Democratic Peace Theory

The political world has grown more complicated over the last century due to the connections and agreements between nations. These agreements affect the way nations trade, survive, go to war and every other possible daily act. Democratic Peace Theory is a method by which democratic governments are unwilling to get involved in wars and conflicts with other nations they categorize as a democracy. This apparent understanding between nations leads to a very unlikely possibility of conflict between nations that are seen as similar to one’s own government, even if that nation engages in behavior that is less than ethical or friendly. Within the same vein, a nation that is listed as another form of government is more likely to draw the ire of democratic nations who are more willing to engage in conflicts with them. This theory brings up many concerns since there are many ways to define the theory of what a democracy is. The matter then becomes who owns the right to have the “universally” accepted definition of democracy? The history of this theory sheds some light on its development and progress over its short life. A good measure of the concerns of the theory is to see how nations brand themselves, and how they are in turn viewed from the perspective of a commonly accepted democratic nation. China, Iran and Canada are three countries that share similarities and differences with each other to varying degrees. Democratic Peace Theory, however, treats each with distinctly different levels of cooperation and rhetoric based on the markers of democracy that are viewed as important.

Democratic Peace Theory is a fairly new concept in comparison to many other government-based theories. The main reason for the limited information on the theory relates to the fact that democracies, especially in large numbers, have not been present throughout history. It is a very recent occurrence that this type of government I seen as positive and has grown. Emmanuel Kant was the first to acknowledge that democracies could foster a culture of peace over war. This was a mere three hundred years ago, and it took some time before the theory gained any ground. The reason for the delay of course was that democracy as we know it, and even as it was in late 18th century America, was a new concept. The theory has also expanded with the growth seen in what is categorized as a democracy to start with. The USA in the 1800s is not the measure of a democracy that was used in the early 1900s and so on. While the definition of democracy grew, so did the development of the theory.

The information that led Kant to believe in its possible peaceful outcomes was based on the mutual benefit that could be achieved for the nations in question. The theory plainly posits that nations that are democracies or viewed as democracies are less likely to engage in any wars with each other because they have similar obligations and possible outcomes (Williams, 2001). This can be because of a multitude of reason. One reason is that a democratic nation will view another similar nation as a more formidable foe with similar financial and infrastructure. The possibility of conflict with such a nation can lead to mutual destruction. In comparison, a non-democratic nation has the distinct possibility of having weaker and more easily destroyed infrastructure and economic circumstances. Another similarity is that the citizenry of these nations has a greater perceived role in their governments (Gartzke, 1998). This voice plays out in elections and protests that can create unrest. Therefore, the decision to engage in conflict is more involved and requires more effort on the part of these democratic nations. Another important point to note is that of the economics of these nations. Many of these countries are capitalist in nature and have economies that do not want to engage in wars with nations that are so vital for trade and financial prosperity.

Recent years have seen an interest in this theory and academics have expanded and looked at how it has effected change in the world. This new interest began in the 1970s and has extended into modern times. With more democratic nations in the world now than ever before, this theory has been studied to explain why there is more world peace (Chan, 2001). As democratic nations increase, there is a wider net of countries that refuse to engage each other in wars. This can be seen with democratic nations starting many wars with non-developed nations over the last two decades, but not with other nations perceived as democratic. The incentive to be a democratic nation is quite high because it gives a feeling of security and cooperation. Even nations that do not match current definitions of democracy claim the title. This effort on nations to be more democratic is related to the fact that since the World Wars of the 20th century, the political world is more watchful of all nations at all times. There are world courts, and nations are held accountable for all of their actions either directly through conflict, or indirectly through sanctions and embargoes. Democratic Peace Theory helps spread democratization by creating a sense that a nation will be safe from the worst of political fallouts if they too are labeled as a democracy. This is a high incentive for any nation, and many have either taken to democracy honestly or superficially as a result.

