Debunking the Democratic Peace Theory Essay

The sustainment of the egalitarian quietness system started with the writings of has its grow in the writings of German Philosopher Immanuel Kant. In 1795 Kant went talked ab away perpetual quietness based parti completelyy upon states sharing republican constitutions. He then said, that a republican form of g overnment, exemplifying the rule of law, provides a feasible al-Qaeda for states to overcome structural anarchy and to secure ataraxisful relations among themselves. Kant continues to postulate that once the aggressive interests of absolute monarchists be tamed and once the dress of respect for individual rights is engrained by republican organisations, state of struggles would appear as the chance to peoples struggle out-of-the- office(preno(prenominal)inal)e, rather than an instrument for growing a state, as it was used for some centuries. This was the true beginning of what we now know to be the Democratic Peace Theory.This opening remained dormant in the m inds of realists and neo-realists that strongly twistd the world of international relations for centuries leading into the Cold fight. In 1972, American sociologist dean Babst published an article in which he reported no wars submit been fought among indep stamp outent nations with elective administrations between 1789 and 1941. This enlightened the worlds of policy-making cognition and international relations and ever so since studies have followed this speculation, constantly supporting it and despotic kins between democracies. Expanding on Kants original com placement of antiauthoritarian peace, political science professor Bruce Russett a very hot topic, exclaiming, democracies had rargonly if ever g unity to war with each different as a feature. With this easy statement, Russett made political scientists either accept or oppose the representative peace theory and countless attempts to support each repoint of take cargon with historic evidence.Democratic peac e theorists have long asserted that all democracies be not only more peaceful than other brasss, provided are prone to fight against countries ran by other forms of political relation when they are intermeshed in war. These theorists and political science buffs argue that representative peace is supported by a long history of peace and politeness between democracies versus military body process elsewhere. However, the participatory peace theory is tangled because it prematurely takes a stance on the grounds that a coefficient of correlation between pop status and incidence of war is proof of an friend relationship between nations opposed to a statistical anomaly. Does a historic anomaly excuse the desire for mutual egalitarian passivity? Ph.D. Sebastian Rosato of the University of cabbage argues, Democracies do not reliably externalize their domestic norms of involution cloture and do not trust or respect one some other when their interests clash. Rosato trifles a v ery accurate observation, democracies tend to be rather incommunicative or even circumvent surrounding conflict resolution in particular with other democracies.Having a elective government does not assure cosmopolitan peace, and different forms of country assure disputes and clashes between governments between exceedingly elective societies. In reality, some of the almost thorough liberal republican end up in war with non-democratic nations, justifying combat with the claim of riddleing democracy. though stinting interests are typically apparent and the underlying motive for warfare, media throughout democratic countries end up not only tolerating, but excessively accepting and normalizing war as if it was a trending topic that came and went. Representative democratic systems lead to monolithic party structures that initiate war and still bring forth elected to new terms and positions in government. Advocates of the democratic peace theory often fail to discuss compound wars and civil wars, as they do not support the theory and its ultimate goal of general peace. The histories of many democratic countries have proven to not hold up with the democratic peace theory. Democratic countries have repeatedly fought colonial and civil wars which critics head to make the democratic peace theory false.Political Scientists Ravlo, Gleditcsch, and Dorussen expand upon the colonial war aspect of opposing the Democratic Peace Theory in Colonial War and the Democratic Peace in 2003s The journal of Conflict Resolution. They elaborate on reasons suggested to explain wherefore colonial wars do not invalidate the democratic peace argument, saying, First, although democracies rarely, if ever, fight one another, they come in in war as much as non-democracies. Thus, mixed political dyads have the greatest propensity for war. Second, the nature of colonial conflict has changed over time. Finally, a correct assessment of the democratic peace argument ask to rely on a multivariate model. The trio makes great points regarding colonial wars and how they work against the democratic peace theory.Regarding the first point, if non-state rivals were perceived to be nondemocratic, democratic states would regularly engage in colonial wars. Also, the nature of colonial conflict has indeed changed over time, and the relationship between democracy and colonial war is tested in imperialist, colonial, and postcolonial eras. With appropriate control variables in place, it is apparent that the positivistic relationship between democracy and war begins to vanish. History withal shows us that in the post-World War II period, democracies begin to fight colonial far less than non-democracy states. There are various reasons wherefore this occurred other than a simple theory that universal democracy equals world peace without suspense. earlier this may have occurred due to changes in the views non-European peoples, typically in non-democracies impertinent of t he primarily Caucasian western world. Legendary Political Scientist and Nobel Peace see Nominee stresses, It is primarily democracies that have made colonial conquests and fought wars to prevent the spill of colonies, and, Preferring to deal only with coherent, mature, and stable democracies, when these varying regimes prevent coherence, maturity, and stability abroad, is distinctly ethnocentric.Excluding the civil and colonial war histories form democratic governments from the study and governing body of the democratic peace theory not only makes the affirmative point of view on the theory inaccurate, but also does come shoot very ethnocentric. In short, civil and colonial wars expose some of the bloodiest and most dysfunctional, corrupt eras in the governments of democracies around the globe. In the published piece, Democracies are Their stimulate Enemies, Political