A Relationship Between Democracy And Making The World A More Peaceful Place? Essay

Charles Lipson in “Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace,” argues that Democratic Peace Theory offers an explanation as to why democracies, in particular, have avoided the war front. In his delineation, he cites the ideals of bargaining, mutual benefit, reluctance to bear the cost of war, and the restraint placed upon elected official as to why democracies, unlike non-democracies, have avoided conflict for as long as they have (Lipson 10). His argument, alike to other Democratic peace theorists, consist of the idea that all areas should be a democracy, as these benefits exist amongst democracies due to their shared values.

Democratic Peace Theory is another example of how liberals prove that the spread of democratic principles is beneficial. M.W Doyle and R.J. Rummel came up with this theory in the end of the 20th century, which posits that democracies are hesitant to start a conflict with other democracies. “When the citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible” (Doyle, 1986, p.1151). The reason of this theory is that liberal state that individuals, without the help from the government, are naturally very similar. Democracies are favourable in the setting environment where ideas of progress and liberty are common. Peace has to be established through diplomacy and war only used against authoritarian and undemocratic states in order to maintain the peace in the state system. The main example of the relevance of the theory is Europe Peace. Europe was the bloodiest continent on Earth for many centuries, but since 1945 because of the increased integration and cooperation there were no general wars between European states themselves. Liberals also mention the importance of the creation of collective security – institutions, which would be a legal framework for interaction in order to promote democratic values. Neo-liberals, such as Joseph Nye or Robert Keohane argue that

In his book, Fareed Zakaria concretely explores the vicissitudes of democracy’s limitations and thus offers exemplary arguments for the need for economic liberty followed by constraints and proper measures to prevent countries from descending into chaos. There is irrefutable credibility and merit to his assertion that conducting competitively fair and open elections, while failing to ensure the guarantee of liberties that are essential for the nation to flourish and prosper— is insufficient for a nation to be called democratic. In today’s world, what Zakaria considers “the democratic age,” most of American foreign policy visa-vie actors around the world is based on the premise that we are willing to prop, negotiate, and support nations

Democracy: A political system in which citizens enjoy a number of basic civil and political rights, and in which their most important political leaders are elected in free and fair elections and accountable under a rule of law (26). In the studies we have undertaken, comparing and exploring various countries and systems politically, economically, and psychologically throughout the quarter, this outcry of democracy has prevailed as a main theme. Successful countries such as the United States and Great Britain are based upon such democratic ideals. It is no wonder that countries have striven more recently toward this goal of democratization. Both the Russian and Mexican revolutions prove that democracy is an attainable goal in the next

The Democratic War Thesis argues a direct connection between democracy and inter-state conflict. This argument, is however, split between a strong and weak variant, with the former claiming that by nature, democracies are prone to war, while the latter notes democratic norms and structures that offer avenues for conflict, as to facilitate war (653). Bell points out that as the U.S. public called for war against Spain, “The people, it turned

Current Issues, 35th edition, examines both the pros and cons of spreading democracy. This text explains that promoting democracy is in the U.S. national interest because democracy creates a safer, more stable world. Democratic nations cooperate with other nations and the U.S. better because they are more answerable to their citizens. The text also claims that such nations will deny terrorists from a base from which to plan and carry out attacks.

Since the French Revolution, America has been actively pursuing promotion of democracy on a global scale. The desire to build inclusive political processes globally by America has an underlying motive of economic gain, veiled by the promotion of general liberties and civil rights. Democratic nations are more likely to honor international treaties, participate in global economic interactions, uphold the right to civil liberties, and less likely to engage in conflict. However, due to conflicting platforms of major parties and integral political leaders and representatives, the implementation of plans to promote democracy are consistently vetoed or are weak in practice. This fault of democracy promotion can be significantly attributed to divided government.

Initially, I found the Democratic Peace Theory to seem hypocritical and backwards, but continuing to read more throughout the chapter, the conclusion that came, was that this theory actually makes a compelling argument. However, the fact that democracy leaders will wage war in the efforts of building more democratic systems, often referred to as expanding the “zone of peace”, in hopes for attaining worldwide peace among the states, was the exact portion that seemed hypocritical. The compelling part of the argument, as previously mentioned, is based on the “Dyadic Model” of the democratic peace theory that stresses three supporting arguments: the structural argument, the normative argument,

Since the dawn of mankind, there has always been a struggle for power, from our primitive ancestors to our present day, supposed, enlightened times. There have been a variety of systems that spawned and died in the political world. It can be assumed that the fruition of democracy emerged after the desire to create a system in which it was equal, sustainable, and transparent and where human rights was recognized. Robert Dahl, a prominent political scientist, had believed creating a democratic society in which he considered was perfect had to have (Dahl, 2000): effective participation, equal voting, enlightened understanding, an open agenda setting and inclusion (p.37-38) . In the present day, there are many countries that consider themselves

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its

Dictionaries define Democracy as a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament . Other dictionaries define Democracy as the rule of the majority. Democracy appears distinguishably in everyday news, papers, and people’s daily talks. Democracy as a word has become associated with equality and goodness. Moreover, democracy, in theory, is not the power of certain people over others but the power of the people, the people rule. Personally, I believe that democracy is liberty. In other words, “In order that the liberty of all may be preserved, the liberty of everybody must be curtailed.” Nevertheless, I find that today’s definition of democracy has changed considerably. This paper will discuss the term democracy defined by Qaddafi’s through his book and rule of Libya.

Winston Churchill once remarked that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In agreement with his statement, this paper will examine the problems of democratic governments using specific examples, and compare it to the failure of fascist governments in Nazi Germany and Italy and communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

The concept of democracy has made a grand mark on humanity, evolving in one of the most powerful civilizations of humankind, Ancient Greece. The perpetual idea emerged during the 6th century B. C. E., almost 2,500 years ago. Its untimely disappearance for a few thousand years gave way for various ups and downs of tyrannical and dictatorial monarchs and sovereigns. Worldwide, many states have struggled with maintaining steady political powers that consider the best interests of all of the state’s people. John Dunn addresses the history of democracy, expressing similarities and differences between modern and ancient democracy. According to Dunn, though the type of “demokracia” occurring in Ancient Athens was very different from the forms of democracy that we see in the world today, all successful democracies share similar fundamental characteristics, equality, stability, and change.