Democracy is an ideology that promotes peace, decentralizes power, and promotes equality and a high level of freedom; it is an instrument that works for people and protects people’s interests. Democracy statistically is a significant factor in receding conflicts and wars; the war in any shape in democratic ideology is unpopular and does not fit its peace theory principles. Moreover, the idea that mature democracies are less likely to go to war has been quite an interesting phenomenon that prompts a mainstream research agenda for International Relations Scholars and Policy Makers—knowing that in practice, historically, there has been stacked evidence that democracies will account for the majority and the bloodiest wars in history. When we talk about democratic countries, we are painting a picture of certain norms, values, and principles that, in theory, fit this carved mold of liberalism. The pursuit of individual freedom, right to private property, freedom of speech, government through a democratic election, and representation, to name a few catalysts that all democratic countries share but non-perfected all within their states, thus the American invasion of Granada and American Civil War would assert this flaw. Hitler’s invasion of Poland, consequently initiating World War II, would be another flaw stacked against democracy and would caution a relationship between democracy and violence.
Furthermore, it is essential to establish that although the probability of democracies engaging in military conflict has fallen at all times low, there is still a strong tendency toward military use between democratic and non-democratic countries even in present days. The pursuit of unification restricting violence when bargaining with foreign aggression seems loosened; a democratic leader would willingly engage in a costly war with non-democratic states, especially when and if a credible threat or an attack is posed. One should not forget the United States, a frontier in a democracy that used the most outrageous weapons in the history of wars against another country, and the American people were completely unaware of the decision of the government to use WMD in Japan.
The Democratic Peace Theory explains the absence of war between democracies, and it upholds democracy as a key peacekeeper due to the obligatory culture of democracy that governs the relationship between leaders and the people and their involvement in the decision-making when it comes to engaging in war with another country. In particular, the US political leaders historically understood that promoting worldwide democracy would instill peace in their country and congeal our country’s security and peace. For many years US leaders have advocated for worldwide peace theory; it even entered into the policy decision at some point. In 1994 in his state of the union, President Bill Clinton said that worldwide democracy is in the best interest of our country. Similarly, President George W. Bush argued that promoting democracy should be an essential part of our policy when he advocated for US involvement in the Middle East. The mindset of promoting peace seems to be a central aspect of our leaders; President Obama emphasized the connection between peace and democracy during his 2009 speech, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
There is a significant decline in democracies engaging in military conflict; therefore, the claim that mature democracies “almost never” go to war with one another may be more fitting in recent history. I believe that this is in large because democracy creates new culture and incentives and promotes a cultural behavior shift where citizens hold their leaders accountable. It obligates the leaders to oblige to the laws of the country. Transparency and checks and balances govern a sense of security amongst states; just because they disagree on specific issues, they do not have a fear of a sudden revolt of war. Another incentive of democracy is electoral, which promotes accountability; those in power are selected by people and work for people. Thus, engaging in war is not in their best interest as they must share the war’s outcome with the people and may lose electoral votes as a result. There is a stark contrast between autocracies here, as the leaders in these countries have sole proprietors in decision-making. Usually, they decide what interests them and the elite around them. Therefore, engaging in war seems less harmful to them as they are rarely engaged or affected directly in the war and bear no consequences to their political power. However, the other hypothesis is that leaders of democratic countries may have a greater incentive to start a war due to pure pressure from their citizens. So as not to appear weak and ineffective to their voters in handling international conflicts or if a leader of a democratic state makes a threat during a conflict, and if they do not follow through, they are afraid of losing popularity on the poll and potentially losing the re-election. In contrast, with a leader from an autocratic country, popularity among their citizens is irrelevant, and their diplomatic power is unaffected by the citizens’ like or dislike.
It boils down to the shared interest; democracies tend to have more mutual interest and collaboration, keeping each other more accountable as an alliance. Each democracy will share similar norms and values and is required to fulfill a set of universal requirements. Further, there is more at stake when democracies engage in a conflict. Usually, it will be resolved diplomatically because of their mutual economic interest that they do not want to lose. However, also democracies remember far too well the devastating outcome the military intervention would bring to them. Mature democratic states are powerful and advanced in their means and military skills. All can put quite a bloody fight; for that reason, I believe they restrain themselves from engaging in such conflict as it can have grave consequences for both parties involved and would produce catastrophic geopolitical consequences globally. So when conflict arises, they seem to diffuse the situation promptly through diplomatic compromise. Democracies do not like to threaten each other as they know neither one cannot back down. The conflict will escalate with a devastating outcome; this is partly because Democratic leaders do not want to appear weak to their constituents and the people who elected them.
The global spread of democracy, followed by solid multicontinental economic growth, develops global stability and peace.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|