Reliable Partners : How Democracies Have Made A Separate Peace

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

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

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.

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

Aside from stability and loyalty which democracy brought into our society, we have seen inequality that generates conflicts. These conflicts can be seen in class, race and gender.

Democracies are controlled by the people, and for the people, or so it is commonly defined. All people have their own opinions of how they think the government should work. Democracies symbolize freedom and justice as they appeal to the people. The first document, “The Gettysburg Address” focuses on the effects of the Civil War and how the people should react, instead of how the government is run. The second document, the “Funeral Oration”, explains how the people themselves could form the perfect democracy by Pericles standards. With this evidence in mind, the “Funeral Oration”, a speech given by Pericles, holds more extensive knowledge about the definition of democracy than Lincoln in “The Gettysburg Address”.

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

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

Democracy is, according to the online Cambridge dictionary, ‘a system of government based on the belief in freedom and equality between people, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves’. It is the policy that most western countries strive to achieve. It is now the pinnacle of government, that to achieve a wholly democratic nation is something worth celebrating. It is displayed as a universal good but it’s not everything that it has become known to be. I should clarify that I still think that I prefer it to nearly all other forms of government but nevertheless I still think that it is not what we have been led to believe it is. In this essay I will be outlining the key problems that could

Over the previous two decades, the number of countries acquiring a democratic regime has increased dramatically. Democracy is a political regime allowing a system of government that is based on the belief of freedom and equal justice. Power is held by elected representatives through free and fair elections, resulting in a system that reflects the people’s choices. Democratic countries rarely, if ever, wage war on each other and tend to resolve disputes in a more peaceful manner rather than declaring war on their opposition. However, they are not the utopias of peace that many people envision democracies to be. The invasion of Iraq by the United States of America in 2003 stands as a strong example where the impact of a forced regime change has resulted in unrest and violence. IGO’s like the UN promote democracy in a less invasive and obstructive way and are a lot more successful. The invasion of Iraq clearly demonstrates the dangers of promoting democracy in an undemocratic international system. The spread of democracy cannot be imposed by force as it is discrediting the idea of freedom that the regime itself represents. Is democracy a reason for peace just as much as it is a justification for war? I believe democracy does make the world a more peaceful place, however, the forceful spread of democracy does not.

Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls.

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 decision about war, they cannot act on their own. Of course, people don’t like to go war. Further, there is a shared value among democratic countries. For instance, the U.S and the United Kingdom don’t compete against the other, while the U.S and North Korean are in the different story. A country without democracy based shares a little common background with the other. Finally, democracy countries are wealthier than those who are not. The evidence shows that countries

The Greeks, Athenians in particular, influenced Dalhs’ work. The author asserts that most states claim to know what the practice of democracy is. However, the author insists that the term democracy has brought about confusion across the different cultures. Dahl gives the view of what democracy entails. Dahl in simple terms says that a democracy means the rule by people. Dahl clearly says more about the literal definition of the term democracy by giving specification of the requirements for democratic decision-making (Pp.108-114). According to Dahl, a democratic process must ensure that there is effective participation in the voting process among all citizens and specifically adults who are bound to the collective decision making of the society. Democratic state should provide all citizens with the opportunity to understand the civic issues of the country and let them have control over issues

Democratic Peace Theory The concept of the Democratic Peace Theory is based on the idea that whether states are likely to go to war or choose peace depends on the type of political system they have.

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