Pathways to War in Democratic Transitions - Case Study Example

Democracy and War As humans and even geographical territories ‘evolved’ in of history, different forms of governance came into existence to govern kingdoms, provinces/states and importantly countries. Although, in the earlier centuries, monarchies were the prominent form of governance, in the last centuries, democracy has become the most adopted and ‘favored’ form of governance. Democracy by giving the common people the power to decide who should govern them, has further evolved the system of internal as well as external governance of a country. External governance in the sense, democratic countries will normally orient their foreign relations policies and certain political and military actions with other countries, particularly fellow democracies, in certain constructive ways. In that direction, as hypothesized by various thinkers, democracies may maximally avoid indulging in war with other fellow democratic countries. So, this paper focusing on the theoretical bases for the hypothesis regarding the absence of war between democratic states, will compare the theories behind this hypothesis, including how they are complementary as well as competitive. The theories and theoretical concepts put forward by various thinkers on the above mentioned hypothesis of democratic countries avoiding wars within themselves, are constituted under Democratic peace theory. Also, known as liberal democratic theory or simply called as "democratic peace", this theory is being analyzed by various study groups in both in the current political contexts as well as historical contexts. The theory and the related hypothesis had origins in the 18th century itself, through the works of Immanuel Kant, but came into more prominent circulation and were also scientifically evaluated after 1960s only. Kant foreshadowed the basis of this theory in 1795 in his essay named, Perpetual Peace, in which he hypothesized that if the geographical territories or countries are constitutional republics, voted by common people, then there are good chances of actualizing perpetual peace. Immanuel Kant (1795) argued that “majority of the people would never vote to go to war unless it was in self defense; that if all nations were republics, it would end war, because there would be no aggressors.” (cited in Okoth, 2008). This hypothesis came into more prominence and research study in the second half of the 20th century, after the Second World War, as more democracies came into existence throughout the world. If viewed from another perspective, thinkers supporting the democracy peace theory state that due to the rise of many democracies only major wars or even Third World War has not taken place. As Barkawi and Laffey (1999) states “a defining feature of world politics in the late 20th century is the decline in the frequency of warfare between industrialized states”, with the existence of a ‘zone of peace’ between the democratic countries being attributed as the main reason. This hypothesis is further supported by a number of recent wars or conflicts, as it primarily took place between non-democratic countries or between one democratic country and a non-democratic country, but not between two democracies. For example, both the Wars in the Gulf involving Iraq in 1992 and 2003 were between an authoritarian regime and a coalition of democracies, and it is the same in the case of Afghanistan. Even the earlier wars in Korea and Vietnam involved communist regimes. However, when one views the perspective of thinkers having contrary opinions to this Democratic theory, there are exceptions to this hypothesis. For example, the Kargil War that took place between India and Pakistan in 1999 involved democracies, as well as the Israel-Egypt conflict. Although there were exceptions, democracies avoid going to war with fellow democracies due to some valid reasons. Democracies are mainly viewed as the best outcome of wars and other independence or liberation or resistance struggles. That is, in the aftermath of major wars and struggles, country or countries will turn to democracy as a form of governance which will support their peaceful leanings and importantly their peaceful coexistence with other countries. As Barkawi and Laffey (1999) stated the global processes of colonization and decolonization has positively impacted on the development of democracy as a form of social and political initiative, which is devoid of tendencies of colonization, aggression and imperialism. In a way, it can be assumed that as democracies are mainly adopted as a result or in the aftermath of wars and after the end of monarchies, authoritarian regimes, etc., democracies are seen as the embodiment of positive regimes who care for their people and does not go on war. The proponents of the democratic peace theory come up with additional theoretical perspectives about why democratic nations avoid going to war with fellow democratic country. One of the main perspectives is that the political leaders of these nations need to have complete people support before initiating war measures, and also have to answer to the people about the repercussions and other negative effects of war. Thus, the democratic countries and it leaders will have to think many times, and cannot go to war unilaterally without consensus among its citizens. However, in other non-democratic regimes, it is the prerogative of the ruler or leader, and so they could indulge in war, without the full backing of the people. The views of the people in democracies will be considered maximally by the political leaders during war scenarios, as they are the ones who elected those leaders, and also as they are the ones who could dislodge them in the next elections, if their war measures failed to yield positive results. This was emphasized by Doyle (1996) who stated that when the “citizens who bear the burdens of war, elect their governments, wars become impossible.” He further adds that citizens will always appreciate that economic benefits of trade and other business transactions can be enjoyed only during conditions of