apprehension Professor Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn claims, In watching the events throughout the world over the past few weeks, one is struck by how profoundly challenged democracy has become. In the United States, Great Britain, and even Israel, thoroughgoing democratic values appear to be undermined by the political look of elected leaders. All of this is occurring at a time when the West is assay to sell democracy to the world. While America is organism criticized for starting war through attempting to spread democracy with clear economic motives, Israel is realizing the extent of its cordial and economic disparities as a few rich families have their custody in much of the government, and The United Kingdom is seeing regular revolts and threat attacks in its economic centers.Democracies are becoming their own enemy in promoting a democratic government, and showing how they react when under social and economic pressure. Democratic nations rarely engage in wars of aggression against other democratic nations, absent substantial provocation or dire necessity. Nations tend to go to war mainly b ased upon Expansion of territory or ideals, disaffirmation and pre-emptive strike upon a threatening nation, or conflicts of interest that are hidden through diplomacy. These other vital conflicts are worth further consideration. ii democracies could still find themselves inexplicable conflicts of interest. If both two democracies required resources in a border region to prevent their economic turmoil, economies from collapsing, and there wasnt enough resource in that border region to share between the two of them, that just may pierce them against each other. Under conditions when democracies are in competition under the pressure of economy, the democratic peace theory supplies no explanation for why widespread democracy would work equally peacefully for all nations.Democratic Peace Theory harps on the idea that democratic nation-states wont go to war because its citizens would vote against heads of government for re-election for putting the nation in conflict. No one equals the idea of war despite whatever government they live under, or the idea of family members being sent off for extended periods of time without a promise of re makeing. check to Dr. Hebert West, correlation does not equate to fountain is one of the first and for the first time rules of the social sciences, and causality requires several alternative explanations to be proven wrong. The fact that the correlation between democracy and war does not equate to causation proves that though correlation between democracy and peace is strong by many accounts, sufficient evidence to prove that a causal relationship exists in the desired direction by democratic peace theorists, without the influence of other variables, has yet to be published.This disproves a key part of the democratic peace theory that the need for the face of government discourages igniting war. The knowledge domain of planetary Relations has forever debated when and why democracies would go to war with one another. Deba ters discord that liberal ideas in democracies help them avoid war. The over legitimacy of experiential evidence typically used to defend democratic peace also comes under fire in most political fields. Using historical evidence to prove that widespread democracy bring world peace is a very far fetched comment without examining all the details that make it possible for democracies to engage in war internationally with having the action always take place within the non-democratic state. The theory has been difficult to prove empirically, which is why it remains a theory.While the idea of democratic peace is enticing, it does not allow for the error that occurs even when international democracy is accomplished. When looking at the face of historical circumstance the democratic peace theory may appear to be true. However, when one uses this historical anomaly as a predictive tool for future behavior of states seems ill-informed when no one field of politics can agree on one side of t he argument, or give solid evidence that democratic peace would be fortunate even if applied. The longevity of democratic peace is strongly unlikely as no two democracies have ever been the same. Difference in ideals encourages nations to force their form of democracy on other countries. Democratic peace theory takes advantage of circumstance. This debunks the idea that if all nations were liberal democracies, there would be no war because no two democracies are the same and the urge to spread one nations ideals will always cause conflict.A strong example of a democracy that helps break down the democratic peace theory is southwestern Africa. On April 26, 1994, confederation Africans of all heritages voted like never before to mark the symbolic end of apartheid and the beginning of southeastward Africas rough transition to democracy. In nearly two decades, South Africa has achieved greater political stability and greater economic freedom and growth, grave public debt. While majo r political parties hold on to democratic ways, more South Africans now receive education and have entre to electricity and clean water. However, South Africa still has major challenges ahead such as extremely high HIV/AIDS rates and government corruption. South Africa is a democracy in that it is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. South Africa is rather peaceful with its abutting countries (Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique and Namibia), being that the last official war South Africa has engaged in was the Boer War (1899-1902).The war was supposedly based on British elaboration with an underlying cause being the presence in the Transvaal territory of the largest gold-mining daedal in the world, beyond direct British control. This sounds familiar, that the United Kingdom, a democracy, would eat up and pillage for economic, monetary benefit. South Africa is a perfect ex ample of why universal democracy would not manifest into long-term world peace. South Africa is a representative democracy in that its current government is a variety of democracy, opposed to direct democracy. South Africas legislative Branch consists of the topic Council of Provinces where there are 90 seats are in use(p) by 10 members elected by each of the indian lodge provincial legislatures for five-year terms, and the field Assembly where 400 seats are occupied by members elected by popular vote under a system of proportional representation to serve five-year terms.South Africa also has a common judiciary system where The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of conjure and High Courts have the power to protect and regulate their own processes, and to develop the common