Democracy And Violent Civil Conflict

Sectarian violence in the west was influenced by people that believed that there way of living was the only way to live. They shaped some parts of the west by causing problems with other people and religious people by intimidating them to not move there and killing and causing wars like they did with the massacre of bear river. The Mormons believed in one way of life, they tried to control the Native Americans and their rights to try and move and start new from where they once was. The Native Americans were treated poorly due to the fact they were different from others. They lived a different lifestyle and believed in a different type of religion from everyone else. Because they were different and was wanting to move away from Missouri to

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,

Wars are usually fought for getting resources or based on ideologies or religion. Democratic institutions may sway public opinion, but this still may not result in future wars. Domestic order is in opposition to international anarchy and highlights the challenges facing international institutions. We need to identify different domestic interests that value the cost of war differently. The government itself can be an actor that can have interests in threatening or starting a war. Democratic peace tries to explain that having a democratic world will result in less war, but that is not true. Wars against democracies can be predicted by chance. An example of this would be the American Civil War when democracies fought one

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

Primarily, if one looks at the variants of the democratic peace theory that argues democracies are not likely to pursue one another in a violent manner resulting in conflict or war, they can clearly see that democracies are generally peaceful in relations with one another. The rational public thesis states that democracies show the peaceful tendencies of people who are aware of the destruction that war will bring upon them. Also, the culture thesis makes evident the fact that democracy

The readings examined this week focus on the relationship between democracy and repression. More specifically, Christian Davenport adequately demonstrates the how repression and democracy influence on another and how sometimes they can work together interchangeably (Goodhart, 2016: 237). Davenport discusses the concepts of democracy and repression and how they work simultaneously with one another. He advances that “democracy is more likely to place greater constraints on its political leaders so that they will be less able to do what they wish and will constantly feel a greater degree of oversight/constraints” (237). Repression, on the other hand, involves the state infringing the rights of its citizens through coercion and suppression (237).

No matter how civilized a culture may be, the human race continues to have stories of social and political unrest. Why exactly is that? Over time, people have been taught to accept the rules given to them by their governing bodies only to see those same rules slowly disappear through steady opposition. Hence, the world saw a new era of democracy unfold. Nonetheless, whether a society is democratic or autocratic, people still experience social cataclysms.

The author of the article presents their theory around the premise of looking at civil conflicts and determining factors as to why some of these conflicts are deadlier than others. The author is looking for an explanation as to why there is a variation in the number of combat deaths in civil wars from 1946 to 2002. Lacina uses the severity of battle violence in civil conflicts as the dependent variable in the test. The independent variables are broken into three groups: State Power which consists of military quality, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the availability of foreign aid and intervention, and the role of rough terrain; the second group is Regime type which is represented as whether the country is a democracy or not; and the last group is Cultural Diversity which is comprised of ethnic and religious polarization. After Lacina runs the experiment she finds that only three of the Independent

The Democratic Peace theory states that countries that are democracies will not go to war with each other. (Mitchell 2015) It is believed that two democracies would not go to war with each other because the people within each country would prefer peace. It is also unlikely for two democracies to go to war because they share some of the same values. It is also believed that democracies tend to have more wealth and vital infrastructure, standing to lose more if they go to war.

In Eva Bellins article “The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective,” she talks about how democracy can work and the specific things that need to be done. In the factor for many countries in the middle like Iraq this can never happen or work. “The strength, coherence, and effectiveness of the state's coercive apparatus distinguish among cases of successful revolution, revolutionary failure, and nonoccurrence (Bellin 2004)” This goes into the sympathizers of the people who use violence towards the current regime or government. This can be seen in Iraq with the Sunni sympathizer who would house rebels who were in the groups of ISIS or Al Qaeda, they subsequently got enough power to cause horrible and large destruction. “Democratic transition can be carried out successfully only when the state's coercive apparatus lacks the will or capacity to crush it. Where that coercive apparatus remains Intact and opposed to political reform, democratic transition will not occur.” (Bellin 2004) This was like a future representation of the turmoil in Iraq, although the article was published in 2004, I can take direct knowledge that, since the rebels were not crushed by the political regimes of the future, they cannot have a peace or even phosphorous time. This goes into the tribes or ethnic political differences and how they feel or act after these

While it is well known that democratic states are just as likely to go to war as their non-democratic counterparts and that no two major democracies have been involved in war, no one has been able to offer an explanation for why democracies are better suited for peace. Dixon attempts to offer his own narrowed explanation due to previous arguments being rendered invalid.

The question assumes that there is a linear relationship between inequality and armed conflict; the rise of the former inevitably leads to the increase of the latter. However, in the absence of functioning communism or utopian egalitarianism, we need to concede that our world is full of inequalities, but not all parts of the world are equally ridden by conflict. Moreover, large N-studies of civil war, conducted over the past few years, all seem to conclude that inequality is not directly linked to the risk of civil war (Collier&Hoeffler, 2004: 563-595; Fearon & Laitin, 2003: 75-90; Hegre, Gissinger, Gleditsch, 2003: 251-276). Following this lead, I will argue for a non-linear link between inequality and conflict and for the multi-causality

Although countries in South America are not democratic for most of the last century, it has the fewest inter-state wars there, which can be explained by geopolitics with balance-of-power, the trade-off between benefits and costs, and relations among countries in this area.

Using [cite]’s definition of regime type, I have identified three types of regimes in this paper: democracies, dictatorships, and mixed regimes. Democracies are defined as regimes that do not repress its people and include the highest proportion of the populace; dictatorships are highly repressive and exclude most of the population; and mixed regimes use moderate repression and exclude a significant proportion of their populace (CITE). To understand the reasoning behind my hypothesis, I turn to the democratic and inter-democratic peace theories, in which my hypothesis is fundamentally rooted. These theories come from the liberal school of thought in international relations and posit that democracies do not, or are less likely, to go to war, and do not go to war with other democracies (Elman 758). There is much scholarly

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.