The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems Munafrizal Manan Jurusan Ilmu Hubungan Internasional.
Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia.
Jakarta E-mail: munafrizal@uai.
Abstract: This essay discusses the democratic peace theory from the perspective of both its proponents and opponents.
The puzzle of the democratic peace theory has long been debated methodologically and empirically.
Both have a strong argument to support their views, however.
This essay highlights the debate by focusing on the three problems of the democratic peace theory.
First, the differences of the definitions of democracy, war, and peace that demonstrates the lack of robustness in the democratic peace theory.
Second, democracy by force has often failed to establish peace whether international or domestic peace and therefore the promotion of democracy around the world have been seen as a justification of democratic intervention to other sovereign states.
Third, the democratic peace theory does not always apply in new emerging democratic countries.
As a result, it raises a question whether the democratic peace theory is an academic theory or an ideology.
Keywords: Democracy.
Peace.
War.
Democratic Peace.
Kant.
Abstrak: Esai ini mendiskusikan teori perdamaian demokratik dari perspektif pendukung dan penentang teori ini.
Teka-teki teori ini telah lama diperdebatkan secara metodologis dan empiris.
Pendukung dan penentang teori ini sama-sama memiliki argumen kuat untuk mendukung pandangan Esai ini menyoroti perdebatan tersebut melalui fokus pada tiga masalah yang melekat pada teori perdamaian demokratik.
Pertama, menyoroti perbedaan definisi demokrasi, perang, dan perdamaian yang menunjukkan kurang kuatnya teori ini.
Kedua, menyoroti aspek demokrasi melalui paksaan yang ternyata sering gagal menegakkan perdamaian dalam lingkup domestik maupun internasional, dan karena itu promosi demokrasi ke seluruh dunia dipandang sebagai sekadar justifikasi untuk mengintervensi negara-negara berdaulat.
Ketiga, teori perdamaian demokratik tidak selalu dapat diterapkan di negara-negara demokrasi baru.
Akibatnya, muncul pertanyaan apakah teori perdamaian demokratis adalah sebuah teori akademik atau sebuah ideologi.
Kata Kunci: Demokrasi.
Perdamaian.
Perang.
Perdamaian Demokratik.
Kant.
The relationship between democracy Introduction It has long been asked and discussed and peace has long been debated by what the effective ingredient of internatio- as scholars across disciplines such philoso- nal peace is.
Obviously, there are different phy, political science, sociology, history views to answer such a question.
one of and law, to mention but a few.
Mostly, them is the liberal view.
Most liberalist the debate has been taking place strongly believe focusing on the so-called the democratic that democracy is an 121 According answer and the only way to establish international peace around the world.
Aodemocratic peace theory is probably the Rosato.
Because of that, according to them, it is very important to spread democracy so that international peace can be enforced and Thus, democracy is seen as a solution for peace and both are mutually Some authors use different suffix words for this term.
Some of them use 'the democratic peace theory', and some others name 'the democratic peace thesis', 'the democratic peace hypothesis', and 'the democratic peace proposition'.
Basically, the differences indicate that 'the democratic peace' is contested by scholars and no universal agreement has been achieved on the validness of 'the democratic peace'.
The words of 'theory', 'thesis', 'hypothesis', and Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems most powerful liberal contribution to the This essay is divided into two sections.
debate on the cause of war and peaceAo.
Firstly, it will view the idea of the For its proponents, the democratic democratic peace theory which was firstly peace theory brings an optimistic view on coined by Immanuel Kant over two the future of international peace.
For them, hundred years ago.
Secondly, it will discuss to create peace is simply to spread the debate of the democratic peace theory.
democracy to all countries around the From this point, this essay tries to show the It is believed that the more problems of the democratic peace theory.
democratic they are, the more peaceful they will be.
This is a reason why Aothe idea of a Kant and Perpetual Peace democratic zone of peace is routinely Much has been written about the voiced in both academic and policy making democratic peace theory.
It is widely circlesAo.
However, such a generalization is recognized that the democratic peace theory questioned by its opponents who argue that is rooted in the idea of Immanuel Kant the reality is not as simple as that.
The proponents of this theory have overstated Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch written in 1795.
