THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

1. THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AIM AND OBJECTIVES: TO EXAMINE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND WAR. EXAMINE HOW DEMOCRACY CONTRIBUTE TO PEACEFUL INTERSTATE RELATIONS QUES: CAN THE ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY EXPLAIN THE CONFLICTUAL RELATIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM? .

2. DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS • WAR, PEACE AND DEMOCRACY • DEF: DEMOCRACY; ACCORDING TO Russet(2001), is a system of governance with a voting franchise for substantial fraction of citizens, • The definition includes guaranteed and respected civil rights and liberties, including rights to political organisation and political expression, the right to vote, freedom of speech, assembly, economic liberty and a fairly elected government and executive. • WAR;; ‘institutional lethal violence, may involve a state of armed conflict on a large scale–with thousands of dead. • PEACE: may designate the absence of conflict-In IR may entail stability and tranquillity in in terms of inter-state relations.

3. KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY:dpt • That democracies are inherently peaceful unless unjustly attacked(or threatened) by authoritarian non-democratic states • That the use of force by democracies are justified because they are directed against the real threats launched by rogue states/actors intending on undermining the democratic way of life • Democracies by def cannot go to war against each other and the best way to promote global stability and peace is to ensure the spread of democracy. • The notion that democracy is an essential stabilising factor is inked back to the works of Immanuel Kant 1795 ‘s essay, Perpetual Peace, • In his thesis Kant holds that perpetual peace would occur when states had civil constitutions establishing republics. • It is posited that a republic was a regime that respected private property and established a legal equality among citizens as subjects on the basis of a representative gvt with a separation of powers.

4. The theory posits that democratic states are peaceful in their relationship with each other • Also that, democratic states are less war-prone than non-democratic societies in the international system. • The notion of democracy as the most stabilising factor in IR was popularised by President Woodrow Wilson in the post-world I era. • The outbreak of WWII however led to temporary however led to temporary evaporation of the idea. • The DPT was then internalised in the American Foreign Policy and the conviction is still that peace depends above all on democratic entrenchment in any given political context. • Acc to Henry Kissinger (1994) Conventional American wisdom has presented the notion that democracies do not wage war against each other

5. This contrast the realist contention that the possibility of peace in the international system is unattainable given the fact that there is no harmony of interests among states • More so, that states' Foreign Policies are driven by the quest for national survival, hence, selfish interests • That the perfect correlationship between democracy and non-conflictual relationship suggests that Europe’s stability can be attributed to democracy and not strong economy as suggested by Marxists. • According to Roy(1995), regime type is also important in sustaining the democratic peace model • Impliedly, leaders in democracies avoid war against each other because they feel that fighting wars might be detrimental to their chances of staying in power • There is a motion that democracies are governments of the people, by the people, hence, that the declaration of war would require the consent of the people.

6. That since democracies are designed to respond to the views of their electorates, war is unlikely to happen as it threatens people’s security, takes their lives and property. • The love of peace by democracies means that they prefer resolving their conflicts peacefully • That a system that is democratically governed by democracy protects people’s rights, hence, ruling out the likelihood of war. • The DPT values the role of political ideology as fundamental to democracy ie; liberal states are more stable internally and more peaceful in their interstate relations • Concerning conflict resolution; it is alleged that democracies follow norms and institutions for purposes of peaceful resolution of disputes– and such reflects domestic experiences and values.

7. Stable peace among democracies also means that a security community is established ton resolve disputes • Emphasis is on norms and institutions in fostering interstate relations • The fact that democracies are richer and wealthier than undemocratic regimes means that they have more to lose than gain when engaged in wars –rather opt for interdependent or peaceful coexistence.

8. HOW SUSTAINABLE IS THE DPT • Current global situation indicates DPT’s applicability is limited to the western region (western ethnocentrism as Western institutions seek to promote, enforce and export democracy)-cultural bias • Is it peace which brings democracy or democracy which brings peace? • There is a view that since democratic peace scholarship is rooted in the positivist tradition of IR; providing empirical proof of the democratic peace has become a cottage industry in many American universities & research institutions • The DPT actually exposes the wishful thinking and utopianism of Western Scholarship e.g. WW2, Cold War occurred despite claims to democratic practices • On the contrary the very idea of globalizing/exporting democracy i.e. democratization by force is the root of most global conflicts e.g. invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan (Bush’s war cry; “either you are with us or against us”) • Challenge that force is used to promote democracy in any context outside the Western territories shows that the theory serves the purpose of neo-colonialism and imperialistic ambitions • In the West, democracy is peacefully entrenched, yet for other regions, its democratizing by force.

9. Democracies are evidently more aggressive towards undemocratic states/regimes • The DPT actually follow a realist path i.e. during crises their behavior is realist informed-they act selfishly as they seek national interest through strategic tactics like threat of force or actual use of force • in this context democracies do not act any differently to non-democracies as in any case selfish motives seems to determines any actors behavior • Actually the DPT assumption that non-democracies are war-mongers does not recognize that the so-called undemocratic states have good relations e.g. Mexico& Cuba, Middle East for e.g. the Arabs are united and have a non-conflictual relationship except facing a common enemy Israel. • Just like democracies the willingness of states to fight depends primarily on the significance of the dispute e.g. the strategic interest at stake • The DPT triggers lots of questions eg Is democracy the only key factor that determines relationships between states? In fact the relationship between peace and democracy is coincidental if not spurious. • It can be concluded that though a necessary cause for the sufficient cause, the spread of democracy will not guarantee international peace since democratic entrenchment by the West involves trumping on other socio-economic and political values

10. Current global situation indicates DPT’s applicability is limited to the western region (western ethnocentrism as Western institutions seek to promote, enforce and export democracy) • The DPT actually exposes the wishful thinking and utopianism of Western Scholarship e.g. WW2, Cold War occurred despite claims to democratic practices • On the contrary the very idea of globalizing/exporting democracy i.e. democratization by force is the root of most global conflicts e.g. invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan (Bush’s war cry; “either you are with us or against us”) • The fact that in non-western territories “its democratization by force” whereas in the west its peaceful indicates imperialistic & neo-colonial ambitions • The challenge of democratization by force e.g. US war on terror ‘either you are with us or against us’ • Michael Doyle (1980)-The theory seems to support or license imperialistic and aggression towards non-democratic states since it doesn't discourage wedging war against non-democratic regimes.