Potential Effects of Democratization in the Middle East on the Arab-Israeli Conflict - Case Study Example

Potential effects of democratization in the Middle East on the Arab-Israeli conflict and On the wake of the most recent launch of Israel military action designated “Operation Protective Edge” in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, the world has had another reason to be bothered by the persistent Israeli-Arab conflict. July 8th of 2014 has found a place in the books of history as Israeli launched a defensive operation provoked by rocket fire from Gaza. The action resulted from the abduction of three Israelis and their subsequent killing by two Hamas followers.1 The consequent damage of this conflict especially on civilians in Palestine provoked the world to call for peace as the death toll hit the highs of thousands as massive destruction of property was also witnessed.2 Many were rendered homeless, and it’s evident that the conflict is doing more harm than good to both ends as it doesn’t resolve the particular involved differences. This is not the first conflict as such differences dates back in history when Israel engaged in war. The War of Independence of 1948-1949, the Sinai Campaign of 1956 and the Six-Day-War of 1967 are among the many wars Isreal have engaged his enemies.3 Moreover, Israel have had the Yom Kippur War of 1982-2000, the First intifada of 1987-1991 and the Gulf War 1991.4 Furthermore, the Second Intifada of 2000-2005, the Second Lebanon War 2006, the Gaza War of 2009, and the Gaza war of 2012 and 2014 are the many conflicts Israel and Arabs have engaged.5 This has provoked the world to seek a solution and democratization of the Middle East has been seen as the most appropriate answer. Many believe that leadership has a role in this conflict and with a close examination of the state of Democracy Index in the Middle East; we shall address the causal logic behind the democratic peace theory and the effectiveness of democratization in resolving Arab-Israel conflict. The democratic peace theory has been backed as the most excellent tool in addressing interstate conflicts. We can understand the theory better by understanding what exactly democracy means. Democracy happens to be a type of government where eligible citizens are allowed to participate equally through voting or running some administrative offices or having elected representatives. The democratic peace theory depicts that democracies naturally are hesitant to engage in wars with one another, an aspect that has guaranteed peace between many states as history reveals.6 States that exercise democracy are far less willing to engage in war unlike those which feature authoritarian and other related autocratic nondemocratic forms of governance. Liberal democratic nations tend to share common liberal perspectives and persistently seek liberal justification for engaging in war. They believe in the morality of human rights, appreciate that all their decisions should represent the will and wishes of the people and practice free and fair elections. Any involvement in the war by such democratic states is mostly justified publicly and focuses on preserving a certain way of life for the citizens while defending freedom, as well as private enterprise.7 The nations that reserve some respect for their citizens tend to be rational and responsible as they tend look at war. This is because war is an item that subject the citizens to suffering just as witnessed in the war between Israel and Hamas. On the contrary, coercive governments would not hesitate to engage in violence as decisions are solely left to the autocratic leaders who are in such positions to gratify their quest for power and egos. Liberal states allow distribution of power to various organs and branches. Therefore, the decisions made by the executive are totally dependent on others. In addition, the time spell involved in such deliberations create room for formulation of amicable policies that reduces chances of a conflict between any two democratic states. In general terms, leaders of democratic states are always made to accept the extent of the losses that a war might subject to a voting public. With incidences of dictatorship in countries like Egypt, it’s is evident that involved leaders had no respect for the citizens, and the recent vindication of Hosni Mubarak is a clear indicator.8 Democratic states have countrymen who believe in having democratic institutions in resolving interstate tensions. They look at other democracies as less hostile and rational. They believe they have a large amount of wealth and resources and tendency to avoid such wars would help safeguard those resources. The causal logic of the democratic peace theory can help us evaluate democratization as a tool to resolve conflict in the Middle East. The differences that have been seen through history between Israel and other Arabic states can be addressed from this perspective. The idea of respect for citizens and allowing them to express their opinion will work to suppress the state of dictatorship in this region. The people will tend to have the final say on the decisions made and compel leaders to purpose on peaceful alternatives in resolving conflict. We can address the conflict by citing some explanatory models of liberal peace in the name of causal logic of democratic peace theory. The normative logic is one of the causal elements of self-governing peace theory. The proponents of this logic suggest that a democracy socializes political elites influencing them to act as per the basis of democratic norms in the event of interstate conflict. The norms in this case tend to mandate persuasion of nonviolent methods to resolve conflict and operate under the principle of live-and-let-live. Leaders in this case commit themselves and extend this beyond borders so that they share respect with other democratic states. They believe that other democracies share the same perspective and persuade this nations to engage in peaceful measures in the event of a conflict. This norm is applicable in our case study. Pushing for democracy in the Middle East would enhance the spirit of respect for citizens in the nations involved. The democracy indices of the Middle East reveal that Israeli is the most democratic nation while others don’t follow sooth.9 Democracy is an element direly needed here as the norms of compromise and cooperation will work to suppress the conflicts at hand from escalating to violence. The struggle between Israel intensifies due to the mistrust between non-democracies and egalitarianisms. The idea that autocratic governments have no regard for citizens’ opinion may subject the feuding nations into violence. Democracy would elude such mistrusts and establish a mutual understanding between Israel and other states within the region. The idea of peaceful negotiation would become a reality, and there would be established mutual trust. Time and again Israeli has always stated it doesn’t trust the Hamas with weapons. It regards them as terrorists as they don’t believe in democracy. This escalates conflicts to violence whenever they appear. Institutional logic is another perspective of democratic peace theory. Democratic governments involve a number of arms that deliberate decisions on behalf of the state. They are several