Democratic Peace

The United States was the first successful democracy in modern. Why democracy has worked well in the United States. Why Iraq cannot become a democracy? Why Judaism is not compatible with democracy? What true democracy requires a time commitment? Proponents of democracy believe it is the best political system, although opponents believe it is more complicated, particularly in Mid-East nations.

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

Democratic Peace Theory is another example of how liberals prove that the spread of democratic principles is beneficial. M.W Doyle and R.J. Rummel came up with this theory in the end of the 20th century, which posits that democracies are hesitant to start a conflict with other democracies. “When the citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible” (Doyle, 1986, p.1151). The reason of this theory is that liberal state that individuals, without the help from the government, are naturally very similar. Democracies are favourable in the setting environment where ideas of progress and liberty are common. Peace has to be established through diplomacy and war only used against authoritarian and undemocratic states in order to maintain the peace in the state system. The main example of the relevance of the theory is Europe Peace. Europe was the bloodiest continent on Earth for many centuries, but since 1945 because of the increased integration and cooperation there were no general wars between European states themselves. Liberals also mention the importance of the creation of collective security – institutions, which would be a legal framework for interaction in order to promote democratic values. Neo-liberals, such as Joseph Nye or Robert Keohane argue that

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 greatest contribution I hope to make in this paper is a deeper understanding of how democracies choose and fight wars. Due to time constraints, this paper is only addressing one case study that deals with two wars. As in any case study the results are limited to that particular case. However, the research creates more in depth examination over the arguments by Stam and Reiter and, in a more general sense, attempts to analyze propositions made by democratic theorist.

We have all heard the terms “right wing conservatives” and “left wing liberals,” but many people are not quite sure which wing is correct. Although both sides have good arguments for separate issues, in my opinion, liberalism should be guiding our thinking when it comes to our economic ways, and political rights; liberalism is the root of our American soil. Many people believe that steering away from liberalism is the right way to create change, and build upon our freedoms, but by returning to what our country was built upon, we can continue the aim of a free, fair and prosperous society. This paper will guide you through the two main phases of liberalism: classical and modern; their manifestations; and how as a democracy, liberalism represents a strategy practical for a free society.

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.

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,

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).

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

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).

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

"Democratic peace theory is a theory which posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies"(Michael Doyle,1983).Democratic peace theory holds that because of political and cultural similarity and limits of democracy mechanisms in democratic countries, in international relations, a majority of democratic countries would perfer to choose negotiations or other peaceful ways to resolve the dispute. rested on these factors, democratic countries could sustain the so-called "peaceful state". In contrast, this peaceful state would not exist between non-democratic countries.

Written around 1971, Chinua Achebe’s short story “Civil Peace” highlights the themes of optimism and thankfulness for life. In this tale, a confidently optimistic man, Jonathan Iwegbu, lives through the Nigerian Civil war as well as his wife and three out of his four children. After working hard because of all he has lost in the Civil War, he was being held hostage by thieves for twenty pounds of reward money, which makes him realize the importance of what is happening in the present rather than regretting all that has happened during the war. Chinua Achebe develops characterization using the methods of characterization, character traits, and significance of the traits of Jonathan to illustrate when challenges confront people, they make right decisions if they have an optimistic attitude. Achebe develops characterization through methods of characterization.

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.