A Relationship Between Democracy And Making The World A More Peaceful Place? Essay

Since the dawn of mankind, there has always been a struggle for power, from our primitive ancestors to our present day, supposed, enlightened times. There have been a variety of systems that spawned and died in the political world. It can be assumed that the fruition of democracy emerged after the desire to create a system in which it was equal, sustainable, and transparent and where human rights was recognized. Robert Dahl, a prominent political scientist, had believed creating a democratic society in which he considered was perfect had to have (Dahl, 2000): effective participation, equal voting, enlightened understanding, an open agenda setting and inclusion (p.37-38) . In the present day, there are many countries that consider themselves

Charles Lipson in “Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace,” argues that Democratic Peace Theory offers an explanation as to why democracies, in particular, have avoided the war front. In his delineation, he cites the ideals of bargaining, mutual benefit, reluctance to bear the cost of war, and the restraint placed upon elected official as to why democracies, unlike non-democracies, have avoided conflict for as long as they have (Lipson 10). His argument, alike to other Democratic peace theorists, consist of the idea that all areas should be a democracy, as these benefits exist amongst democracies due to their shared values.

Democracy: A political system in which citizens enjoy a number of basic civil and political rights, and in which their most important political leaders are elected in free and fair elections and accountable under a rule of law (26). In the studies we have undertaken, comparing and exploring various countries and systems politically, economically, and psychologically throughout the quarter, this outcry of democracy has prevailed as a main theme. Successful countries such as the United States and Great Britain are based upon such democratic ideals. It is no wonder that countries have striven more recently toward this goal of democratization. Both the Russian and Mexican revolutions prove that democracy is an attainable goal in the next

The Democratic peace thesis, whose basic concepts were studied by Kant in the 1700s, is the theory that suggests that democracies have been pacific in their relations with one other and are unlikely to go to war with another democracy. “Democracies rarely fight each other (an empirical statement) because (b) they have other means of resolving conflicts between them and therefore do not need to fight each other (a prudential statement),and (c) they perceive that democracies should not fight each other (a normative statement about principles of right behavior), which reinforces the empirical state¬ment. By this reasoning the more democracies there are in the world, the fewer potential adversaries we and other democracies will have and the wider the zone of peace.” russet

Democracy in itself is a form a government that embraces the idea of peaceful resistance. The free state cannot retain its true status if it does accept the ideals of is constituents and their acts of protest. This issue is not a partisan one. Peaceful resistance and civil disobedience have a place in the free society, through the justification of the social contract; the people control the government and retain the ability to act in resistance. Through historical patterns it is clear that peaceful resistance has allowed for the positive progression of rights in free

Current Issues, 35th edition, examines both the pros and cons of spreading democracy. This text explains that promoting democracy is in the U.S. national interest because democracy creates a safer, more stable world. Democratic nations cooperate with other nations and the U.S. better because they are more answerable to their citizens. The text also claims that such nations will deny terrorists from a base from which to plan and carry out attacks.

The Democratic War Thesis argues a direct connection between democracy and inter-state conflict. This argument, is however, split between a strong and weak variant, with the former claiming that by nature, democracies are prone to war, while the latter notes democratic norms and structures that offer avenues for conflict, as to facilitate war (653). Bell points out that as the U.S. public called for war against Spain, “The people, it turned

Since the French Revolution, America has been actively pursuing promotion of democracy on a global scale. The desire to build inclusive political processes globally by America has an underlying motive of economic gain, veiled by the promotion of general liberties and civil rights. Democratic nations are more likely to honor international treaties, participate in global economic interactions, uphold the right to civil liberties, and less likely to engage in conflict. However, due to conflicting platforms of major parties and integral political leaders and representatives, the implementation of plans to promote democracy are consistently vetoed or are weak in practice. This fault of democracy promotion can be significantly attributed to divided government.

In his book, Fareed Zakaria concretely explores the vicissitudes of democracy’s limitations and thus offers exemplary arguments for the need for economic liberty followed by constraints and proper measures to prevent countries from descending into chaos. There is irrefutable credibility and merit to his assertion that conducting competitively fair and open elections, while failing to ensure the guarantee of liberties that are essential for the nation to flourish and prosper— is insufficient for a nation to be called democratic. In today’s world, what Zakaria considers “the democratic age,” most of American foreign policy visa-vie actors around the world is based on the premise that we are willing to prop, negotiate, and support nations

While there are many variables that constitute to the increase in peace or decrease in violence throughout history; many argue that democracy has a direct correlation with global peace and some say there is not enough there for a causation. However democracy is an important factor that should be considered when evaluating the state of human relations. In a Democracy, leaders are elected to represent the will of the citizens on how the country should be ran, and are held accountable for the success or detriment they may bring to the country. Citizens of a democracy are less likely to want to engage in costly wars as they will be the ones to inevitably subsidize it by using up valuable resources and lives."Most

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

Initially, I found the Democratic Peace Theory to seem hypocritical and backwards, but continuing to read more throughout the chapter, the conclusion that came, was that this theory actually makes a compelling argument. However, the fact that democracy leaders will wage war in the efforts of building more democratic systems, often referred to as expanding the “zone of peace”, in hopes for attaining worldwide peace among the states, was the exact portion that seemed hypocritical. The compelling part of the argument, as previously mentioned, is based on the “Dyadic Model” of the democratic peace theory that stresses three supporting arguments: the structural argument, the normative argument,

Winston Churchill once remarked that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In agreement with his statement, this paper will examine the problems of democratic governments using specific examples, and compare it to the failure of fascist governments in Nazi Germany and Italy and communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its