Kant gave a philosophical justification for the democratic peace proponents which resulted in theoretical Kant Aoposited that a republican form and methodological debates.
of government, exemplifying the rule of The The aim of this essay is to overview law, provides a feasible basis for states to the democratic peace theory.
It is an attem- overcome structural anarchy and to secure pt to answer such questions: What is the peaceful relations among themselvesAo.
democratic peace theory? What is the Based on this.
Kant believed that if all debate among experts about the democratic nations in the world were republics, then it would end war since there would be no democratic peace theory can be applied? aggressors who flaming war among them.
Such a belief was probably influenced by 'proposition' suggest that 'the democratic peace' needs to be examined empirically.
In this essay.
I prefer to use 'the democratic peace theory', although it is sometimes used interchangeably.
Sebastian Rosato.
AuThe Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace TheoryAy.
American Political Science Review.
Vol.
97 No.
4 (Novembe.
, p.
Miriam Fendius Elman.
AuIntroduction.
The Need for a Qualitative Test of the Democratic Peace TheoryAy in Miriam Fendius Elman .
Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?.
CSIA Studies in International Security, (Cambridge.
Massachusetts:
The MIT Pres.
, p.
the condition of KantAos time in which AoEurope was hardly an area in which republics flourishedAo.
As cited by Steve Chan.
AuIn Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and PromiseAy.
Mershon International Studies Review.
Vol.
No.
1 (Ma.
, p.
Bruce Russett.
Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems Kant partially emphasized the impor- Kant distinguished three Audefinitive articlesAy of peace, which together constituted a tripod of peace.
In the contemporary international system.
Kant's definitive articles of peace correspond to the interlocking institutions of democracy ( Au re p u b l i c a n c o n s t i t u t i o n Ay ) , economic interdependence (Aucosmopolitan rightAy and Auuniversal communityA.
, and international organization (Aupacific federationA.
tance of the so-called Aurepublican/constitutionsAy which is now often viewed as Kant democracy based solely on majoritarian rule and hence would probably reluctant to be called a democrat if democracy was understood as the rule of popular will as Thus, it shows that what is now Kant believed thet these three eleme- proponents of the democratic peace theory nts are the basis for perpetual peace.
De- is slightly different to KantAos view.
mocracy, interdepedence, and international However, it is generally agreed that law and organization are essential to achieve Aurepublican constitutionAy is compatible perpetual peace.
It is believed that demo- with the concept of democracy because the cracy prevents international war, economic constitutionAy interdependence reduces international war, consists of Aofreedom .
ith legal equality of and international organizations maintain subject.
, representative government, and international peace and security.
However.
Aurepublican separation of powersAo.
They are the many proponents of the democratic peace fundamental elements in the application of theory overemphasize the importance of democracy today, indeed.
They do not see all three In spite of Aurepublican constituionsAy, elements as an inherent part of peace and the other key elements of the perpetual hence have to be applied altogether at the peace that Kant also stressed are Aucosmo- same time.
In fact, as Oneal and Russett politan lawAy and Aupacific unionAy.
The for- argues, perpetual peace is not only a result mer deals with international commerce of democracy, but also product of trade and free trade, and the latter relates cooperation among countries and joint to treaty in membership in international organizations.
international law According In this regard.
Meierhenrich Kant.
Aurepublican notes that:
(Princeton.
New Jersey: Princeton University Pres.
Ibid, p.
Steve Chan, op.
cit, p.
Bruce Russett, op.
cit, p.
Ibid.
Jens Meierhenrich, 2007.
AuPerpetual War: A Pragmatic SketchAy.
Human Rights Quarterly, 29, p.
John R.
Oneal and Bruce Russett.
AuThe Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy.
Interdependence, and International OrganizationsAy, 1881-1992Ay.
World Politics Vol.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems constitutionAy that respect to law is the warAy between liberals and nonliberalsAo.
peaceful form of the state and hence With regard to the significance of KantAos necessary in order to prevent the ruler ideas today.
Doyle opines that:
Perpetual PeaceAhelps us understand the interactive nature of international relations.
Kant tries to teach us methodologically that we can study neither the systemic relations of states nor the varieties of state behaviour in isolation from each Substantively, he anticipates for us the ever-widening pacification of a liberal pacific union, explains this pacification, and at the same time suggests why liberal states are not pacific in their relations with nonliberal states.
without considering law and public opinion.
