Evaluating Democratic Peace Theory

The idea of democratic peace is premised on the work of Immanuel Kant ‘’To Perpetual Peace. At the core of his work is the notion that peace is a consequence of reasonable interactions between states governed by a republican form of government. He argues that in a republican Constitution, war is dependent on the consent of the sovereign, who are the people (Etten, 2014). Thus, extra caution is observed before a declaration of war is made. On the other hand, in an autocratic state where the citizens are not the sovereign, a declaration of war is prompt and without the need to be cautious. Kant comes up with the above suggestion, since in the absence of republicanism, the people in power exercise their powers without the need to seek consent from the sovereign. In such a state, power is at the disposal of a leader and may be exercised at will and on his motion.

Based on the above, Kant concludes that peace is a result of a system of governance in a state (Kacowicz,2000). States whose system of governance is republicanism are more likely to exercise mutual respect towards each other. Those who are in autocratic systems are most likely to go into war (Kaarbo and Ray, 2010).  The democratic peace thesis,  therefore, suggests that in the presence of democracy, war between states is a rare outcome and peace is almost guaranteed (Føllesdal and Maliks, 2013). This begs the question of whether ‘the democratic peace thesis’ means that the idealist goal of a peaceful world order is within reach. This paper seeks to analyse the democratic peace thesis given establishing whether it was intended to mean that the presence of democracy in world states is the epitome of a peaceful world.

To test the accuracy of Kant’s thesis, three questions need to be addressed. One of the questions would be, ‘Are all or most of the democratic states coexisting peacefully with other democratic states?’ The other question would be, ‘Are all or most of the undemocratic states in a war with other states?  The last question would be, ‘What triggers a war between states?’

Based on the answers to the above questions, it would be possible to tell if Kant’s idea, as reflected in his thesis, is accurate or not. It would also be possible to tell if he was wrong if, by any chance, he sought to suggest that, through democracy, a peaceful world order is within reach.

It is quite clear that war is popular in undemocratic states. For instance, Syria is one of the undemocratic states that has been at war with other states.  There are claims that Syria is a semi-presidential republic, but in reality, power is concentrated in the President’s family. The country is under the Dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad (Hunter,2017). As a result, the country enjoys no peace, and there is a spirited struggle by its citizens to achieve a democratic system of governance. In its quest to cease fire in Syria, the US has in more than one instance found itself in conflict with Syria.

The country has also been at war with Saudi Arabia in one way or another. Both states are undemocratic, and though they had previously been in good relations, aggression against each other sprouted when Saudi Arabia started taking an active role in Syria’s civil war. Syria accused Saudi Arabia of extending military assistance and financial aid to rebel groups, especially those from the Islamic faith.

Notably, the SaudiArabiana King had insisted that the Syrian president be forced out of power. The element of for,ce as observed he Kant in his democratic peace thesis, is prominent in undemocratic states. In a state where republicanism is the way of governance, there are laid down procedures that must be followed to impeach a sitting president. Being the head of an undemocratic state, the King of SaudiArabia appreciates the use of force and aggression to achieve the desired outcome. On the same note, it is not surprising that the former president of the United States of America, Barack Oba, angered Saudi leaders after his decision not to make military interventions in 2013 when Syria made a chemical attack(Aljazeera.com, 2017). Such a move by the US president was inspired by the fact that America is a democratic state. Resolving into a war would need consultation and consent from the republicans, and as Kant observes, the sovereign is always reluctant to agree to go to war with other states.

While there may be conflicts between democratic states, armed conflicts are not prominent and are often avoided. In instances where democratic states launch attacks, the attacks are mostly towards undemocratic states(Lamy,2017). Such attacks are made as a last resort after every other effort has failed. They will begin with negotiation, and when negotiations fail, other tactics such as sanctions are employed. War comes only after all the other methods have entirely failed or proved ineffective.

A good example is the United States of America and North Korea.  The US is a democratic state, while North Korea is an imperfect democracy. This is because the Constitution advocates for a centralised form of governance where the president enjoys enormous powers. The Constitution empowers the state to supervise the population. Even though the Constitution recognises the rights and freedoms of the citizens, some of those rights, such as freedom of expression, have extensive limitations. It can be argued that North Korea is a dictatorship that operates under democracy and cannot be regarded as a perfect democracy (Kesselman et al., 2010). Due to its form of governance, the US has been provoked and is on the verge of engaging in war with North Korea. Both states have been making attack threats against each other. The US is opposing the manufacture of nuclear weapons by North Korea, but the leadership of North Korea is not backing off.

