Democratic Peace Theory
Democratic peace is presently a theory that has come under fire from many individuals due to the complex nature in which it is applied to nations and their handling of foreign affairs. There are currently two accepted arguments: (1) Democracies do not fight one another because they are self-organizing systems and are therefor fundamentally distinct from other states, and (2) they are as prone to conflict with nondemocracies or quasi-democracies as nondemocracies are with one another. These views on democratic peace are one of a "... dyadic effect, which implies that democracies are only more peaceful with one another, and not a monadic effect, which would mean that democracies are more peaceful in their relations with all countries" (Rousseau 512). The argument that democracies do not fight one another is a relatively easy, while at the same time complex concept to argue. Many researchers try to argue that democratic peace is reliable based solely on liberal and democratic norms. It is not that norms are not unimportant, it is just that they are alone unable to explain why peace continues between democratic nations. The concept behind the statement democracies do not fight one another is supported by the fact that when two dem
Another explanation for democracies remaining at peace with one another is because they are self-organizing systems. "As systems, liberal democracies have more in common with science and the market than with undemocratic governments. These similarities explain their peaceful relationships with one another" (diZerega 280). Because democracies are not hierarchically structured, they do not suffer from the problems hierarchical institutions do. A hierarchical government faces the problems of setting specific goals, and once these goals are set the system either achieves its goals or fails and disintegrates. With constitutional rules in place, a democratic system has no specific goals. Instead a democracies will form a framework so that the politicians can work within it. "Self-organizing systems are quite common. Language, science, and the market are all self-organizing systems. The members of a self-organizing system, or spontaneous order, pursue independently chosen ends without being subject to any specific over arching common purpose" (diZerega 285). In contrast to the way a democracy operates one could turn to Maoist China and the specific goals that were set. Mao decided that China was going to industrialize in a rapid manor and nothing was going to stop this industrialization. Millions of Chinese citizens melted down everything they owned in order to meet quotas imposed by the national communist party. A specific goal would almost certainly not be set in a democratic nation in peacetime conditions. There are specific examples of democratic nations setting very specific goals, but only during times of war.
Some common words found in the essay are:
, Assumption Political, Millions Chinese, Somalia Haiti, Michael Doyle, President Nixon, Maoist China, democratic peace, Dominican Republic, democratic nation, Democratic Peace, Political Science, military force, self-organizing systems, democracies fight, specific goals, military intervention, democratic nations, prone conflict nondemocracies, political opposition, assumption political, requires military intervention, democratic peace democratic, setting specific goals, conflict requires military,
Approximate Word count = 1743
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