As Waltz points out.
Aoin a republic the unambiguous test of right is applied to every piece of legislation, and every act of the executive will in turn follow the universally established lawAo.
Moreover, as Owen argues.
Aothe people who fight and fund war have the right to be consulted, through representatives they elect, before entering itAo.
This is the reasons why war Furthermore.
Doyle argues that AoKant never or at least rarely occurs among should not and cannot be simply applied.
Aurepublican constitutionAy states.
Eventually.
But some of KantAos ideas can still be according to Kant, it will lead to perpetual inspiring, analytically and normatively, including most centrally his vision of an Michael W.
Doyle points out that the expanding separate peace grounded in notion of Kant on perpetual peace is republican institutions, liberal norms and basically developed from three definitive commercial interdependenceAo.
Such a view suggests that although KantAos ideas on peace deserves for an appreciation, a cosmopolitan law.
For Kant, a liberal peace critical approach needs to be taken to is not a utopian ideal to be reached if the examine the applicability of his ideas.
In Perpetual Peace.
Kant A Progressive Debate shows us that Aoliberal republics lead to The first time Kant published his dichotomous international politics: peaceful theory about two centuries ago, not much or Aupacific similarly liberal states unionAy and a Austate of Kenneth N.
Waltz.
Realism and International Politics, (New York and London: Routledg.
, p.
As cited by Jens Meierhenrich, op.
cit, p.
Michael W.
Doyle.
Liberal Peace: Selected Essays (London and New York: Routledge, 2.
, p.
according to todayAos standards.
Before the Ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems members of other pairs of statesAo.
Also, governments were scarce.
As Gowa says.
Aodemocracies are more pacific in general Aono evidence of a democratic peace is than are other types of statesAo.
According World War IAo.
to Russett, such a statement indicates a Accordingly, less attention has been paid to complex phenomenon of the democratic KantAos theory because it was probably peace theory.
Furthermore.
Russett explains presumed inapplicable.
However, it has changed since the middle of nineteenth .
Democracies rarely fight each other .
n century in which the democratic peace empirical statemen.
they have theory has been contested by philosophers other means of resolving conflicts between and social scientists.
In the 1960s, the them and therefore do not need to fight democratic peace theory was evaluated each other .
prudential statemen.
, and .
scientifically by researchers.
During 1970s they perceive that democracies should not and 1980s, this theory has been attracting fight each other .
normative statement more attention from researchers and it about principles of right behaviou.
, which reinforces the empirical statement.
By this remains the same until today.
There are several phrases used by reasoning, the more democracies there are scholars to express the meaning of the in the world, the fewer potential adversaries democratic peace theory.
The democratic we and other democracies will have and the peace theory, basically, argues that it never wider the zone of peace.
or at least rarely happens that democratic To put it simply, the democratic countries are involved in war against each peace theory can be viewed from two First, it is called the dyadic Aodemocracies have almost never fought proposition which argues that democratic Similarly, each otherAo.
Likewise, it is understood states rarely fight each other and it takes that Aomembers of pairs of democratic states two democracies to make peace.
Such a are much less likely to engage each other in view is supported by most scholars.
serious disputes short of war than are usually based on Aoa shared culture and Joanne Gowa.
Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace, (Princeton.
New Jersey:
Princeton University Pres.
, p.
Easley.
The War over Perpetual Peace: An Exploration into the History of a Foundational International Relations Text, (New York: Palgrave Macmilla.
, p.
Piki Ish-Shalom.
AuTheory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Politics of DemocratizationAy.
European Journal of 141 International Relations.
Vol.
, pp.
Bruce Russett, op.
cit, p.
It is constraints on a leaderAos actions.
that is, the structure of a democratic government Joanne Gowa, op.
cit, p.
Miriam Fendius Elman, op.
cit, p.
Bruce Russett, op.
cit, p.
Miriam Fendius Elman, op.
cit, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems makes it difficult for leaders to make Moreover.
Aothe dyadic argument complex and slow, allowing the leaders of suggests that democracies carefully identify resolutions of conflicts between themAo.
the type of state with which they are Second, interacting, and adjust their behaviour dimensions of democratic societies which Aoclaiming that the norms of tolerance and accordinglyAo.