There is a connection between tolerance to situations that would trigger war to democracy. The reverse is also true, whereby undemocratic or less democratic states are intolerant of war in provocative situations, possibly setting grounds for interstate wars. It is almost probable that, were it not for the US being a democratic state, the two states would probably be at war. Presently, it’s only an exchange of words and threats between the US president, Donald Trump, and the president of North Korea, Kim Jong-un (Nic Robertson, 2017).

Based on the few illustrations demonstrated above, it is evident that democratic states tend to promote peace between them. They are also reluctant to resort to war even when provoked by undemocratic states. On the contrary, undemocratic states are quick to declare war on each other. As observed earlier, this is mainly because citizens in such states have neither the power nor the right to be consulted, as is the case in republican states.

There are many triggers for Interstate wars. However, what determines if those triggers materialise into actual war is the system of governance in place.  Kant’s idea means that peace is an outcome of a form of government between two potential rivals in times of conflict. It is crucial to note that the term democracy has been given various descriptions; hence, the notion of democratic peace is mainly criticised on that basis. Thus, most philosophers prefer using the term ‘liberal peace’ as opposed to ‘democratic peace.’ Kant himself has expelled critics by stating that the term democracy is not to be confused with republicanism, which is a form of government. He opines that democracy is a form of sovereignty (Pagden,2013).

Based on the above, it appears that his theory of peaceful democracy is not majorly criticized based on its accuracy insofar as the connection between peace and republicanism.  As a matter of evidence, democratic states extend mutual respect between them, and the chances of engaging in war are slim. In Africa, for instance, both Kenya and Uganda are democratic states with long-lasting borders despite. Both states claim ownership over Migingo Island (Rwegasira,2012). However, the dispute has been under the adjudication of the institutions mandated by their respective Constitutions.

There is not much controversy in the idea that democratic states coexist peacefully with each other. The controversy lies in the question ‘why’ (Pazienza, 2014). Thee democratic peace theory holds that democratic states will avoid getting into a war with each other but will declare war on undemocratic states. Kant argues that when that happens, the democratic states always win (Pazienza, 2014).

Kant’s thesis on democratic peace gives a lot of weight to the ‘democratic process’ as the only foundation of a peaceful coexistence between states. To some scholars, this is an assumption made by Kant, as there are other factors that force states to maintain peace and extend mutual respect towards each other. To illustrate this point, the relationship between the US and China has been considered by scholars. While the US is a democratic state where the Government is established through the vote, China, on the other hand, is an autocratic state. Nonetheless, the two states coexist peacefully with each other, contrary to what would have been expected if Kant’s democratic theory were to go by.

The controversy around ‘why’ democratic states don’t engage in wars can be resolved if such ties as those between the US and China are studied. China and the US have been close trade partners. The kind of transactions made per year during their trading activities is worth billions of dollars. This explains why, despite China being an undemocratic state, it has managed to have a peaceful coexistence with other democratic states such as the US.

Trade between states is, therefore, a motivator of peace, and democracy is just another factor promoting peace between states. According to scholars like Pazienza, democracy is not the only factor promoting perpetual peace between states.

Opposing interests between states chiefly cause conflicts between states. Economic suppression and unfair trade policies threaten the economic growth of individual states and eventually provoke war. In the circumstances, the weaker state is forced to consider negotiations over the war in view of protecting its interests. Aware of the fact that in the event of war, such a state would suffer most, negotiations are preferred over war. The need to remain as trade partners forces them to have a peaceful coexistence with them. Democracy will, in the circumstances, not be the real cause of peace, but the need to safeguard trade ties.

Going by the Kant thesis of democratic peace, it is not safe to imagine that where there is democracy, peace is guaranteed. Similarly, it would be fallacious to hold that the absence of democracy will automatically translate into war. However, his theory is not to be dismissed hurriedly without checking it against state relationships. From what this paper has established, democracy has a lot to day with world order and peace. This is because it inspires negotiations and tolerance. IWI War is the last option after all the other options have failed or proved ineffective.

The presence of International law and institutions that govern sovereign states has inspired democratic processes and world peace. This has been made possible by the very fact that those states are democratic in the first place. An undemocratic country like Somalia has for a long time secluded itself from the rest of the democratic states because there is no democracy in that country. As a result, there have been civil wars, and the country has become a threat to other democratic states. Somalia is not even recognised as a state by some governments (Beare, 2012).

