Democratic peace

Democratic peace

Democratic peace theory (liberal democratic theory) is a popular theory according to which democracies do not engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies.

Some theorists prefer terms such as “mutual democratic pacifism” or “inter-democracy non-aggressive hypothesis” so as to clarify that a state of peace is not singular to democracies, but rather that it is easily sustained between democratic nations.

Russet argues that citizens in democratic countries perceive themselves as free people, who are accustomed to respect the rights of others. Open borders, free exchange of information in democracies reinforce this perception. These cultural characteristics that are learned by man in childhood, limit the manifestation of aggression against their own kind. In addition, people in democratic countries are accustomed to resolve conflicts peacefully - through negotiations, agreements, court procedures.

The second factor that explains the phenomenon of the democratic world is driven by the principle of decision-making in democratic countries, including the beginning of the war. Leaders focused on military action, should make these decisions through the appropriate legitimate procedures. In case of conflict democratic countries have to spend more time on the decision to initiate hostilities. The result is a "cooling" period, allowing repay first emotional reactions and to seek a rational way out of the conflict.

In the early 1990s, there was an event of the category of those which apply to the definition of "first time in the history of mankind." Indeed, for the first time in human history, the potential of democratic states exceeded the potential of authoritarian states. 225 years ago, in a political sense, the world consisted solely of authoritarian regimes. Since the formation of the United States before the end of the XIX century number of democratic states raised to 13. In the first half of XX century its number has doubled. In 1992, according to "Freedom House", out of 183 countries in the world there were already 91 democratic countries and another 35 were in the "gray zone" between democracy and authoritarianism.

The hypothesis of "democratic peace" is very similar with theory had circulated in the Soviet Union, according to which the socialist states, being peaceful and humane in their deepest essence, are not inclined to war in general (except for defensive wars against imperialist aggressor) and excludes war against each other.

From Raymond Aron’s viewpoint, homogeneous systems with a high degree of uniformity (political regimes of their member states, the type of economy, shared ideological beliefs, culture etc) are more stable and less inclined to armed conflict, than heterogeneous ones. Indeed, with the growth of homogeneity, for example, the Western world in general and Western Europe particularly, conflicts between the countries are becoming increasingly rare. Today it is hard to imagine an armed conflict between countries such as France, Germany, UK, Spain and Portugal etc, often colliding with each other throughout history.

     Though the democratic peace theory was not rigorously or scientifically studied until the 1960s, the basic principles of the concept had been argued as early as the 1700s in the works of philosopher Immanuel Kant. In his essay, there are several necessary conditions for perpetual a peace: 

1. "No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war"

Otherwise it would be only Truce temporary cessation of hostilities, not the peace, which means the end of any enmity.

2. "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation"

The state is not a property. State is a community of people to command and dispose of which must not nobody but itself.

3) "Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished"

Being constantly ready for war, they continually threaten the other states. They impel them to outdo each other in the number of armed forces, which knows no limit and because the costs become in the end more onerous than a short war, then standing armies themselves cause military assault to get rid of this burden.

4. "National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states"

Finding funds within the country or outside of it does not inspire suspicion, if it is done for the economic needs of the country (better roads, new settlements, the creation of reserves in case of bad harvests years and so on). But as a weapon of struggle between the powers themselves credit system under which debts can enormously increase, is a dangerous money force, a fund for war.

5) "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state"

Interference of other powers means violation of the rights of independent people fighting only with its internal disease.

6. "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins, poisoners, breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason in the opposing state"

These are dishonorable stratagems. During the war there should remain at least some trust in way of thinking of the enemy, because otherwise it will be impossible to make peace and hostilities will become a war of extermination

     Fundamental principles of "democratic peace" were formulated in Kant's famous treatise "Perpetual Peace." Kant's theory was that a majority of the people would never vote to go to war, unless in self-defense. Therefore, if all nations were republics, it would end war, because there would be no aggressors.

In contrast to the concepts of traditional schools, the concept of "democratic peace" is not formed deductively and did not directly appear in the form of a complete theory. Its contours emerge gradually, arising as a result of partial observations. In the second half of the 1960s, some scientists, studying applied problems of quantitative analysis of international conflicts, independently began to detect and identify data that under certain conditions democracies behave differently than authoritarian.