Second, it is named the monadic openness function at the level of the proposition which argues that Aodemocratic relations between themAo.
As a result, state are less prone to use force regardless according to Ish-Shalom.
Aothere is more of the regime type of their opponentsAo and it willingness to reach compromises, and is alleged that Aothe more democratic the conflicts are settled peacefullyAo.
state, the less violent its behaviour toward regard.
Aopolitical conflicts in democracies other statesAo.
Elman opines that there are In this are resolved through compromise rather two central arguments of the monadic than through elimination of opponentsAo.
AoFirst, democratic states are In the literature of the democratic less likely to see war as a viable foreign peace theory, according to Gowa, there are policy option.
Force is not seen as a three explanations that confirm the role of legitimate tool of foreign policy, but rather democracy in enforcing peace.
Gowa as an option of last resort.
Second, the identifies that Aosome studies stress the role regime type of the opponent is not likely to of political culture.
others emphasize the play a crucial role in democratic statesAo deterrent effects of trade.
and still others decisions to go to warAo.
point to the ability of democratic regimes to In the discussion of the democratic constrain leadersAo action abroadAo.
The first peace theory it is often questioned in what argues that Aoa norm of peaceful conflict resolution prevails within democracies.
international peace.
According to Ish- This norm precludes recourse to violence to Shalom, there are two major theories to settle any disputes that may arise within explain it.
First, it is called the structural democratic statesAo.
Furthermore.
Aothe norm dimensions of democracy which Aoclaiming that governs conflict resolution within that the division of power, checks and balances, and leadersAo accountability to the settlement of disputes between them.
If the public, make the decision making process interests of two democracies clash, each Ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Lo.
cit, p.
Piki Ish-Shalom, op.
cit, p.
Maoz and Russett .
as cited by Jens Meierhenrich, op.
cit, p.
Joanne Gowa, op.
cit, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems country involved expects the other to sit Singer .
revealed the same finding down at the bargaining table rather than to that Aodemocracies participated in fewer resort to forceAo.
The second explanation wars than non-democracies from 1815 Aoemphasizes the role of trade in deterring through 1965'.
recourse to forceAo and the inclination to also supported by Zeev Maoz and Nasrin trade more and maintain lower trade Abdolali who found that Aobased on their barriers among democratic states.
In the last explanation.
Aothe relatively restricted Such conclusions were analysis of data spanning 150 years, democracies AuneverAy fight each otherAo.
autonomy of leaders of democratic states In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, plays a central roleAo.
The leaders are Rudolph constrained and watched by Aoopposition conclusions based on quantitative data.
leaders, periodic elections, and the presence Rummel argued that the democratic peace of a legislatureAo which are able to sanction theory Aowas not a statistical artefactAo and As a consequence, they cannot Rummel Aoliberalism decide to go to war based on their own international violenceAo.
In short, theories and explanations RummelAos conclusion.
Eric Weede noted above emphasize the power of democracy that Aothe democratic peace proposition was to achieve international peace.
Democracy subject to some important qualifications is seen as a self-constraint mechanism for growing out of the type of warfare that was studied and the time period that was There are substantial progresses of In response to examinedAo.
the democratic peace theory so far.
Chan A number of studies which were notes that the attention of the democratic conducted in the late 1980 and the early peace theory can be traced to an article published by Dean Babst in a journal consensus: although democracies are not namely Industrial Research in the early generally less warlike than non-democracies Aoan In this article.
Babst stated that Aono .
he so-called monadic hypothesi.
, they rarely .
f eve.
fight each other .
he dyadic hypothesi.
Ao.
governments between 1789 and 1941'.
the democratic peace theory.
the same decade.
Melvin Small and David During 1980s and 1990s, many more Ibid, p.
Ibid.
Ibid, p.
Steve Chan, op.
cit, p.
Dean Babst .
2: .
as cited by Steve Chan, ibid.
Most studies above support As cited by Steve Chan, ibid, p.
159 As cited by Joanne Gowa, op.
cit, p.
As cited by Steve Chan, lo.
cit, p.
Eric Weede .
as cited by Steve Chan, ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems studies on the democratic peace theory have theory can be applied universally.
