutional explanations in the defense of democratic peace theory. This combination stipulate that particular democratic practices that reduces or eliminates possibility of war among democracies such as free press and the rule of law are driven by both the norms and institutions (Beeson and Bisley, 2010: 108). In other words, cultural norms influence evolution and creation of institutions, which in turn help generate more peaceful culture over time. It is no doubt that the democratic peace theory is one of the most dominant and robust in the international relations and politics. Scholars in the international relations and politics have pointed out that this theory has several strengths and weaknesses. In regard to strengths, democratic peace theory has been able to adequately expound on the concept of peace among democracies. The theory has explained how democracies do not go into war with each other based on four main concrete explanations. These explanations are detailed on how democracies and democratic institutions and processes work towards ensuring that democratic states do not go into a war with each other (Art and Jervis, 2005: 260). The theory shows how structural explanations ensure that peace exist among democracies as the elected government officials are held accountable for their actions including engaging in unnecessary war. Through normative explanation, it also categorically shows how democratic values and cultures encourage peaceful conflict resolutions which prevent democracies from going into war with each other. Besides, through monadic explanation it elaborates clearly how democracies are less likely to be prone to use force thereby minimizing the possibility of such states going into with each other. Also, through dyadic explanation, this theory clearly indicates that democratic states create a joint and separate peace among other democracies and therefore ensures that they do not fight one another (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010: 429). In addition, this theory helps liberal democratic states to conduct their foreign policy towards promoting and maintaining peace with other democracies. The foreign policy of liberal states is conducted collectively at the international level and on individual basis, and it is important that they be conducted in a manner that promotes peace among liberal states and minimize conflicts (Beeson and Bisley, 2010: 110). The theory brings to the attention of decision makers and elected government official in democratic states that the public and other governmental institutions are imperative on peace and security of individuals’ states and that of the other democracies as well. Therefore, they are informed of the need to make decisions that are in tandem with the general public of their respective states. What is more, this theory informs the liberal democratic states of the need for reconstruction of values and norms that underpin the international system to reflect accurately on the peaceful interactions among democracies. The theory contributes towards unforced peace among democracies and encourages greater cooperation among international actors upholding democratic values (Art and Jervis, 2005: 257). The other strength of the democratic peace theory is that its aspects promote economic interdependence and cooperation. This theory has incorporated various aspects that call for economic interdependence and cooperation with the view of promoting peace among democracies. High levels of trade among states greatly lower the likelihood of conflicts among the democratic states (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010: 431). This is because of the realization that their cooperation is at a very higher level and that conflicts would just serve to make them lose rather than make them gain, both in the short and long run. Also, reduced conflict likelihood is informed by the realization that maintenance of open and free trade relations depends mostly on freedom and market-based forces rather than on coercion or violence. Mutual economic dependence will definitely act as a restraint against use of force or war, and as a way of adherence to mutual commitments and agreements. Furthermore, the democratic peace theory is founded on theories and perspectives that reflect most of the relevant and important aspects in the international relations and politics realm (Gat, 2005: 74). This theory helps international players to realize that relations between them could lead to the creation of security and peace communities. Democracy is seen as the primary source of democratic representation, transnational interdependence, ideological commitment, and peace which are vital ingredients in explaining the peace-prone tendencies of democracies (Art and Jervis, 2005: 262). However, this theory has several weaknesses that the critics have been pointing to when disputing some of the assumptions of this theory. The critics of this theory argue that it is highly dependent on definitions in order to produce the desired outcome in an analysis of a given scenario (Gat, 2005: 76). Some of the definitions are not definite and may not help fully in providing a strong argument regarding the outcome of the scenario under study. The definitional issues have profound effects for the democratic peace theory value and thus challenge it substantially. Additionally, critics argue that this theory is insignificant, statistically. They argue that it can be more fruitful to look at instances where two democratic states who previously had crisis but did not go to war with each other. According to Beeson and Bisley (2010: 110), such examination can often show that the crisis between democracies that did not lead to war was because of other variables other than those within the explanations put forward by this theory. What seems to be the most realistic critique of this theory emanates from the structural realists. These realists argue that the causes of war are found within the international organization and structure of state organization. They further point out that the structure of the state organization are what causes war and that if this view is right then the democratic peace theory is wrong (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010: 432). In conclusion, it is evidently clear that the democratic peace theory inextricably link peace and democracy. The assumptions of this theory are based on history that show that democracy brings peace in most cases and those liberal democratic states do not go to war with one another. The main assumption of this theory is that substantial peaceful coexistence among states cannot be achieved without democracy. The explanations of this theory provide a logical and clear reason on why spread of democracy across the world will result to enhanced international peace. They argue that political institutions in democracies make it difficult for governments to enter into a war with other democracies without the electorates’ consent. Also, they argue that the accompanying values and norms of democracies favor peaceful approaches of conflict resolution among democracies thus preventing them from going into war with each other. However, the critics have pointed out that this theory has various weaknesses that they argue do not substantially support the assumption of this theory that states cannot have peaceful relationship without democracy. Bibliography Art, R and Jervis, R, 2005, International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, HarperCollins. Baylis, J., Smith, S, and Owens, P, 2010, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press. Beeson, M and Bisley, N, 2010, Issues in 21st Century World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan. Gat, A 2005, 'The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact of Modernity', World Politics, 58, 1, pp. 73-100. Read More