Canada is a nation that is accepted the world over as a democracy, and in turn has been linked to few conflicts around the world. While Canada is a democracy its government set up is a little different from a nation like the USA due to its ties to a monarch who is propped up as the head of the state, albeit with limited legal powers. The people in the nation are actively involved in voting for their house of commons who in turn account for the basis of power for the governor and PM of the nation. The nation also enjoys peace and security as well as economic prosperity and free trade. In addition to the aforementioned, Canada is seen in the eyes of the world stage as a peaceful nation that respects the rights of its citizens. Canada has shared peaceful relations with its neighbor, America, and rarely has conflict with either America, or any other nation. With the exception of conflicts during the two nations’ births and very early years, the two neighbors have had positive and friendly relations with each other and have supported and helped each other in external conflicts like Afghanistan. Canada is a unique country to consider because it has only one neighbor and that nation is another democracy. Decades of peace between the two nations are due to similar governmental and political goals and institutions (Jockel, 2004). Used as an example for Democratic Peace Theory, one can see that even when there are disagreements in terms of politics, the two nations never escalate to any high degree.

Unrest in Canada has been minimal and much of it has been related to internal issues regarding the aboriginal people of the nation. Overall, Canada has benefited greatly from their liberal democracy and have avoided prolonged conflicts. Even in cases like the aboriginal one, a solution was formed quite quickly in comparison to many other nations where these types of conflicts can escalate and last. The fact that Canada is a democracy and is watched by the world could have been the reason these conflicts were resolved quickly and peacefully. Nations that are less democratic are more willing to murder their own people, and nations where the citizens have more rights are far less likely to engage in that type of behavior (Williams, 2001). Canada is a prime example of a nation that is a democracy and therefore enjoys fewer external conflicts and is also motivated to handle its own internal conflicts quickly and peacefully. This is all due to the need to maintain the status of liberal democracy, a title that lets Canada enjoy the peace of mind that is brought with it. This peace of mind means that Canada has the support and backing of other democratic nations, and also gives that support when needed as well.

China has had a complicated political history over the last century and that recent history has culminated into a style of government that is equally as complicated. For thousands of years China had a monarchy as the form of government with more recent periods of colonialism. The breakdown of the colonialism and the imperial family put China on a track that would form it into one of the largest and long-standing communist nations in history. Throughout the history of the nation there have been many concerns over human rights, economic independence and grown, relations with neighbors as well as relations with the whole world. China is formally a communist nation, and that has been the case for decades now. An important thing to remember is that China as a communist nation is quite different now, than it was during its initial entry into this form of government. While in the beginning China was a truer form of communism, today it is a global power that relies on business and capitalism more than anything else. Relations with neighbors have been tense for decades with respect to some nations, like Taiwan, and respectful with others, like Russia. Buffers exist in the form of North Korea that harken back to the 1950s and the tension between democracies and communism.

While formally labeled and touted as a communist nation by China, the nation fits the mold of an authoritarian nation. China has one party, and that is the communist party, and they enjoy control over the media and military. While other parties can exist, China has only one actual party and their existence is indefinite, making the nation authoritarian in nature. Since the death of Mao, and even during the later years of Mao, China started to move towards some democratic ideals and capitalism. This democratization came with economic prosperity and an increase in private business. These are not the ideals that the original communist party in China had in mind and are actually the opposite. China holds control over the people of the nation and human rights and personal liberty is not what one expects from a democratic nation. However, in many other regards China’s form of authoritarianism is not far from being acceptable within the concept of a democracy. One main part of the democratic peace theory is that nations are unwilling to engage negatively with nations that are like themselves, and much of is based off economics and mutual benefit. China is a good example of a nation that no democratic nations want to engage in conflict with. Much of this refusal is not based on the formal title of democracy, but rather that the reasons behind the theory, are present in a case like China, even without the nation being a democracy per se. Some research has even found that an authoritarian economic model like China’s can outperform democratic ones in terms of output and growth (Aresnault, 2008), again reinforcing why many democracies continue to see China as similar to themselves. China has benefited from the theory and has slowly moved towards democratizing the nation through the privatization of formerly state-run businesses and institutions. While the democratizing has led to change in the economic arena, with respect to human rights and personal liberties, China remains quite authoritarian.