Even though Kant’s democratic peace theory is credible, a proposition that the Idealist goal of a peaceful world order is within reach seems to imagine world peace and order as a consequence of identifiable and specific factors. It cannot be that to achieve peaceful coexistence between the states, all that is needed is democracy or republicanism. Republicanism, a term Kant suggests should not be confused with democracy, denotes democracy in the contemporary world (Pazienza, 2014). This factor cannot be said to be the only pillar of peace in the world. The war between states can be triggered by different factors, and to suggest that only democracy or lack of it can determine peaceful coexistence between states is erroneous. In the same way, democratic processes cannot solely make the world achieve peace and order.

As observed from the relationship between the US and China, trade is a key factor in strengthening the relationship between states.   Peace has been defined as ‘the absence of war’(Goertz, Diehl, and Balas, 2016). Thus, though there have been conflicts between China and the US, there has not been a war between the two states. Despite the two states participating as advisors in the Korean War, where they took different sides, they cannot be said to have been at war with each other, as the war was a result of a shared United Nations security action (Brune,1996).

The need for peaceful coexistence between the two states has undoubtedly centered on the trade and economic relationships between the two states (Coyne and Mathers, 2011).  For a very long period, both economies have proved to be greatly interdependent. The presence of military tension that has increased in the recent past in the Southern part of China Sea has not provoked a war between the two states.

The idea that through democracy, peace and world order are within rich is blind to the fact that other factors inspire peace between states. The same factors that will make states go to war with each other are the same factors that will stop them from engaging in war.  To elaborate on the above, a good example would be economic interests. All states have interests that will make them seek to participate in international arrangements that will see them benefit from world trade and resources. The same economic interests will trigger a war between them if unfair arrangements are made in a way that disadvantages other states are disadvantaged.

Owing to the above, Kant’s democratic peace theory, though true to the extent that there is a link between peace and democracy, his attempt to suggest that world peace and order are within reach through the establishment of democratic governments is misleading. This is because an autocratic form of governance is not the only trigger of war, and neither is a democracy the only motivator of world peace and order. As explained in the paper, even the need for seamless interstate trading activities is yet another reason why non-democratic states hold on to peace and avoid war. World peace and order cannot be within reach of a single factor, namely democracy. The presence of most, if not all, the factors that motivate peaceful existence between states would.

Having stated as above, this paper concludes by stating that Kant seems to have suggested that democracy alone would ensure that states don’t resort to armed conflicts. This suggestion saw his thesis face criticism from numerous scholars. He failed to recognise that there are other factors that make nondemocratic states embrace world peace and order, mostly to safeguard their economic and trade interests. Though his idea that democratic states don’t engage in war makes sense, his focus on just one factor that promotes peaceful coexistence between states, hence disregarding other factors such as world trade, is a major oversight.

Bibliography

Etten, T. (2014). How Convincing is the Democratic Peace Thesis?.

Pazienza, T. (2014). Challenging the Democratic Peace Theory – The Role of the US-China Relationship. Masters. University of South Florida.

Beare, M. E. (2012). Encyclopedia of transnational crime & justice. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications.

Goertz, G., Diehl, P., and Balas, A. (2016). The puzzle of peace. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Brune, L. H. (1996). The Korean war: handbook of the literature and research. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press.

Kacowicz, A. M. (2000). Stable peace among nations. Lanham [u.a.], Rowman & Littlefield Publ.

Kaarbo, J. and Ray, J. (2010). Global politics. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, p.151.

Føllesdal, A. and Maliks, R. (2013). Kantian theory and human rights. p.175.

Hunter, N. (2017). What is a Dictatorship?p.4.

Aljazeera.com. (2017). Saudi Arabia, Iran, others react to US strike in Syria.

Lamy, S. L. (2017). Introduction to global politics.p.87.

Kesselman, M., Krieger, J., Joseph, W., and Abrahamian, E. (2010). Introduction to politics of the developing world. [USA]: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, p.52.

Nic Robertson, C. (2017). Trump and Kim’s war of words is rattling South Koreans.

Pagden, A. (2013). The Enlightenment and why it still matters. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Rwegasira, A. (2012). Land as a human right: a history of land law and practice in Tanzania. Dar-es-Salaam, Mkuki na Nyota.

Coyne, C. and Mathers, R. (2011). The handbook on the political economy of war. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, p.275.