This essay will answer this question through a variety of means. In order to measure the question posed, we must first define the concepts of democracy, international peace and security. After having defined these, we must apply the promotion of democracy, using examples from the past to consider whether this is a worthwhile endeavour, and if so, how should we approach it to ensure we achieve what we set out to. This essay will give reference to, but will not provide a comprehensive analysis of, the ‘Democratic Peace Theory’.
The first, and possibly most difficult concept to define ¬¬¬¬¬is democracy itself. Beetham[1] suggests that in order to reach a definition from the many contested options, one must understand that there are core principles of democracy, which can be used to create a definition concurrent with the majority of those posed in the academic field. He identifies these principles as being those of majoritarian rule, consensual rule, representation of ‘public good’ or ‘popular will.’ He also identifies the importance of political equality and the furthering of public good over private interests. The ability to express counter-arguments to pose different points of view are also said to be integral to democratic processes. Representative democracy, Beetham says, goes further requiring the equal opportunity of all citizens to stand for election, the equal accountability of those elected, that the democracy must be representative of the electorate and that citizens are able to participate in political processes through organizations and access to their representatives.
Peace, in simple definition, is measured by the absence of violence. However one must then ask what form violence must take in order to be considere...
... middle of paper ...
...ty to face these challenges in a way which will improve the outcome for all involved.[19]
Considering the above, is promotion to democracy among the many un-democratic governments a good move towards international peace and security? Use of ‘hard power’, and military intervention are generally unwelcome, and we must consider that this could have long lasting consequences for both democratic and un-democratic nations, and whether international efforts are not best put towards co-operation to ensure we meet the oncoming difficulties of climate change on a united front. This is not to say that all democracy promotion should cease; ‘soft power’ democracy promotion is beneficial and generally welcome in most countries. A shift to democracy is best undertaken with guidance and support from those democratic ‘veteran’ countries, in order to ensure the best outcome for all.
Before that can be established, I think a definition of democracy should be stated so that it may be called upon later in this essay. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, democracy is stated as "the principle of social equality and respect for the individual within a community" .
The idea of a lasting, ideally global, peace has been present in the minds of people for centuries. The most notable formulation of this is Kant’s vision of perpetual peace. “He saw it as a condition that needed to be maintained by politics between states with governments which represented society and separation of power. From this basic framework stems the idea called “democratic peace theory” (pg. 82). Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) asserts that democracies do not generally fight other democracies because they share common norms and domestic institutions that constrain international, state actors from going to war. Sebastian Rosato states, “In practical terms democratic peace theory provides the intellectual justification for the belief that spreading democracy abroad will perform the dual task of enhancing American national security promoting world peace” (pg. 585).
This Journal entry by Plattner, just like Fukuyama’s, He defines the meaning of Democracy and explores its relationship with the democratic system. But unlike Fukuyama’s entry where he is not in favor of democracy, Plattner in his defined both democracy and governance in an unbiased point of view. Although he adds on his personal views, his unbiased statement is prevalent which makes his entry a good source of reference because he not only provides information but because of his purely formal way of studying democracy and its relationship towards governance and which serves as a guide to an unbiased
In countries where conflict has raged, but where the political will has developed to work towards a non-violent state of being, DDR has been a policy to aid the sustainable development of peace. Ana Cutter Patel writes that DDR is an integral part of peace building; it tries to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate former combatants in order to establish security which is one of the key components of peace. According to Sandra Pogodda et al. DDR is also part of a state building practice, for demobilization and disarmament of ex-combatants ensures the state's monopoly on the use of force. The intervening organizations that practice DDR, often but not exclusively the UN, are assisting the government to ensure security in the country. Should these interventions be considered political? This essay will argue that because DDR processes take on an important role in the political sphere of a country and influence the distribution of power by taking away the physical power of rebel groups, the DDR process should be considered political. Organizations conducting DDR will have their own interests, and directly influence political will in a country. Furthermore, lasting demobilization will likely depend on the distribution of political and socio-economic power, which will be assessed by DDR, being closely linked development processes.