social groups in a number, and they should all be consulted before a final decision is made. There are many participants in the picture as even the opposition is tangled. The leaders are made to be accountable to several social groups who in many occasions would oppose the war. There are stipulated rights like freedom of speech and leaders are open to evaluation in performance and their decisions are ever in check. In the event of the crisis, liberal states will tend to share opinions with other states only if they make some liberal changes to their institutions.10 Democratization of Middle East will lead to the establishment of institutions that will create more room for more stakeholders. More citizens will be allowed and involved in decision making. The process and deliberation of sensitive decisions involving conflicts will be amicable and tailored according to the needs of the citizens. Democratic states like Israel will share opinions with such nations and enhance social and political ties.11 There will be more peaceful talks before going out for arms. The governments will be accountable to many people and the tendency to engage in violence will be a thing of the past. The states involved will have a chance to prosper economically backed up by the fact that they are endowed with a large amount of natural resources like oil. Democratization would prove meaningful in such a case. Democracy in the Middle East will allow the citizens to have more rights especially in expression, voting, worship and movement. There will be respect to human dignity and leaders will be held accountable of wars that they may happen to initiate. The will be a separation between religion and state or governance. This is an aspect that has affected Middle East in so many ways. Most of these nations have integrated religion with leadership. Islam is the dominant religion here and there have been cases of inter-religion conflicts. These nations look at other non-Islamic states as enemies a matter that attributes to conflict and violence. The idea of democracy would enlighten the societies involved and would appreciate that there should be a thick line between a religion and politics and leadership. Israeli is more concerned with Islamic terrorists in the region and far in other continents. They have weird beliefs that do not reflect true values of Islam. These jihadists instigate violence whenever they have an opportunity leading to loss of lives and property. This provokes reaction from the hurt nations and in the process engages in wars. Democracy will create opportunities for decent education and interaction of citizens with different perspectives will forge cohesion and unity among them. Their ideas on various matters will be addressed, and they will see the need to coexist in peace. Violence between Israel and Arab states will be kept at check, and they will appreciate and trust each other. With increased exposure to democracy and liberalism, nations like Iran and Iraq will appreciate the idea of peace as an alternative for conflict resolutions. Liberal states tend to share elements of honesty when it comes to addressing some common affairs. From their trustworthiness, they can engage in peaceful resolution measures in the event of a conflict. This allows sharing of sentiments and ideas, and they are addressed by the representatives of each side. This would become a reality between Israel and the Arab world. They enter in a mutual understanding and would solve matters amicably. The losses that were witnessed in August 2014 would be avoided, and the future of the two nations would be bright. The lives of children lost in Gaza in the 2014 are heartbreaking, and Gaza should grab democracy with both hands. Though we all pointed fingers at Israel, we know that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens from external conflicts. Had Gaza been democratic, it would have cooperated with Israel in unraveling the Hamas terrorists. In fact, many Palestinians felt that the Hamas were causing them more harm than good as they had instigated a great deal of violence in the process. The Palestinians hid terrorists, and this escalated the conflict. With well-guarded and informed leaderships, such conflicts will become a thing of the past. Liberalization of the Arab world will foster relations with Israel. There will be a mutual regard for each other and initiate cohesion. Otherwise, the conflict will persist as seen between in 1812 when America engaged in war with Britain as it did not see it as liberal.12 This involved loss of lives and casualties. We must agree that democracy will work some magic overnight. Is a process that calls for cooperation and willingness from member states of this region? They should be ready to put aside their differences and appreciate the essence of freedom of citizens and their rights in decision making. There has been a clear indication that religion comes between Arab nations and their decisions. They tend to be more obsessed with Islamic culture and integrate it with all social aspects of the nation. Women are not respected, and they are regarded lowly compared to men. Their right to education is restricted and cannot express their opinions on matters regarding the leadership. Their religious choices are forged, and they never can choose something different. These nations have to put aside their cultures and attempt democracy. Another constraint to democracy in this region is the tendency of these people to feel like their affairs are being meddled. They feel like the whole idea is a western imperialism. They tend to perceive it as new and out of touch with their values. Having a look at what United States did to Iraq in the reign of President Bush, the Middle East might perceive it as an invasion rather than assistance to freedom. Some of the western nations have exploited them and embracing their ideology would be difficult. A stable middle east is still some miles away and will take the involvement of all stakeholders to make democracy a reality. Though democracy does not address everything, it will be a positive beginning to embrace. Chances of peace between Israel and the Arab nations might become a reality. Works Cited Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs. Israel at War: Primary Sources. 2014. http://jcpa.org/publication/israel-at-war-primary-sources/ (accessed December 11, 2014). BBC-News. Gaza -Israel conflict: Is the fighting over. August 26, 2014. www.bbc.com (accessed December 11th, 2014). Bruce, Russet. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. New York: Princeton University Press, 1993. Doyle, Michael W. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. London: Norton, 1997. Hanna, Jason, Sarah Sirgany, and Holly Yan. Egypt: Ex-ruler Hosni Mubarak cleared of charges. November 30th, 2014. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/29/world/meast/egypt-mubarak-trial/ (accessed December 11, 2014). Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." International Security, 1994: 87-125. Pratt, Nicola Christine. Democracy and Authoritarianism in the Arab World. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. Pugh, Jeff. "Democratic Peace Theory: A Review and Evaluation." CEMPROC. April 2005. http://www.cemproc.org/democraticpeaceCWPS.pdf (accessed Dec 11th, 2014). Read More