In 1965 M.Haas speculated that the relationship between democratic countries are less conflict than among non-democratic. Later this hypothesis was confirmed by M. Sullivan. Drawing on an extensive database, which amounted results shortchanging various conflict situations, he came to the conclusion that "most of the open systems both in the long and short term, are less involved in conflicts <...> than closed". But these conclusions remain unnoticed by the scientific community as peaceful conflict resolution studies were at that time on the far periphery of the theoretical study of the problems of war and peace.

Meanwhile, in 1964, there was an article published in a magazine in which the author - Dean Babst - claimed that from 1789 to 1941, there was no war between independent states, led by the "elected government".  He quoted the relevant statistics of wars for the specified period, offered his definition of the political systems of these not warring states, and most importantly, made a direct causal link between the political systems of democratic states and pacifism in the relations between them. Many modern researchers of "democratic peace" consider Babst as the ancestor of this research.

At the same time a number of scientists begin to engage in research of interdependence of domestic and foreign policy of states, particularly their behavior in the critical area of ​​international relations regarding to issues of war and peace. Perhaps the most fundamental was the five-volume study R. Rummel "Understanding of conflict and war." In the last two volumes he is talking specifically about the relationship between democracy and war. Rummel analyzes the behavior of domestic sources of different states and concludes that "freedom counteracts violence." He suggests that "There are the fundamental mutual sympathies between libertarian systems peoples in relation to each other, the compatibility of fundamental values, the mutual influence of the interacting groups and organizations, and diffusion of power and interests". Rummel concludes: libertarian state does not exercise violence against each other; and the more libertarian the state is, the lower is the level of violence generated by it no matter what state it has to deal with.

     If democratic countries have been seen in the war or in an armed confrontation with each other, this means that they both are not yet fully democratic (for example, Greece and Turkey), or one of them is not entirely democratic, (Argentina in the conflict with Britain over the Falkland Islands), or it is not about the war, because war is considered to be an armed conflict between states with at least 1 thousand people killed. US military intervention (eg, Granada, 1968), or NATO’s intervention in the internal affairs of other countries (Yugoslavia, 1999) were explained by the necessity to restore democracy.

     For realists peace is not so much the result of a democratic culture, or the system of checks and balances as a consequence of the existence of strong international alliances and the aggregate capacity of deterring potential aggressors.

Realists pay attention to the tensions that existed in the practice of developed democracies of the West and almost led to armed conflicts. Analyzing the diplomatic crises 1861-1923 years between leading Western states, Christopher Lane has shown that in some cases, the UK, France, Germany and the United States almost slipped to armed confrontation. At the very least, each of them was willing to use force, and conflicts were resolved not because of cultural and normative or institutional properties.

It is important that the democratic state, if it was to their advantage for economic or military reasons, did not hesitate to destabilize some democratic regimes.

Another point of criticism is related to the realist analysis of the behavior of "young democracies" - countries that are in the process of strengthening the newly established democratic institutions. Being democratic in formal criteria (eligibility, multi-party), such countries do not always show the peacefulness. Instead, they behave more aggressively than stable authoritarian regimes. Bloody clashes in the 1990s, Croatia with Serbia and Bosnia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have become possible, despite the "democratizing" nature of these states.

Undemocratic states can be very peaceful. History provides examples where authoritarian leaders - for example, in the socialist countries of the second half of the last century - very consistently led the line of avoiding wars with its neighbors, often agreeing on painful territorial decisions for themselves (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland late 1940s). Authoritarian leaders tightly controlled potential chauvinistic impulses of society, showing in this sense almost exemplary responsibility and peacefulness.

Even if democracies demonstrate peacefulness, this is not due to the inherent normative and institutional constraints. Their behavior should be explained by the specific circumstances of the military-strategic properties.

Dictators may be inclined to the world more than the elected leaders of democratic countries. In case of loss of the war dictator could lose both power and life. Therefore he can be more attentive to assessment of the consequences of the war than his democratically elected colleagues.

Sober comprehension demands and the question of the potential pacifying role of public opinion, political parties and interest groups in democratic societies. Firstly, public opinion is not always rational, and can support a war, even if it means a calamity and destruction - especially outside of their own country (think American society in preparation for war against Iraq at the turn of 2002 - 2003). Secondly, the war is a costly adventure not for the entire population, but only for some of its layers. Often military conflict not only mobilizes people ideologically and politically, but it is advantageous economically, creating new jobs.