Many believe that the form of authoritarianism in China today, is the closest the country can get to the ideals of democracy the west holds. It is also believed that China’s authoritarian regime now is similar to other countries that transitioned into democracy slowly over time, meaning that change to China’s policy towards personal liberties can also change. The concept that makes this a plausible reality is the belief that capitalism is a catalyst towards democracy (Chen, A., 2002). This can be a possibility for China in the future as well, however, as it stands now there is strict authoritarian crackdowns on any form of civil disobedience in China. Unrest and dissatisfaction many times is related to corruption within this economic growth. Any such form of protest is met with swift action and has even resulted in state run TV showing those activists admitting wrong and apologizing at a national level, highlighting the authoritarian nature of the country.

In the case of some nations’ politics the disparity between the way the nation perceives themselves and are seen by others is wholly different. Iran is one of the oldest and continuous populations of the world. The area now known as Iran has existed for thousands of years and from its beginnings until now, there have been changes to the country that have affected the country itself, its region and the entire world. Persians are credited with developing some of the world’s earliest documents regarding rights and democracy. The country was under the rule of Shahs for thousands of years. Iran was conquered many times throughout its history and each group that came was unable to fully impose itself and rather merged into the culture of the region. This created a nation that became more varied and diverse as time went by. During the 1800s and 1900s Iran was a place of spheres of influence from the west. This influence had both positive and negative outcomes for the government of Iran. Monarchies were abolished in the early 1900s and the nation attempted to create a democracy through the revolutions of 1906 and 1911. These revolutions are referred to as constitutional revolutions and they were meant to pull Iran out of the arbitrary rule of kings. Despite the best efforts of the Persians there was another military coupe in the 1920’s that brought Iran under the rule of another group of arbitrary monarchists. This would be the last house of Shahs in Iran.

The next 75 years of Iranian history would be full of conflict and betrayal. Iran had the chance of freedom from arbitrary rule in the 1950s when Mohammad Mossadegh attempted to bring democracy and equality to the nation of Iran. This move could be seen as a positive one since the aim of the US and the west in general was to democratize the world. However, in reality this move was seen as a possible blow to the financial goals of nations like the USA and Britain who in turn ensured the downfall of the democratically elected man and reinstated the arbitrary and meaningless monarchy. For Iran to have become a democracy, under the theory, would mean that conflict and control could not be exerted so easily over the nation. The oil industry that the British wanted so desperately to own in Iran, could be better achieved by having Iran remain outside the terms of democracy. From this point until the end of the Shahs in Iran, the government was nothing short of a puppet used by western democracies to control oil and other valuable resources. The fall of this government led to a breaking of ties with those seen as the reason the country was in the state it was (Azimi, 2009). The leader of the democratic world was effectively kicked out of the country. The 1980s and 1990s in Iran would become synonymous with conflicts ranging from the 8-year war with Iraq, to battling internal terrorist groups that wanted to break the nation up into smaller sections. Much of the conflict was supported by western democracies, like the support Saddam Hussein received by means of weapons to use against the Iranians.

More recent unrest in Iran has been due to the odd totalitarian and authoritarian attitude of the government. The harsh laws and political models have led to a lack of human rights, civil rights, freedom of the press, open business and any openly critical political opinions (Doyle & Simpson, 2006). Iran itself claims to be a democracy and has even mocked western democracies that they should model themselves after Iran. Iran controls the TV networks and cable is illegal in the country. All news related to the outside world is monitored and crafted to fit the ideals of the religious and political leaders of the nation. The manner of Iran’s government structure makes it a difficult country to assess. Iran has an elected government, and an unelected government. The religious authority of the nation cannot be changed, and in turn controls an entire private army called the Basij that is ruthless and well-funded. This is the totalitarian chokehold that this part of the government has on the entire nation (Chehabi, 2003). This religious leader, Khamenei, has a cult like image that allows him to control the entire tone of the spiritual guidance of the nation. The president of the nation is elected by the people, just like all local and regional leaders and representatives are. However, any decisions made by this elected official, or the people, can be overridden by the unelected supreme leader. This makes Iran a nation that is quite able to be democratized. The infrastructure and laws are in place, and the people have a belief in their right to be involved in the government. This is all of course an illusion as long as the Basij are able to go around and physically enforce the strict will of the supreme religious ruler.

