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.
The purpose of this paper is to present a case study to test if democracies fight better wars. The paper will examine Stam and Reiter’s four propositions presented in their book and test the two propositions, political culture and political structure, that the authors suggest have a significant impact on democracies and the outcome of war. There are no previous intense case studies that have been performed over democracies and their success in wartime situations. Since only brief examples of case studies have been performed in previous literature, this paper will contribute to the discussion by presenting an intense case study on Israel during the Six Day War in 1967 and Yom Kippur War in 1979.
For Stam and Reiter to be correct in their assessments over democracies high success rate in war, political culture and political structure must be found internally within Israel during the time period of these two conflicts. To be able to identify political structure and culture I have proposed a few variables that should be present wit...
... middle of paper ...
...d freely choose to participate in both conflicts. However, the enormous threat by the Arab states, not only in these wars but since independence, were so overwhelming that Israelis had no choice but to fight or risk genocide thus giving merit to Desch’s argument. Democracy is winning out on all accounts and continues to grow, while authoritarian regimes, by choice or force, are dwindling on the world stage. Further research on Stam and Reiter’s claims should be tested, along with other arguments from democratic theorist. I suggest that an alternative case study be performed concerning a successful authoritarian regime to test claims of realist and institutionalist. A study of this nature coupled with research such as this paper presents can be compared and evaluated to obtain a firmer grasp on regime type and success in war.
How did the Shift from Jeffersonian to Jacksonian Democracy change American Values? All of the values that we have as Americans have stemmed from the founding of our country and have evolved with the growth and expansion of our nation. In the election of 1800 Thomas Jefferson was elected, which started a period that was known as Jeffersonian Democracy. This was the term used to express the influence of Jefferson on American politicians; however it also outlines the political culture from 1800 to
the idea that whether states are likely to go to war or choose peace depends on the type of political system they have. There are three sub divisions 1) Monadic; Democracies that tend to be generally peaceful and are not likely to go to war, although people (can you identify people) who argue this only examine the years 1960-1970. 2) Dyadic; This version is the most accepted amongst theorists, very peaceful among one another, only likely to go to war against non allies. 3) Systematic; This is a union
have participated in the Vietnam War? Some people felt that the US should have been there for two reasons. The first reason was the US was attempting to establish a stable democracy. The second reason was that our participation in Vietnam helped the US win the Cold War. Others believed the US should not have participated for two reasons. One reason was that the South Vietnamese government was a brutal dictatorship. Another reason was our strategy for winning the war was inept. While it appeared that
Promoting Democracy: That’s what America did during the Cold War The end of World War II brought a combination of relief, joy and solemnity for the Americans in victory, however this atmosphere turned to anxiety quickly in 1945 as America’s wartime ally, the Soviet Union, suddenly became its enemy in the next forty-five years. This ongoing global conflict which arose from the fight between Capitalism and Communism, divided the formerly allied nations and sparked an intense battle for world supremacy
policy and economic policies contributed to the success of the FRG. However, although the FRG was a success compared to other European countries in this time period, it wasn’t a total success because there were still some failures although the successes do outweigh the failures. The political system in the FRG was a total success. The Basic Law, which was the constitution of the FRG and outlined the political system of the FRG was a total success because it allowed freedom of speech, it gave more
The West won the Cold War. Discuss. The Cold War dominated International Relations for nearly 50 years with the biggest power struggle seen in international politics between the USA and the Soviet Union “as liberalism contended…with an updated Marxism that threatened to lead to the ultimate apocalypse of nuclear war” (Fukuyama, 1989 p.3) With the Cold war dominating international relations for nearly 50 years; the importance of understanding what led to its unpredictable demise remains a relevant
civil war has been seen in all regions of the world from ancient times well into modernity. Fortunately, for most areas of the world, civil war has become a declining trend in recent history, but in Africa, this trend seems to have been upwards. Why has civil war continued to prevail in Africa in an increasingly passive and democratic world? Paul Collier, Professor of Economics and Director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University asks, “Of course, every civil war has
The question of whether democracy is bad for foreign policy or not is actually a tricky one. Even though one might argue that democracy is not all good for foreign policy, I will argue that it’s indeed good even though there are some leaders that takes advantage of it to cover up their own failures. The United states foreign policy incorporate democracy as well as the esteem of the rights of people. Democracy actually encourages a stable and secure global realm whereby countries can promote their
having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during desperate times, the government might place security or liberty on a higher pedestal and this can be beneficial or detrimental to the society. In the particular case where a country goes to war and the government orders a draft, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty is brought to light. Especially, in a circumstance where the government enacts laws ordering those who protest anti-war and anti-draft views to be thrown
I believe that the Counterculture Movement of the 1960s and 1970s was a success. The Counterculture Movement helped shape the way that many Americans view life today by shifting American culture and social beliefs, and by challenging the traditional American values . The Counterculture Movement had many successes, one of them was anti-war protests against the Vietnam War. During the 1960s, the United States and the rest of the world was in danger of falling into communism. The United States, being
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations
countries through democracy or in this case, war. The terrible effects of these combined were shown throughout the First World War. Many countries started getting a more advanced sense of excessive pride to their country and when imperialism began spreading decided to spread their “supreme” ideals to the rest of the world. The balance of powers that were established in the Congress of Vienna made all other countries scared of this sudden uprising and so war was inevitable. The war also started based
civilization. As the inventors of democracy, rationalist philosophy, and other institutions valuable to the West, the documentary impresses the importance of Athenian influence upon modern society. It also attempts to analogize the feuds among the Greek city states and the Peloponnesian War to the internal conflicts in Western society. Greek civilization originated with Minoans on Crete, which was then followed by the Mycenaens, the heroic peoples of the Trojan War. After their fall, Greece fell into
Throughout history, some of the most radical minds have equated democracy to anarchy, arguing a government by the people is no government at all (Jones). There have been a variety of different perceptions and functions of the word democracy over time, yet the word seemingly has only one official meaning. Properly, democracy can be simply defined as a system of government ruled by the people (“democracy, n”). Nevertheless, the numerous perspectives, connotations, and adaptations in regards to democracy’s
Greece as a whole, there was one leader of a city-state that produced his own golden age. Pericles was one of Athens most recalled rulers for his success. He sparked an age for the artistic and the thinkers of Athens. He was an open-minded leader which supported all of the arts and promoted the outside thinking of philosophy. He developed a system of democracy for his city-state to instill in which the majority gained a say in the government. Although not everyone believed Pericles was great. The other