Democratic Peace Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This example Democratic Peace Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another. Instead, they traditionally opt to build stable zones of peace or rely upon diplomatic engagement. This concept is called the democratic peace. Although some scholars have cited instances of wars between democracies, the concept of democratic peace is statistically supported. Today, the claim of a joint, separate peace between democracies has become, as one scholar puts it, “as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations” (Levy: 1988).

As early as 1795, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The natural state [among men] is a state of war. . . . A state of peace, therefore, must be established” (Immanuel Kant: The Perpetual Peace, 1795). Even more important, it can be established, according to Kant. He developed the idea of a relationship between a state’s form of government and its hostile or aggressive external behavior. In the following centuries, this classical liberal insight was long buried under the theoretical dominance of realpolitik, a practical approach to foreign policy, often disregarding ethical or moral views to gain a goal. In recent decades, scholars’ interest in the connection between democracy and peace has increased again. Compiling the first studies on democratic peace in the 1980s and 1990s, scholars Michael Doyle, Ernst-Otto Czempiel, and Bruce Russett were pioneers in this field.

Despite extensive research on democratic peace, scholars remain divided as to whether democratic nations are generally more peaceful than nondemocracies. While some scholars maintain that this is the case, empirical studies have cast doubt on this theory. Whereas democracies may not fight one another, generally, they are no less belligerent than nondemocracies, since democratic states have historically engaged and continue to engage in wars and armed conflicts with nondemocratic states. Attempts to explain democratic peace must review these empirical findings.

Explaining The Democratic Peace

Two explanatory approaches, the structural-institutional and the normative-cultural, are predominant in regard to democratic peace. Both have been formulated in monadic and dyadic versions, the former focusing on the internal features of democracies, the latter focusing on the interaction between states.

The structural-institutional approach in its monadic variant builds upon the Kantian proposition, which is that public citizens in democracies are war averse, because they want to avoid the significant costs and risks associated with wars. Only in democracies, however, do the public’s and policy makers’ preferences translate into actual peaceful policies in an effort to evade war. Additionally, the complex and often slow processes of decision making in democracies likely makes it difficult for such governments to go to war even if they intend to do so. Moreover, it is argued that democratically elected leaders tend to refrain from initiating wars, since they perceive that supporting external conflicts could cost them their reelection. The dyadic version further supports this rationale. When two democracies oppose one another, governments still use the avoidance of war as a means to protect their free societies and prevent citizen and property losses, but avoiding war also serves to preserve their personal popular support and remain in power.

The normative-cultural approach in its monadic variant draws upon the assumption that democracies domestically adhere to norms and values such as the rule of law, free political participation, and a high regard for human rights. Violence as a means to promote one’s goals is outlawed. Thus, citizens of democratic states believe it is morally wrong to resolve conflicts through the use of force. In their international relations, democracies externalize this tendency toward peaceful conflict settlement. The dyadic variant emphasizes that democracies act on the assumption that autocratic states will externalize their aggressive domestic behavior, thus creating an international security dilemma and in turn rendering democracies more security cautious and potentially aggressive.

Comparing the monadic and dyadic variants of both approaches, only the latter dyadic normative-cultural variant appears to address the empirical finding questioning whether democracies are completely peaceful or just peaceful with each other.

Criticizing The Democratic Peace

Democratic peace theory is criticized from various directions. Some scholars take issue with the methodological design of most democratic peace research. According to democratic peace studies, democracy and war are defined so that all critical cases that might be anomalies are singled out from the beginning, skewing the analysis. Critics further posit both international war and democratic dyads have historically been very rare in the international system, possibly rendering democratic peace only a statistical artifact.

Other scholars point out gaps and inconsistencies in the two predominant approaches while suggesting alternative or complementary explanations for democratic peace. Some legitimate factors that democratic states likely gauge, either each one singly or combined, when considering aggressive behavior include the effects of economic welfare and interdependence, joint membership in international organizations, imperial rule, alliances, the balance of power, and geographical proximity.

Finally, the democratic peace is also criticized from a normative or moral perspective. Some scholars believe the idea of democratic peace can be misused as an ideology manifesting Western dominance and enabling perceived violent democratic crusades. Furthermore, it is argued—under the assumption that only nondemocracies cause problems in international relations—that democracies are given a carte blanche for their foreign policies.

Amending The Democratic Peace

In recent years, research has shed light on contradictions and ambivalences within and between the established causal mechanisms of democratic peace theory. These so-called antinomies have the potential to generate unexpected behavior of democracies in several fields, such as arms control, democracy promotion, and international law.

Perhaps most salient in this regard is a tendency among democracies, especially since the end of the cold war, to fight a large number of wars against nondemocracies for reasons other than self-defense. This observation, in addition to the striking variance among democracies regarding their war-proneness, led to the establishment of a complementary research agenda: democratic wars.

Highlighting the role of antinomies might help explain the war involvement of democracies with nondemocracies. There are specific democratic or liberal reasons for democratic states to fight wars against autocratic regimes. The ambivalent character of liberal norms can lead democracies to wage war in order to promote universal values, such as the enforcement of the rule of law, the protection of human rights, or the elimination of the perceived unjust enemy.

Harald Müller contends it is not sufficient to distinguish between democracies and nondemocracies. Instead, he stresses the differences between democracies in order to account for the empirical findings mentioned above. Political cultures and identities are responsible for how democratic states interpret liberal norms and which sense of appropriateness is derived from them. Accordingly, one can distinguish between militant and pacifist democracies, with most democratic states tending toward the latter category.

Despite some persistent puzzles, the democratic peace continues to be a fascinating empirical phenomenon and fruitful research program. Since its rediscovery in the late twentieth century, much progress has been made, but there remain many opportunities and questions for future research.

Bibliography:

Brown, Michael, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller. Debating the Democratic Peace—An International Security Reader. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James D. Morrow, Randolph Siverson, and Alastair Smith. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review 93, no. 4 (1999): 791–807.
Czempiel, Ernst-Otto. “Kants Theorem—Oder: Warum sind die Demokratien (noch immer) nicht friedlich?” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3, no. 1 (1996): 79–101.
Geis, Anna, Lothar Brock, and Harald Müller. Democratic Wars. Looking at the Dark Side of Democratic Peace. Houndmills, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Geis, Anna, Harald Müller, and Wolfgang Wagner. Schattenseiten des demokratischen Friedens—Zur Kritik einer Theorie liberaler Außenund Sicherheitspolitik. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus, 2007.
Henderson, Errol A. Democracy and War—The End of an Illusion? Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002.
Kahl, Colin H. “Constructing a Separate Peace. Constructivism, Collective Liberal Identity, and Democratic Peace.” Security Studies 8, no. 2/3 (1998/1999): 95–144.
Levy, Jack. “Domestic Politics and War.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (1988): 653–673.
MacMillan, John. “Beyond the Separate Democratic Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 40, no. 2 (2003): 233–243.
Müller, Harald. 2006. “The Antinomy of Democratic Peace.” International Politics 41, no. 4 (2006): 494–520.
Owen, John M. Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American Politics and International Security. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.
Rauch, Carsten. 2005. Die Theorie des Demokratischen Friedens. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus, 2005.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. “Democratic Peace—Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument.” European Journal of International Relations 1, no. 4 (1995): 491–517.
Rosato, Sebastian. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review, 97, no. 4 (2003): 585–602.
Russett, Bruce. Grasping the Democratic Peace—Principles for a Post–-Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Russett, Bruce, and John R. Oneal. Triangulating Peace—Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.