Democratic Peace

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

Liberal or democratic peace theory has points in favor of its argument but it also counts with flaws and weaknesses. For example, the theory analyses the relation between liberal states and between liberal states and non-liberal states, leaving aside a clear explanation of why non-liberal states have a tendency to

Mansfield and Jack Snyder studied the reasons why countries in the transitional phase of democratization exhibit aggressiveness and are war prone to fighting with democratic states. They discussed the manner fearful elites and emerging politicians often utilize nationalist appeals in rallying support from the increasingly empowered masses (Crocker, Hampson and Aall 161). Incomplete democratization in countries with less institutional strength and centralization tends to undermine the ability that the state has in managing elite interests and the newly politicized mass groups. Inability of the political institutions to suppress the consequent conflicts of interest lead to the development of dynamics that encourage hostility (Crocker, Hampson and Aall 169). Consistent with Waltz’s categorization, this article acknowledges the individual-level cause of conflict as the politically significant groups in growing democracies exhibit diverse and incompatible interests. The diversity of interests among individuals render the political coalitions challenging to maintain (Crocker, Hampson and Aall

Realism regards states as rational, solitary units in In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

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

The Truman Doctrine established a policy of containment against communist governments. People believed the spread of communism would overthrow the democratic ideals our country believed in and followed. After the policy of containment died down, a new policy of spreading democracy emerged. This new policy has both good and ill

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.

Assuming that in this instance peaceful means without disagreement, then I believe that it is highly improbable for the two branches to govern together peacefully even if both parts have the same party let alone separate ones. Whether one believes in nature or nurture, people are going to be highly individual with their own beliefs and morals, and in consequence, there are going to be differences in those beliefs that cause conflict even in individuals who fall under the same category(e.g. Republican).

Chapter Five: The State, Society, and Foreign Policy 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,

3. The democratic peace theory indicates that a war will never happen between two democracies. There is some few strength in this theory. Firstly, the democratic is obligated to the people from that country, which means that the ruler needs to get permission from the citizens on

A liberal democracy can be defined by a democratic recognition of the rights and freedoms of the individual, with the law limiting unbridled exercise of political power, by means of regular elections, freedom of; speech, association, religion and rule of law etc. By common recognition, pluralism is now considered to be part and parcel of liberal democratic societies. Coming from within the structural functionalist paradigm of sociological theory proponents of this view hold that political power in democratic societies is dispersed among several competing veto groups, with the state a neutral arbitrator to ensure competition is fair and

While we will not be directly supporting the rebels on the ground, we will support the rebels in their overthrow bid, giving the Syrian people a new home for democracy.

Democracies and Success in War Introduction Democratic governments have spread quickly around the world since the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union. Democracy has become one of the most desired regime types amongst states and is contributed to fostering wealth, stability, and even peace. Dan Reiter and Allan Stam argue that democracies are the most successful in war or military combat. In their book, Democracies at War, Stam and Reiter argue that after observing conflicts since the 1800’s, democratic governments tend to be more selective in choosing conflicts to participate in and democracies also have a propensity to win more often than authoritarian regimes.

Democracy represents freedom, peace, and the well-being of citizens As Secretary of the State, a member of the President’s Cabinet and National Security Council, the President should promote western democracy to other countries because the more countries become a democracy more peace will be created for the world. In other words, this will display the meaning of the Democratic Peace Theory. As a matter of fact, this creates less problems and threats for the U.S such as fewer enemies and potential military threats, which will enhance our U.S National Security. In addition, those who are in favor of spreading Democracy are making their citizens safer and are likely to be allied to the U.S. As a result, the use of military power will be lowered if countries have similar political systems as the U.S. However, countries such as China, Russia, Cuba, Arabian countries, and Islamic States who are against western democracy policies are getting into conflicts with the U.S.

To date, though, notably few studies have investigated whether democratic publics are more hesitant to attack democracies than autocracies.Moreover, the small body of actual work has not computed for variables that could confound the relationship bounded by shared democracy and public support for war, nor has it explored the mechanisms by which the regime nature of the adversary affects the public mood. Despite decades of inquisition on the democratic peace, we still lack convincing documentation about whether and how public opinion contributes to the absence of war among democracies. The leaders who make the ultimate decisions about war and peace in democracies have powerful impetus to respect the opinions of citizens. Public opinion matters for several reasons. First, leaders who disappoint or antagonize their constituents risk being removed from office. While early research believe that public opinion on foreign policy was incoherent (Almond 1960) and that politics “stopped at the water’s edge” (Wildavsky 1966), this interpretation has been supplanted by many other studies showing that mass opinion is logical and influential. Leaders know that citizens care about foreign policy, which foreign policy regularly plays a role in electoral campaigns, and that foreign policy mistakes can hurt leaders at the ballot box (Aldrich 1989; Gronke 2003; Gelpi 2007).