Democracy And Violent Civil Conflict

Throughout history, our world has constantly been bruised and battered by civil turmoil. Today, the civil war in Syria decimates the country; the Israeli and Palestinian conflict rages on; tens of thousands of people have been killed in South Sudan's ongoing civil war. It is not always easy to isolate what exactly ignites the flames of war, but, whenever possible, finding a workable, calm and satisfying solution to a potential uprising is preferable.

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

Political upheaval is defined by Harff an abrupt change in the political community caused by the formation of a state or regime through violent conflict, redrawing of a state boundaries, or defeat in international war. In other words, it is a violent and sudden disturbance in government or politics. This is proven because “all genocides of the last half-century occurred during or in the immediate aftermath of internal wars, revolutions, and regime collapse” (57). She also explains that the ideologies that start revolutions can also encourage ethnic hatred which provides a motive for mass killings of the perceived enemies of the new order that comes into

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,

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

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).

Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks,

The type of government rule is an explanation for the invasion of Iraq that goes against the economic structure argument, that is the idea that whether states are democratic or not affects the way that states interact (Bova, 2012). Democratic peace theory suggests that democratic countries are less prone to engage in war than those that are non-democratic. As political scientist James Fearon argued, democracies have an advantage when it comes to crisis bargaining, democratic leaders when taking a stand during an international crisis cannot easily back down without backlash from the citizens at home. As a result, opposing states understand that the democratic leaders cannot make hollow threats and should be taken seriously (Bova, 2012).

In examining the multiple possible causes of civil wars and how to code them there has been plenty of debate. Despite all the differences and variations in definitions of civil wars and focuses on causes, authors Fearon, Laitin (2003), Collier and Hoeffler (2004) and Sambanis (2004) all manage to agree that income level and population size have a significant effect on the probability a country has on going into a civil war.

The article “Explaining the Severity of Civil Wars” by Bethany Lacina looks at why some civil wars are more deadly as compared to others by investigating a new data set that shows the number of combat deaths in civil wars from 1946 to 2002. The article looks at the statistics behind the deaths in the conflicts such as the era, the type of conflict ant the region that the conflict takes place in. The article also uses the strength of the state, the type of regime and cultural characteristics in a test to see if they are predictors for the number of combat deaths in a conflict.

Historically, a general tendency to engage in violent confrontations has characterized states. Why do conflicts and wars among states occur especially considering that careful and rational actors are entrusted with such decisions? Numerous answers to the question have been suggested. Considering the significance that the question raises and the varying answers, it becomes crucial to come up with perspectives on the causes of conflict and war. This paper will examine the individual-, state- and system/structural levels of conflicts that Kenneth N. Waltz, in his book, Man, the State and War, noted to be essential to understand the cause of wars within and between states. In the book,

Wars, pogroms, genocides, inquisitions, crusades, and political actions have caused many to lose their lives or kill others for centuries. Majority of them are over the clashes in beliefs of ideologies, politics, philosophies, and religion (and usually a combination of several reasons). These belief-systems, when explained and read about, may inject a sense of being magical and the ability to bring peace to the world to those who are innocent. But when they are confronted by faced with the clashing with another belief system, they fail to prove how their belief-system can bring peace to the world. I will be focusing on religious beliefs, which are sets of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered

The second or al-Aqsa intifada began the day after Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Dome of the Rock or al-Aqsa mosque complex in Jerusalem in late September 2000. Palestinian demonstrators and worshipers were fired upon, sparking the ongoing uprising. This intifada differed from the first. While the first intifada was democratic, involving widespread participation, was secular, basically non-violent, and contributed to peace efforts, this intifada was characterized by participation of a few, the use of violence against civilians and military alike, and widespread religious idioms. It decreased allies of the Palestinians among the Israelis and in the west. Where protesters in Israel previously joined the Palestinians, now Israeli peace