Iran believes it is a democracy because it allows for a very narrow set of liberties and freedoms, as long as the overall supremacy of the leaders are not questioned. In reality Iran is an autocratic society because it enforces harsh rules based on their personal whims and does so through control and brute force. The citizens of Iran have continued to protest their treatment and in turn have been slaughtered by the regime with no mercy. A perfect example of the totalitarian nature of the country could be seen in the 2008 elections where people protested and were en masse arrested and executed. International news agencies and reporters were then detained and/ or kicked out of the country. State run TV controlled the situation by providing only the supreme leaders opinion on the matter, and even brought protesters on TV to apologize and take blame for their actions. This type of control is the hallmark of a totalitarian nation, not a democratic one (Fukuyama, 2012).

Democratic Peace Theory is both somewhat accurate and also inaccurate in its premise. It is true that nations that are democratic appear to be less likely to engage in conflict with each other. This can be seen by the lack of much conflict like this that has led to any type of outright war. But to state that these nations are less violent in nature, and less likely to engage in war overall is not so apparent. I do not agree that developed democratic nations are inherently less violent and apt to go to war simply because of financial factors or opinions of their citizens. I find that wars have the ability to financially cripple nations, but in many cases can also create wealth for a nation making war lucrative. I also believe that although the leaders of these countries care about their image to voters, these voters can also be manipulated to agree with war. I believe the theory is however more correct than not correct because of the reality of nation relations in the modern era. There is no denying that democratic nations do not go to war with each other as often as nations that have other forms of government. The hard part of the theory is finding ways to define the words within the theory. Iran claims the title of a democratic nation, but western democracies have had no problem ignoring this and constantly beating war drums. China however hold no claim to the title but is left alone due to economic ties. Overall, the theory is correct, but is too narrow and limited in its explanation of motivations for war and conflict.

Democratic Peace Theory has come a long way since its inception nearly three hundred years ago. Since that time democracies have flourished and gained ground as a model that many around the world emulate or are actively trying to implement. As world peace increases, and outbreaks of war decrease over the years, one theory for the trend has been the democratic peace theory. Nations like Canada, China and Iran can show the complex methods in which this theory can apply in radically different ways. While there are many reasons for the decrease in large scale wars in recent history, this particular theory is quite adequate at explaining why democracies are more apt to work things out politically, versus through the use of war.

References

Arsenault, P. (2008). China and the Authoritarian Model: The Relationship between Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. Academia Research Source.

Azimi, F. (2009). QUEST FOR DEMOCRACY IN IRAN C: a century of struggle against authoritarian rule. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Chan, S. (2008). In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise. Mershon International Studies Review, 41, 51-91.

Chehabi, H.E. (2001). The Political Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Government and Opposition, 36, 48-70.

Chen, A. (2002). Capitalist Development, Entrepreneurial Class, and Democratization in China. Political Science Quarterly, 117, 401-422

Doyle, T. & Simpson, A. (2006). Traversing more than speed bumps: Green politics under authoritarian regimes in Burma and Iran. Environmental Politics, 15, 750-767.

Fukuyama, F. (2012). China and East Asian Democracy: Patterns of History. Journal of Democracy, 23, 1-14.

Gartzke, E. (1998). Kant We All Just get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and the Origins of the Democratic Peace. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1-27

Jockel, J.T. (2004). The North American Democratic Peace: Absence of War and Security Institution-Building in Canada-US Relations, 1867-1958. International Journal, 59, 980-983.

Williams, M.C. (2001). The Discipline of the Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism and the Social Construction of Security Communities. European Journal of International Relations, 7, 525-553.