Democracy has been a topic discussed for hundreds of years and a general idea of the topic would be the “governing of people by the people”. Many people have attempted “to sketch characteristics, or outcomes or preconditions, because democracy itself” (4) has been seen to be a difficult concept to define. In John L Anderson’s ‘What is Democracy?’ (2004) he takes an alternative approach to understanding democracy. Anderson explains that there is no “tidy set of ideas”, but rather “an indirect approach to defining democracy” (4) in order to understand and teach the concept of democracy. He states that there are four notion to achieve this: seeking the public interest helps us develop a morality based upon concern for others; governing others
An idea that pervades the contemporary realm of international political thought is the ‘liberal democratic peace’ (LDP) theory. This theory is based upon the major tenet that democratic states do not engage in warfare with one another, and for thus reason generates and sustains a harmonious political environment. The democratic peace theory certainly has its merits – provisioning strong evidence in defense to its many critiques (Kegley & Raymond 1994; Layne 1994; Rosato 2003). However, it is also not a theory without minor flaws that undermine its hypothesis (Dafoe, Oneal & Russett 2013; International Studies Association 2005; Kumar 1994). In spite of these otherwise excusable flaws, the process of democratization should be considered a plausible mechanism for the promotion of peace and security throughout the global order.
The democratic peace theory postulates that liberal democracies are hesitant and unlikely to engage in armed conflict with other democracies. This idea dates back centuries to German philosopher Immanuel Kant and other 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers. By examining the political similarities, economic system, geographical location, and other factors of generic democracies, proponents of the democratic peace theory argue that democracies have a vested interest not to war with one another. However, other forms of government are exempt from these principles unique to democracies. Autocracies, a system of government which assigns one individual absolute power and control, violate all facets of the democratic peace theory. Autocracies lack the
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, and Havard Hegre. "Peace and Democracy: Three Levels of Analysis." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 41.2 (1997): 283-310. ProQuest. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.
This last factor is the systems that are in place that promote non-violence and the extent to which these systems take in order to control this peace. Democratic peace, in theory, represents two nations that are democratic with the absence of war between them as well as the norms and culture within these nations that promote peaceful political disputes (Layne, pg. 3). Where the systems differ from the democratic nations is that the democratic peace theory and the systems to keep democracies at peace are simply theories. These theories are just theories unless carried out by the nations that uphold them. That being said it is the nations that contribute to the forceful expansion of non-violence by using violence on non-democratic nations. It is not the theories or ideas of democratic peace that promote such interventions. However, some systems to control peace and non-violence are more intrusive. The problem with these security systems are that they are just as unsure and unrestful as the deterrence theory. Betts writes, “the problem for security policy is to predict threats and to devise means for coping with them, yet it is especially reckless at the moment to invest
Democracy: a government by the people, in which citizens rule either directly or through elected representatives - the latter description more relevant to today’s societies. Quite evidently, democracy is not perfect; like any other political system, it is subject to a plethora of flaws. For instance, it is no secret that voters tend to make illogical decisions – not out of sheer malice, but as a result of being wrongly informed. Politicians also make erroneous choices, whether they do so because they are dishonest or simply out of touch with the true will of their constituents. Further, anyone who has studied the government of a parliamentary democracy knows gerrymandering can have a powerful say in determining elections. Despite these and other flaws however, democracy still seems to work.
Hope for peace is difficult to have and even more difficult to maintain. This is especially true when throughout history we have been taught that war, domination, and destruction are the only ways to deal with conflict. “The Histories” by Herodotus and “The Peloponnesian War” by Thucydides are regarded as two of the greatest histories of all time and these stories give the impression that violence and war are inevitable and even desirable. Our history is full of stories and influences like these, yet ever since the beginning of war; there has been a cry for peace. With the fighters of war, come the empowered people for peace. There are many obstacles to overcome on the path to empowerment, ranging from constructed structures and apathy to the past and habit, but it can be done.
The democratic peace theory, which concludes that democratic regimes do not go to war with one another as a result of their democratic nature, has attained the status of a law of international relations in some circles (Owen 1994, Doyle 1983). Utilizing an absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that proponents of Democratic Peace assert two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). One is an institutional or structural belief, whereby such factors as public opinion, or checks and balances amongst the government constrain the likelihood of war. The other, is an ideological belief, whereby the liberal values of such regimes strive for peaceful interactions and constrain conflict. Democratic Peace Theory would therefore discredit the realist perspectives for interstate conflict which focus upon a sovereign state’s strategic interest within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved status of dogma in many circles, but nevertheless has its share of critics who subscribe to the realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett. Realists challenge the relevance of the statistics on which democratic peace is founded, advocating a renewal of interest in realist international relations theory. Realists argue that world politics is dri...
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
One of the most appealing sides of democratic peace theory is its simplicity. This is favored both by the public and the academic, because it gives a clear explanation of the statement that democracies don’t fight each other. In the world of politics and international relations having a clear cut idea is valuable and that is why this theory gains a large number of popularity in this field. This may be considered as the first strength of democratic ...