That is a reason why some scholars have criticized discipline using different approaches.
Chan and opposed the democratic peace theory compressed well these studies as follows:
by showing its problems.
In the following In the meantime, a number of studies have appeared that have sought to probe the empirical frontiers of the democratic peace proposition or clarify further its theoretical Some of this research has explored the proposition's AucosilienceAy (Olson 1.
by extending its logic beyond the original concern with war to other p h e n o m e n a s u c h a s f o re i g n intervention, dispute mediation, trade practice, civil strife, covert subversion, alliance membership, and international treaties as well as the crisis-management and warwinning capabilities of democratic or democratizing statesA.
Other studies have offered collateral evidence for the democratic peace proposition using historical, anthropological, and experimental approachesA.
Still others have presented various political, economic, psychological, and philosophical perspectives to illuminate why the democratic peace occursA.
Finally, several recent studies have focused on differentiating between the monadic and dyadic hypotheses that compose the democratic peace proposition.
problems of the democratic peace theory.
The Three Problems The democratic peace theory is related to the Some scholars argue that the results of the democratic peace theory depend on the definitions of democracy and war which are used to analyse it.
Russett suggests that Aowe need to define what we mean by democracy and warAo.
Indeed, it is important to define clearly what is meant by democracy, war and peace.
Noticeably, there are different views on the definition of democracy and war as well as peace.
In the literature of democracy, there has been a debate among social scientist, especially political scientists, about what democracy really is as well as which countries should be called democratic and It is clear so far that the democratic which types of democracies are more peace is somehow a Janus-faced theory.
Speaking generally, the experts The democratic peace theory is advocated agree that the democratic theories can be as well as opposed by scholars from various grouped into two broad paradigms.
In some cases and in certain times, there is a strong evident to validate the democratic peace theory as some studies have indicated above.
However, it is The first is elitist, structural, formal, and procedural.
It tends to understand democracy in a relatively minimalist way.
A regime is a democracy when it passes some hard to generalize that the democratic peace Ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Bruce Russett, op.
cit, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems structural threshold of free and open elections, autonomous branches of government, division of power, and checks and balances.
This state of affairs precludes a tyrannical concentration of power in the hands of the elites.
Once this structure is in place, a regime is a democracy.
The second paradigm, which is called 'normative', 'cultural', 'deliberative democracy', and 'participatory democracy', tends to focus on other issues and to demand much more of First, the emphasis is on the society and the individual citizens, not the political system and the Second, there is also a demand for the existence of democratic norms and democratic This implies, among other things, political rights, tolerance, openness, participation, and a sense of civic responsibility.
Thailand and Cambodia in 2008, for example, which were triggered by border disputes, strengthen such a view.
Within this context.
Chan argues that Aoalthough a large number of countries have recently .
or suffrage, multiparty competition, contested elections, legislative oversigh.
, it is not evident that their leaders and people have internalized such democratic norms as those regarding tolerance, compromise, and sharing powerAo.
Conversely, if it is based on the second paradigm, then there are only a few countries should be classified democratic.
Nevertheless, there is no a consensus is likely to focus merely on mature among the democratic peace theoreticians democratic countries especially in the about the nature of democracy in relation to regions of North America and West If the Europe.
As a consequence, numerous cases democratic peace theory is based on the of warring democracies will be excluded.
first paradigm, then there are many It means that the democratic peace theory is countries should be called democratic.
only relevant to countries in this region and Democracy Aois hence it cannot be applied to other relatively easy to build, but also relatively In other words, the proponents of peace theory.
It seems that the the democratic peace theory do not have a democratic peace theory is not strongly justifiable reason to spread democracy supported by the structural paradigm of around the world in order to enforce democratic theory because interstate wars international peace.
easy to dismantle itAo.
or at least armed conflicts remain taking Like democracy, the definition of place in countries that committed to this war is also contested by scholars.
The structural paradigm.
The armed conflicts proponents of the democratic peace theory between Russia and Georgia as well as who argue that democratic countries have Piki Ish-Shalom, op.
cit, p.
Ibid, p.
Steve Chan, op.
cit, p.
Original emphasises.
