Shimko, Ch. 4, Notes by Denis Bašić
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
War & Democracy Shimko, ch. 4, notes by Denis Bašić Are Democracies More Peaceful? • The idea that democracies are more peaceful than non- democracies has been part of liberal international thought for more than two hundred years, and it is one of those ideas that has seeped from the realm of theory to real- world policy. • Though proponents of democratic peace theory offer a variety of reasons why democracies might be less willing and able to wage war, all versions of the theory share the basic prediction that democracies will not wage war against one another. If the theory is correct, a more democratic world will also be a more peaceful world. • The commonly cited evidence in support of the theory is the absence of any wars between clearly democratic states. What do Skeptics Say? • Skeptics question this evidence, pointing to what they see as convenient and shifting definitions that omit troublesome cases. Some even claim that there have been wars between democratic states (think of WWI.) • Realists in particular are generally unconvinced by the theory and its supporting evidence. Even if we have not yet seen a war between democratic states, realists think our luck is likely to run out. In time, democracies will be subject to the same insecurities and conflicts that have driven nondemocratic states to war. • The coming decades are likely to put the theory to a real- world test as the number of democracies in the world continues to grow. Immanuel Kant, German Philosopher (1724-1804) • Living in an era of absolutist monarchism, Kant argued in his classic work, Perpetual Peace, that the emergence and spread of “republican” (or liberal democratic) political institutions would be accompanied by the emergence of a zone of peace. Kant referred to this as a republican or democratic pacific union. Kant did not argue that democracies would totally refrain from waging wars; he simply argued that democracies would not wage war against other democracies. Peaceful must not be confused with pacifist. More democracies would mean a larger zone of peace, and universal democracy would usher in universal peace. Why did Kant expect democracies to be more peaceful? • Kant believed that in a republic or democracy people are citizens of the state as opposed to subjects of a monarch. • As political subjects, Kant believed, citizens would be able to influence government policy, including decisions about war and peace. As essentially rational creatures (another fundamental assumption of liberalism), people are generally unwilling to support policies that do them harm. • In Perpetual Peace Kant expressed his belief that democratic citizens “will have a great hesitation in embarking on so dangerous an enterprise [as war]” because “this would mean calling down on themselves all the miseries of war.” • These miseries include not only the obvious, such as “doing the fighting themselves, supplying the costs of war from their own resources,” but also “making good the ensuing devastation, and, as the crowning evil, having to take upon themselves a burden of debts which will embitter peace itself and which can never be paid off on account of the constant threat of new wars.” Rational 0r Pacific Public Thesis Democratic Peace Theory • Kant’s explanation is usually referred to as the rational or pacific public thesis, because it sees democratic peacefulness as rooted in the rational self-interest of democratic publics. • This view is no longer very popular as an explanation of democratic peace because the past two centuries provide too many examples of public support, even enthusiasm, for war. People in democratic states greeted World War I with tremendous enthusiasm. • rational or pacific public thesis - The view that democracies are more peaceful because their foreign policies reflect the desires of an inherently rational and peaceful public. • democratic pacific union - The separate peace that Immanuel Kant predicted would exist among democratic states. Many believe that this democratic peace has in fact emerged. Democratic Peace Theory & Its Critics • In some cases, such as the Spanish–American War of 1898, it was the public, spurred by a pro-war press, that pushed a reluctant political leadership into war. • As Robin Fox, a critic of democratic peace theory, observes, “there is rarely very effective opposition to a successful war.” For Fox, the absence of effective antiwar movements against successful wars suggests that there is no general preference for peace, merely a reluctance to fight losing wars. The hesitance for war, which seemed “natural” to Kant, appears not to exist in reality. • Neo-Marxians and many labor movements leaders would in turn claim that human aggressiveness is spurred by peoples’ governments and that the governments control people by “first of all, frightening people, and then demoralizing them.” See this video with Tony Benn, the former UK MP and UK minister. Democratic Institutions & Peace • Even Kant was not content to rely on the assumption that popular opposition to war would be sufficient to create democratic peace. • Kant and others also point to characteristics of democratic systems, namely their institutional structure and political-cultural underpinnings. • In terms of institutions, the most important feature of democracies is that political power and decision making are distributed in a manner that presents obstacles to war making. • In terms of political culture, democratic peace theorists note that successful democratic institutions depend on the widespread adherence to certain values that shape international behavior of democracies. • These institutional and cultural constraints are generally seen as particularly significant in terms of relations among democratic states. Institutional Thesis • The institutional thesis emphasizes that democratic political systems are usually characterized by a dispersion of political power, whereas undemocratic systems usually concentrate power in the hands of a single person or small elite. • Leaders such as Louis XIV, Joseph Stalin, or Saddam Hussein do not generally operate with many domestic constraints on their authority. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, he did not have to secure the approval of an elected legislature, hostile newspaper editorials, or the next election. This is not to say that he had no worries, because even undemocratic leaders can be overthrown. • The point is simply that, as a general rule, leaders in nondemocratic societies face fewer political constraints than do those in democracies. Checks & Balances • checks and balances - The division of power in democracies among different branches of government (e.g., the president and Congress in the United States). The institutional version of democratic peace sees this dispersion of powers as the critical reason why democracies are less likely to engage in war, especially with each other. • As America’s founders made it clear in The Federalist Papers, making government action difficult was precisely the point of dispersing political power. A certain degree of consensus is required for democratic governments to act, particularly when actions represent radical change or are very controversial. Thus, the essential element of the institutional thesis is that democracies will find it more difficult to go to war, and certainly more difficult to initiate a war, than will nondemocratic governments. Political Cultural Thesis • While the institutional constraint thesis stresses a democracy’s diminished ability to wage war, the political-cultural thesis emphasizes the unwillingness of democracies to go to war. • The argument is that democratic institutions are rooted in widely shared norms about how political conflicts are managed. Democracy requires a consensus that conflicts be resolved without resort to force: Democracies substitute the counting of heads for the breaking of heads. However deep the disagreements over certain issues, very few resort to violence once they lose in the political arena. • In terms of international relations, the political-cultural thesis anticipates that democracies will externalize this norm from the domestic to the international realm. Thus, this norm of peaceful conflict resolution predisposes democracies to favor nonviolent approaches to international conflicts. • political-cultural thesis - A variant of democratic peace theory that sees political and cultural norms or peaceful conflict resolution as the most important reason that democracies are less likely to wage war, especially against each other. Constructivists & Democratic Peace • Constructivists present a slightly different explanation for the democratic peace. • It is not something inherent in democracies preventing them from waging war against each other. What keeps democracies at peace is the internalized norm that democracies do not fight each other. The prohibition on fighting other democracies has become part of what it means to be a democracy—that is, an integral component of the democratic self-image, how democracies identify themselves. • When democracies share this self-image, an “intersubjective understanding” emerges and peace among democracies holds. In a sense, democratic peace theory is an almost self-fulfilling prophecy —the more people, especially elites, in democratic societies tell themselves that democracies do not fight with each other, the more their behavior reflects this belief. why would democracies prefer peace with each other but not with non-democracies? • “Peace follows if leaders come to recognize that their preference