law. However, South Africas executive complication is unique In that the people to not vote directly for their president, Jacob Zuma, instead South African citizens only have the power to elect members of the National assembly, which in turn ends up choosing the next president for the country. In a world where the democratic peace theory is put into action, South Africas different way of running a government while still under the human action of democracy would sure clash with democracies of the western world.The Peoples land of China is a huge world player and has seen an incredible economic boom since the 1990s. Chinas Legislative Branch has a National Peoples Congress where the level of Congress directly infra them indirectly chooses them. The Judicial royal court has a typical high court and smaller courts. However the executive branch is run by communistic Party of China (CPC), whose power is enshrined Chinas constitution. Local politicians are voted for but a hierarchical electoral college chooses higher officials and the president, Hu Jintao, a position that was officially created in Chinas 1982 constitution. Though Chinas Communist Party has modernized its authoritarian ism to fit the times, it is still certainly an authoritarian government.As a communist country that runs on a social organization characterized by submission to authority and its administration, which is, compared to the size of the country, backbreaking in a small group of politicians. China isnt engaged in war, and hasnt been since the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. Also China still owns Tibet after(prenominal) invading the territory in 1950. Given this information, China maintains relationships with many of its neighbors so that the two nations never reach the point of war, but cannot be classified as non-violent wit neighboring countries Afghanistaniistan, Bhutan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Vietnam.The Islam country of Afghanistan is made of one of the worlds oldest nations. Afghanistan is certainly a totalitarian country, being that the Islam Republic of Afghanistan is a political where the state holds tota l authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life. Afghanistans judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Appeal Courts. The legislative branch consists of a National Assembly, which consists of an upper and lower house. The executive branch, however, is run by the president, which is voted in by the public through a run off majority vote. chair Hamid Karzai is the head of the executive branch, serving as the head of state and the Command-in-Chief of the fortify Forces of Afghanistan.Afghanistan is currently in a war with the United States. In fact, the War in Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001, as the armed forces of the United States, the Kingdom, France, Australia, and the Afghan United Front launched Operation Enduring Freedom following the folk 11, 2001 terror attacks. America has tried to introduce democracy to Afghanistan while fighting the war on their land and killing their citizens, a common action of democr acies around the world. Hence, Afghanistan is currently not in good peaceful with its neighbors, which embarrass Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran.Indubitably, the democratic peace theory is simply just that, a theory. It is enigmatic that democracies are less violent that other countries, despite not having change disputes with other democracies. With that in mind, the tendency for democracies to attack fledgling democracies has shown to stand out among the observed pattern that democracies do not fight with each other if the hegemonic or economic or hegemonic benefits are high enough. This debunks the claim that democracy determines the level of peace between any given states. Perhaps relationships between democracies are simply just a facade and raise the question of alternative explanations, such as a spurious relationship.Political Science Professor Erik Gartzke proposes that, it is capitalism, and not democracy, that is the in viewent variable which c auses peace and war. Despite the validness of this claim, one would doubt that the state of international war and affairs would depend upon one single variable regardless. It is much more likely that a combination of variables between nations, under specific conditions, creates one of countless outcomes indispensable for the potential for war. The spread of democracy is relatively new compared to other widespread forms of government and statehood, providing far too few examples to weigh its statements on.Works CitedBritish Military & Criminal History in the period 1900 to 1999. Stephens consume Room. http//www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/boer_war.htm (accessed November 29, 2012).Chan, Steve. In Search of Democratic Peace Problems and Promise. Mershon International Studies Review 41 (1997) 59-91.Chan, Steve. In Search of Democratic Peace Problems and Promise. Mershon International Studies Review 41 (1997) p. 60CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA. People. English.people.com.c n/constitution/constitution.html (accessed November 20, 2012).Dorussen, Han, Nils ray of light Gleditsch, and Hilde Ravlo. Colonial War and the Democratic Peace. The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 47, no. No. 4 (2003) 520-548. http//www.jstor.org/stable/3176207 (accessed November 20, 2012).Doyle, Michael W. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Debating the Democratic Peace. Eds. Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller. Cambridge The MIT Press, 1996, p.24Gartzke, Erik A. Erik A. Gartzke, interrelate Professor, University ofCalifornia, San Diego. UCSD.Haas, Michael. 1995. When Democracies Fight ane Another, Just What is the Punishment for Disobeying the Law? Paper presented at the 91st annual run into of the American Political Science Association, August, Chicago. 7.Haas, Michael. 1995. When Democracies Fight One Another, Just What is the Punishment for Disobeying the Law? Paper presented at the 91st annual meeting of the American Political Science A ssociation, August, Chicago. 14.Khan, Dr. Gilbert. Democracies are Their Own Worst Enemies. The impudently Jersey Jewish News, August 17, 2011. http//www.njjewishnews.com/ (accessed November 20, 2012).Russett, Bruce. Grasping the Democratic Peace Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton Princeton University Press, 1993 p. 4Sebastian Rosato (2003). The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review, 97, pp 585-602.West, Dr. Herbert. The History of Correlation Does Not Imply causality .Slashdot. October 3, 2012. http//news.silobreaker.com/the-history-of-correlation-does-not-imply-causation. (Accessed November 20, 2012).