Miriam Fendius Elman, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems not involved in wars against each other an old definition is not adequate to explain Aohave tended to rely on the definition most the changing character of war in the widely used in academic research on the contemporary era.
causes of war in the last two or three decadesAo.
In addition, by using historical War is defined as, according to analysis Ravlo.
Gleditsch and Dorussen that definition.
Aono hostilityAqualified as show that the claim of the democratic peace an interstate war unless it led to a minimum theory that democratic states never get of 1,000 battle fatalities among all the involved in a war against each other is system members involvedAo.
Such undermined by historical evidence.
Their definition excludes the wars that do not fulfil the 1,000 battle-death threshold and extrasystematic wars have been fought by hence minimizes the number of cases that democraciesAo and Aoonly in the postcolonial can be categorized war.
As Ray observes, period are democracies less involved in Aoin any case, there are not numerous extrasystemic warAo.
incidents having just below 1,000 battle and imperial periods, wars occurred among deaths that would otherwise qualify as wars between democratic statesAo.
Aomost But in the colonial Moreover, it Similar to democracy and war, the Aoallows democratic peace proponents to definition of peace is also debated by The Put it simply, according to the case of Finland is one of examples for this.
realists, peace can be defined as the absence The Aoalthough of war.
As Waltz argues.
Aothe chances of democratic peace proponents code Finland peace rise if states can achieve their most as a democracy.
FinlandAos alliance with important ends without actively using Germany in World War II is summarily forceAo.
dismissed because fewer than 1,000 Finns something temporaryAo and therefore Aopeace exclude some troublesome casesAo.
were killed in armed combatAo.
However.
Aothe absence of war is Another is no more than a transient lack of warAo.
example is the 1967 Six Day War between For realists, the absence of war does not Israel and Lebanon in which Lebanon Aoonly simply mean that there will be no war in the sent a few aircraft into Israel air space and sustained no casualtiesAo.
Obviously, such James Lee Ray.
AuThe Democratic Path to PeaceAy.
Journal of Democracy.
Vol.
2, p.
Small and Singer .
2: .
as cited by James Lee Ray, ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Miriam Fendius Elman, op.
cit, p.
Ibid, p.
see also Bruce Russett, op.
cit, p.
Miriam Fendius Elman, ibid, p.
Bruce Russett.
Ibid, p.
Michael Sheehan.
AuThe Changing Character of WarAy, in John Baylis.
Steve Smith and Patricia Owens.
The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.
Fourth Edition (New York.
: Oxford University Pres.
Hilde Ravlo.
Nils Petter Gleditsch, and Hans Dorussen.
AuColonial War and the Democratic PeaceAy.
Journal of Conflict Resolution.
Vol.
August, p.
Ibid, p.
Kenneth N.
Waltz, op.
cit, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems future and they ridicule people who are happy with such a peace.
Realists believe expressed aggressively by the US foreign that Aowar is the common and unavoidable policy which believes that the promotion of feature of international relationsAo and it democracy around the world is not only useful to enforce international peace, but the view of Waltz.
Aoin an anarchic realm, also give a positive result on the US means that peace as dangerous as war.
peace is fragileAo.
Thus, for realists, peace national security.
This is a reason why is a period to prepare war.
Aothe promotion of democracy, genuine Other definitions of peace highlight Brown and otherwise, has been a cornerstone of international war as Aoviolence between organized political entities claiming to be Aopromoting democracy is a vital interest of sovereign nationAo.
Boulding who rebuts the realist definition of peace defines peace foreign policy for much of the centuryAo.
the United States that justifies that use of forceAo.
as Aoa situation in which the probability of The importance of the promotion of war is so small that it does not really enter democracy has been supported strongly by into the calculations of any of the people political leaders from both Republican involvedAo.
According to Boulding, peace Party and Democratic Party such as the US should be a real peace which means a Presidents Woodrow Wilson.
Bill Clinton.
Aostable peaceAo.
Boulding rejects the realist George W.
Bush, and Barack Obama.
definition of peace since it is an Aounstable Chan peaceAo.
The Aotheir suggest that democracy is the best antidote to warAo.
President Wilson who well- democratic peace theory is it is inclined to known as the liberal internationalism justify pro-democratic intervention.
In this believed that Aoa steadfast concert for peace sense.