peace, and so they will oppose wars. (Doyle 1996). In addition, the democracies will imbibe liberalistic tendencies in every aspect of its functioning, and these tendencies will not allow the country and its leaders to go on war. Democracies with liberalistic mindset are founded and mainly function on the basis of individual rights like equality before the law, free speech and other civil liberties, thus preventing the country from indulging wars. The other perspective is that, democratic nations and leaders will always exhibit statesmanship behavior and take moral position in any conflicting issues. Because of their historical adherence to democratic and liberalistic principles, certain nations and its leaders, during conflicts and war like scenarios, will always want or will be expected by its citizens and even by the world people, to involve first in negotiations to solve the issue, instead of directly jumping into the war. Even if they have intentions to start the war, because of their democratic label, they will first initiate peaceful negotiations and other conciliation steps, like the case of United States backed UNSCOM’s initiatives to find WMD’s in Iraq, before the 2003 Iraq War. This is also in line with the Kant’s theoretical perspectives about the functioning of democratic nations. Kants theory is that democratic leaders are maximally restrained by the resistance of their people, and importantly by the “democratic culture of negotiation and conciliation, plus the hurdles to taking swift action, favours peace.” (BBC 2004). With the democratic peace theory backed by these perspectives, democracies avoid going to war with fellow democratic countries. However, there are clear exceptions to this hypothesis and there is also a ‘zone of uncertainty’ regarding the above discussed theoretical perspectives. There are exceptions to this hypothesis in the form of the Indo-Pak Wars starting from 1970’s till the recent Kargil War. Although, both the countries practice democratic form of government, minor skirmishes that happen in the border, blow into major wars. In addition, contrary to the perspective that democratic nations will indulge in peaceful negotiations before entering war, the Kargil War happened without any chance for prior peaceful negotiations. Thus, this recent example of Kargil War implies that democratic nations will also indulge in war. However, when viewed from another perspective, this war cannot be brought under the ambit of the above discussed hypothesis, because there is a creditable view that the war from the Pakistan side was initiated not by the democratic government but by the military set up. Even the democratically elected Pakistan Prime Minister at that time, Nawaz Sharif admitted that the military general “Pervez Musharraf was behind the 1999 Pakistani aggression in Kargil without his knowledge.” (The Hindu 2007). This aspect of how non-democratic institutions in democracies could take the lead and conduct the war in a proxy manner can be clearly seen in the Kargil conflict. The above perspective was validated by Mansfield and Snyder (2009) who stated that elite sections in a democratic country particularly military institutions because of weak political institutions and also some times because of people support will play the nationalist card, thereby taking military actions unilaterally against their foreign rivals. This in a way implies, that if democratic leaders are in control, they may not lead to wars, and thus the hypothesis of democratic nations will not go to war holds true in the case of Kargil War as well, albeit with different perspective. The ‘zone of uncertainty’ regarding this hypothesis emerges, when democratic nations even while avoiding direct conflicts, could indulge in proxy of ‘shadowy’ war against other democratic nations. This can be seen in the United States’ action of overthrowing democratically elected governments in many South American countries including Guatemala, Chile, etc. Thus, United States’ track record in Latin America does not support the hypothesis that democracies indulge in conflicts with fellow democracies. However, there is a contrary view to this as well, with the above discussed perspective of how country’s non-democratic institutions, CIA in the case of United States could play a proxy role leading to conflicts. So, although, there are exceptions to the hypothesis, it is being countered through the perspective of non-democratic institutions. However, the counter points are, if the democratic leaders are not able to rein in those non-democratic institutions, the country fails to exist as a democracy, and importantly, although these institutions may have autonomy, they are mainly guided by the democratic government’s foreign policies and instructions. Thus, there is a ‘zone of uncertainty’ regarding the hypothesis, when non-democratic institutions get involved. From the above analysis of the hypothesis regarding the absence of war between democratic states, it is clear that although there are some notable exceptions and certain ‘grey areas’ regarding the role of non-democratic institutions, commonly democracies appears to be avoiding wars with fellow democracies. References Barkawi, T. and M. Laffey 1999, ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalisation’, European Journal of International Relations vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 403-434. Doyle, M 1986, ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review vol. 80, pp. 1151-69. Mansfield, EE and Snyder, J 2009, ‘Pathways to War in Democratic Transitions’, International Organization vol. 63, no. 2, pp.381-390. BBC 2004, Do democracies fight each other? viewed on November 10, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4017305.stm Okoth, P. G 2008, Peace and conflict studies in a global context, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology Press and Scholarly Open Press The Hindu 2007, Sharif admits he ‘let down’ Vajpayee on Kargil conflict, viewed on November 10, 2011 http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/10/stories/2007091059781400.htm Read More