Would an Increase in Liberal Democracies Reduce World Conflict?

Throughout history, world conflict has ebbed and flowed. Some periods have been relatively peaceful, while others have been marked by frequent warfare and bloodshed. The nature and makeup of human society, however, has followed a linear and one-way trend, in that the world seems to have moved inexorably toward pluralism and liberal democracy, albeit fitfully. It is this author’s opinion that any increase in liberal democracy results in a decrease in world conflict.

As with any question of a speculative nature, it is difficult or impossible to uncover empirical evidence and/or research to say what “would” happen under a given contingency. The major problems in making a credible speculation about the future are twofold. First, we know the future will be different from the past or the present, probably radically so. To parse out a prediction about what will or won’t happen based on the conditions that exist today is guessing at best. Second, simply because A followed B does not mean that B caused A; this is also expressed as “correlation does not equal causation.” The first problem reflects the difficulty of using the present to predict the future; the second reflects the difficulty of using the past to do so. Nonetheless, there is one saving grace: the human condition has largely been the same throughout recorded history. We all interact in basically the same ways, individually and as societies and nations, as we did in 1900 or 1500 or 3000 B.C. This means, for the purpose of answering the stated question, that examining past historical periods when there has been a major increase in the number and/or scope of liberal democratic forms of government is at least partially valid. As this is really the only method of analysis available, this author will attempt to answer the question by scrutinizing several relatively recent historical periods when liberal democracy advanced, keeping in mind the admonition to examine them in the light of ceteris paribus, or “all other things being equal.”

Post-World War I

The cessation of hostilities in 1918 brought about a major paradigm shift in how both the industrialized nations and the developing world were governed. The war was widely seen as a tragic and stupid waste, both of immense resources and the lives of millions of young men, the best and brightest of an entire generation. The war was brought about in part because of the failure of diplomacy and a series of untenable, interlocking alliances. Most of the countries involved were monarchies, which contributed to the inexorability of the conflict: monarchs make less deliberative decisions than do factions of democratic bodies.

The war’s aftermath saw the creation of several new nation-states out of former colonies of the defeated nations. It also saw the democratization of those countries as well as a gradual shift toward liberal democracy in the victorious nations. Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points of Light” provided a spiritual roadmap, while the creation of the League of Nations signaled (though it ultimately failed) a new willingness of the world’s nations to work together.

The effect of these changes was to usher in a decade of peace and prosperity. The stock market crash of 1929 and the resulting depression ended that prosperity, but the world was largely a peaceful place until the fascist nations began their adventures of conquest, culminating in the Second World War. Still, it cannot be denied that the liberalization and change in the world order generated almost two decades of relative peace.

Post-World War II

The most immediate effects of the end of WWII vis-à-vis liberal democracy were the transformation of Germany, Italy, and Japan into pluralist, liberal democracies. In addition, England, weakened by the war, could no longer hold on to her world empire; as a result, many new independent democracies were formed, including India, one of the world’s most populous nations. The combined effect of this was the introduction of liberal democracy to over one billion of the world’s citizens.

The formation of the United Nations postwar reflected both the weariness of the world with international conflict and a new willingness to work together. The spirit of cooperation that had existed after the First World War was rekindled. The UN was given some teeth, and it has been instrumental in mediating or even preventing some world conflicts, though its record has been spotty in that regard. In examining the postwar period, though, even continuing up to the present day, it is remarkable how little bloodshed there was in the second half of the 20th century compared to the first. Yes, there were regional conflicts, but they were mostly limited in nature. The Cold War lasted for over four decades, but very shots were fired and very few people died as a result—this kind of war was certainly preferable to WWII, which directly caused 60 million deaths (O’Neal and Russet 267-294).

It is probably safe to argue that the relative peace that existed in the world during the postwar (WWII) era was in large part due to the vast worldwide expansion of liberal democracy. Though this could be attributed to war-weariness after the gigantic bloodbath of WWII, it should be noted (cynically, perhaps) that everyone rushed to pick up their guns not all that long after the century’s earlier bloodbath of WWI.

The Raising of the Iron Curtain

One notable exception to the democratization of the world in the postwar era was Soviet Russia. It remained a brutal totalitarian state; it was not even truly a socialist regime, but rather, an empire ruled by a single man whose power far exceeded that of any Roman Caesar. As booty for its struggles with and eventual victory over Nazi Germany, Russia seized most of Eastern Europe and added the nations there to its empire, whereupon it governed them in accord with the Soviet totalitarian model.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the dissolution of its empire was as shocking as it was swift. The satellite nations of Eastern Europe were released from thralldom, as were the Baltic states (which had been conquered in 1940 and captive ever since). Not only that, but the “republics” of the former Soviet Union, which were also conquered nations but unlike the satellites of Eastern Europe, had been denied even the fiction of existence as separate nations. Most of these newly independent states formed liberal democracies immediately, though some of the former Soviet states, such as Belarus and Turkmenistan, reverted to the totalitarian model and formed kleptocracies. The addition of Russia itself to the roster of newly formed democracies capped this era of swift and surprising advancement of democratic liberalism (Ackerman 771-797).

It has only been 24 years since this series of events, so it is difficult to state with any accuracy whether the world has become more peaceful as a result. There was talk in the 90s of the “peace dividend” and how resources that had been devoted to national defense could now be directed toward humanitarian aims, but the backsliding of Russia into an authoritarian state, the new threats of terrorism, persistent regional tensions, and the influence of “rogue nations” such as Iran, Iraq and South Korea largely subverted that idea (Plattner 171). Nonetheless, there hasn’t been a lot of actual shooting in the last couple of decades. The U.S.-led wars against Iraq were over with fairly quickly, and while fights against terrorist insurgencies continue, the body count is low compared to other, more “conventional” forms of conflict. It would seem that at the very least, the era of large nation-states throwing all of their might into the conquest or destruction of other countries is drawing to a close (Owen 87-125).

Predictions

In examining the previous century, an era in which the number of the world’s liberal democracies rose from a relative handful to hundreds of countries, this author cannot help but conclude that each set of increases in the world’s democracies resulted in a lessening of world conflicts. This conclusion must be leavened with the realization that other causal factors, such as the advancement of science, increase in economic well-being, greater levels of education, and advancements in communication may also have contributed to the present era of relative, at least, world peace and stability. It is very tempting, though, and it must be at least partly accurate, to attribute that peace and stability to the greater happiness and self-determination afforded the world’s citizens by living in liberal democracies (Risse-Kappen 479-512). Looking to the future, it could therefore be predicted with at least some degree of confidence that the democratization of the world’s remaining areas that have not yet experienced it, such as the Middle East and China, would further enhance world peace and stability.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Bruce. "The rise of world constitutionalism." Virginia Law Review, 1997, pp. 771-797.

O’Neal, John R., and Russet, Bruce M. "The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950–1985." International Studies Quarterly vol. 41 no. 2, 1997, pp. 267-294.

Owen, John M. "How liberalism produces democratic peace." International security vol. 19 no. 2, 1994, pp. 87-125.

Plattner, Marc F. "Liberalism and Democracy-Can't Have One without the Other." Foreign Affairs, vol. 77, 1998, pp. 171.

Risse-Kappen, Thomas. "Public opinion, domestic structure, and foreign policy in liberal democracies." World Politics, vol. 43 no. 4, 1991, pp. 479-512.