Aothis thesis can fuel a spirit of can never be maintained except by a democratic crusade and be used to justify partnership of democratic nationsAo and Aothe covert or overt interventions against each world must be made safe for democracyAo.
otherAo.
The U.
foreign policy is the best Similarly.
President Clinton assured that example to see this case.
The faith of Aothe best strategy to ensure our security and Piki Ish-Shalom, op.
cit, p.
to build a durable peace is to support the 182 Ibid.
183 Kenneth N.
Waltz, op.
cit, p.
184 Seyom Brown .
4: .
as cited by Piki Ish-Shalom, cit, p.
Kenneth Boulding .
9: .
as cited by Piki IshShalom, ibid.
Ibid.
Forsythe .
Kegley and Hermann .
as cited by Steve Chan, op.
cit, p.
Jens Meierhenrich, op.
cit, p.
Piki Ish-Shalom, op.
cit, p.
Steve Chan, op.
cit, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems Democracies donAot attack each otherAo.
Aoliberal peace is definitely part of the rhetoric of foreign policyAo.
Likewise.
President Bush who is often In fact, the promotion of democracy called the neoconservative internationalism by force has encouraged war rather than stated firmly that Aothe reason why IAom so resulted in peace.
Some studies have strong on democracy is democracies donAot succinctly shown that the attempts to create go to war with each otherAIAove got great democracies by external force have often faith in democracies to promote peaceAo.
Based on their empirical analysis.
Such statements has been used by President Gleditsch.
Wilson to justify war against Imperial concludes that in the short term democratic Germany in 1900s, by President Clinton to intervention is indeed able to promote justify Aoaid to Russia and intervention in democratization, but some cases showed Christiansen Hegre Bosnia and HaitiAo in 1990s , and by clearly that it often created an unstable President Bush to justify war against democratizing country due to internal terrorism by invading Afghanistan and Iraq violence in the form of serious human in the early 2000.
Also, under the rights violations or civil wars and therefore Administration in the long run it brought dangerous democracy promotion tradition in foreign According to Mierhenrich.
Aothe result of pro-democratic intervention is democratic war, internal and otherwiseAo.
approaches compared to his predecessors.
Mierhenrich identifies that Ao pro-democratic As Bouchet says.
Obama intervention causes war in two ways: .
administration as for its predecessors, by waging war and .
by provoking warAo.
AmericaAos Thus democracy by external force is coun- predominant international status are all terproductive for peace.
Perhaps what has viewed as going hand in hand with been occurring in Iraq today shows the Obama Aofor democratization abroadAo.
All this clearly truth of such a conclusion.
show that, using the words of Doyle.
Woodrow Wilson.
AuMaking the World AuSafe for DemocracyAy: Woodrow Wilson Asks for WarAy.
<http://historymatters.
edu/d/4943/>.
Jens Meierhenrich, op.
cit, p.
192 Bill Clinton.
Au1994 State of the Union AddressAy.
<http://w.
com/wpsrv/politics/special/states/docs/sou94.
193 George W.
Bush 1994.
AuPresident and Prime Minister Blair Discussed Iraq.
Middle EastAy.
<http://w.
gov/news/releases/2004/1 1/20041112-5.
Miriam Fendius Elman, op.
cit, p.
Bouchet.
Nicholas.
AuThe Democracy Tradition in US Foreign Policy and the Obama PresidencyAy.
International Affairs.
Vol 89: 1, p.
Michael W.
Doyle, op.
, p.
Nils Petter Gleditsch.
Lene Siljeholm Christiansen, and Hyuvard Hegre.
AuDemocratic Jihad? Military Intervention and DemocracyAy, paper prepared for the Workshop on AuResources.
Governance Structures, and Civil WarAy.
ECPR Joint Session of Workshops.
Uppsala.
Sweden.
A p r i l 2 0 0 4 .
< h t t p : / / w w w.
p r i o .
no/files/file45238_hegre.
pdf>, p.
Jens Meierhenrich, op.
cit, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems A third problem with the democratic peace is it is not supported by the case of root and hence it is not new phenomena.
Mansfield and Snyder explains:
states in the early phases of transitions to Since the French Revolution, the earliest phases of democratization have triggered some of the world's bloodiest nationalist struggles.
