Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
Why Liberalism believes that democratic states are more peaceful?
Liberalism is universalistic and tolerant. It believes that all persons share fundamental interest in self preservation and material well being. Each individual must be allowed to follow hi s or her own preferences as long as they do not d...
... middle of paper ...
...2008
25. Markus Fischer, “Feudal Europe, 800-1300: Communal Discourse and Conflictual Practices”, International Organization Vol. 46, No.2 (Spring 1992), pp. 427-466.
26. Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1979),
27. Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (spring, 1992), pp. 391-425
28. Richard Ashley , “Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics”, Alternatives Vol. 12, No. 4 (October 1987), pp.403-434
29. Alexander Wendt, “Collective Identity Formation and the International State”, The American Political Science Review , Vol. 88, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 384-396
30. John J. Mearsheimer “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, Vol. 19, No.
Liberalism is an ideology which advocates equality of opportunity for all within the framework of a system of laws. It includes a belief in government as an institution whose primary function is to define and enforce the laws. Furthermore, a Constitution, must be developed not solely by one ruler but by representatives of the elite groups. Therefore, liberalism invariably involves a belief in the need for legislative bodies which represent the influential groups. The Constitution then defines ...
Martell, Luke. "Conflicts in Cosmopolitanism and the Global Left." Policy Network. N.p., 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
- Liberalism is a form of political structure where the powers of the government are limited against the people and their property
In this essay, after defining some crucial concepts, such as peace, liberal and democratic governments, I’ll present arguments that support the idea that liberal democratic states are not inherently more peaceful then other states, but that they are, in fact, more likely to create conflicts between nations and different political systems. The focus will be attributed to U.S.’s policies and historical events that corroborate the idea expressed above.
Liberals set this ideology in a way to challenge and oppose the power of kings and government. It limits how much power a government can have over its citizens and it maximizes the rights of individuals. Authority must be respected in all forms, such as law, state power, religion, class, and patriotism. They believe that humans are born wicked and are pessimistic about the perfectibility of man. All people must agree to restraints needed for civilization.
Liberalism is an ideology and due to the changing views of historical persons, who have each viewed themselves to be Liberals, is difficult to define precisely. There are five agreed defining tenants of Liberalism. The most important of these, percolating through the ideology, is the ‘Importance of the Individual’, and closely interlinked with this is ‘Freedom’, which leads on to the concept of ‘Individual Freedom or liberty’. Liberals believe that humankind is a rational species, and thus ‘Reason’ is a third tenant. Furthermore Liberalism advocates that the principle of ‘Justice’ and Toleration’ are fundamental in the well being of society and each of these aspects relates directly back to the quintessential first tenant. Liberalism, according to Habermas “emphasizes individual freedom from restraint and is usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard; c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” As an individualist, rather than a collectivist ideology the individual is placed as the building block of society. J. S. Mill says ...
Although many of Sebastian Rosato’s criticisms of the causal underpinnings of both the institutional and normative explanations of the democratic peace are valid, his analysis of the failure of the public constraint is incomplete. While I do not disagree with Rosato’s contention that, “democracies are just as likely to go to war as non-democracies” (Rosato, 2003, p. 594), I believe this misses a key contention of the democratic peace: that democracies are less likely to fight wars against other democracies. I argue that democracies are particularly averse to conflict with other democracies, which would explain why democracies are no less likely to go to war in general, but avoid war with democratic nations. Applying the observation that the democratic peace is essentially a post-World War II phenomena restricted to the Americas and Western Europe strengthens this argument.
On the other hand, liberalism’s main principles emphasise, human rights, individuality, equality before the law...
Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in’, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. I, (2004) pp. 75-87.
Farber, H. S., & Gowa, J. (1997). Common Interests or Common Politics? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2): 393-417.
Print. "The Middle Ages: Feudal Life." Learner.org. Annenberg Foundation, 2012. Web.
Ashley, Richard K. “Political Realism and the Human Interests”, International Studies Quarterly, No. 25, 1981, pp. 204-36
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
Wanis-St. John, Anthony, 'Peace Processes, Secret Negotiations and Civil Society: Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion', International Negotiation, 13 (2008) 1–9, at http://www.aupeace.org/files/Wanis,%20Intro%20JIN%2013.1.pdf .