Similarly, during the 1990s, intense armed violence broke out in a number of regions that had just begun to experiment with electoral democracy and more pluralistic public discourse.
In some cases, such as the former Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and I n d o n e s i a , t r a n s i t i o n f ro m dictatorship to more pluralistic political systems coincide with the rise of national independence movements, spurring separatist warfare that often spilled across international borders.
In other cases, transitional regime clashed in interstate warfare.
Ethiopia and Eritrea, both moving toward more pluralistic forms of government in the 1990s, fought a bloody border war from 1998 to 2000.
The elected regimes of India and Pakistan battled during 1999 in the mountainous borderlands of Kashmir.
Peru and Ecuador, democratizing in fits and starts during 1980s and 1990s, culminated a series of armed clashes with a small war in the upper Amazon As Mansfield and Snyder argue, these states are more likely become involved in war than other states due to weak political institutions .
uch as an effective state, the rule of law, organized parties that compete in fair election, and professional news medi.
which are needed to make democracy work.
The advocates of the democratic peace theory are inclined institutions because they are likely to believe that the best way to build democracy is just start.
For Mansfield and Snyder.
Aothis argument is incorrect and soAo Aoill-prepared attempts to democratize weak statesAisuch as the cases of Yugoslavia.
Pakistan.
Rwanda, and BurundiAimay lead to costly warfare in the shot run, and may delay or prevent real progress toward democracy over the long termAo.
They conclude that Aoin the short run, however, the beginning Mansfield and Snyder observe that stages of transition to democracy often give the Aoelite in newly democratizing states rise to war rather than peaceAo.
often use nationalist appeals to attract mass The path of democracy is not an easy way, indeed.
The failure of new emerging democratic accountability and that the institutional weakness of transitional states consolidated democracy has a historical creates the opportunity for such war- causing strategies to succeedAo.
For this Ibid, p.
Edward D.
Mansfield and Jack Snyder.
Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies go to War (Cambridge.
Massachusetts: MIT Pres.
, p.
Ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Edward D.
Mansfield and Jack Snyder,2002.
AuDemocratic Transition.
Institutional Strength, and WarAy.
International Organization 56,2,p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems reason, the establishment of political institutions is needed before promoting Aodemocratic democracy in autocratic countries.
In the wrongs, and policies of perpetual peace words of Mansfield and Snyder.
Aobefore become prescriptions for perpetual warAo.
In short, some cases have shown that the competitive elections, the international logic of democratic peace does not work community should first promote the rule of In the words of Snyder, law, the formation of impartial courts and Aonone of the mechanisms that produce the election commissiion, the professionaliza- tion of independent journalist, and the train- democracies operate in the same fashion in ing of competent bureucratsAo.
Beside, eco- peaceAo newly democratizing statesAo.
nomic and social modernization is also important in order to build democracy.
Conclusion Gat shows, democracy in itself is not able This essay has reviewed and to lead to a democratic peace unless such discussed the theory of democratic peace.
factors have fulfilled in advance.
In this Scholars across disciplines have noticeably regard.
Aoit has been found that economically contributed to our understanding of the developed democracies have been far more likely than poor democracies to be peaceful debated methodologically and empirically They the puzzle of the democratic peace theory.
toward one anotherAo.
Similar to Mansfield and Snyder.
It is indeed difficult to simply judge Meierhenrich also has the same conclusion.
whether the democratic peace theory is only He argues that Aothe new millennium saw a myth or a fact.
Both the proponents and The pro-democratic support their views.
intervention in Afghanistan, following the This essay has tried to highlight the attacks of 11 September 2001, has spurred three problems of the democratic peace insurgent warfare not only in that country.
First, there are different definitions but in neighbouring Pakistan as wellAo.
of democracy, war, and peace used by Therefore.
Aodemocracy, if not handled with scholars and the differences implicated to care, can the lack of robustness in the democratic democratic war- Ibid, p.
Ibid, p.
Azar Gat.
AuThe Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact of ModernityAy.
World Politics, 58 (Octobe.
, p.
Jens Meierhenrich, op.
cit, p.
Ibid, p.
Jack Snyder .
as cited by Meierhenrich, ibid, p.
Munafrizal Manan.
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems peace theory.
The use of certain definitions References