The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems
Munafrizal Manan Jurusan Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia, Jakarta E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: This essay discusses the democratic peace theory from the perspective of both its proponents and opponents. The puzzle of the democratic peace theory has long been debated methodologically and empirically. Both have a strong argument to support their views, however. This essay highlights the debate by focusing on the three problems of the democratic peace theory. First, the differences of the definitions of democracy, war, and peace that demonstrates the lack of robustness in the democratic peace theory. Second, democracy by force has often failed to establish peace whether international or domestic peace and therefore the promotion of democracy around the world have been seen as a justification of democratic intervention to other sovereign states. Third, the democratic peace theory does not always apply in new emerging democratic countries. As a result, it raises a question whether the democratic peace theory is an academic theory or an ideology.
Keywords: Democracy, Peace, War, Democratic Peace, Kant.
Abstrak: Esai ini mendiskusikan teori perdamaian demokratik dari perspektif pendukung dan penentang teori ini. Teka-teki teori ini telah lama diperdebatkan secara metodologis dan empiris. Pendukung dan penentang teori ini sama-sama memiliki argumen kuat untuk mendukung pandangan mereka. Esai ini menyoroti perdebatan tersebut melalui fokus pada tiga masalah yang melekat pada teori perdamaian demokratik. Pertama, menyoroti perbedaan definisi demokrasi, perang, dan perdamaian yang menunjukkan kurang kuatnya teori ini. Kedua, menyoroti aspek demokrasi melalui paksaan yang ternyata sering gagal menegakkan perdamaian dalam lingkup domestik maupun internasional, dan karena itu promosi demokrasi ke seluruh dunia dipandang sebagai sekadar justifikasi untuk mengintervensi negara-negara berdaulat. Ketiga, teori perdamaian demokratik tidak selalu dapat diterapkan di negara-negara demokrasi baru. Akibatnya, muncul pertanyaan apakah teori perdamaian demokratis adalah sebuah teori akademik atau sebuah ideologi.
Kata Kunci: Demokrasi, Perdamaian, Perang, Perdamaian Demokratik, Kant.
Introduction The relationship between democracy It has long been asked and discussed and peace has long been debated by what the effective ingredient of internatio- as scholars across disciplines such philoso- nal peace is. Obviously, there are different phy, political science, sociology, history views to answer such a question; one of and law, to mention but a few. Mostly, them is the liberal view. Most liberalist the debate has been taking place b y strongly believe that democracy is an focusing on the so-called the democratic answer and the only way to establish peace theory.121 According to Rosato, international peace around the world. ‘democratic peace theory is probably the Because of that, according to them, it is 121 very important to spread democracy so that Some authors use different suffix words for this term. Some of them use 'the democratic peace theory', and international peace can be enforced and some others name 'the democratic peace thesis', 'the democratic peace hypothesis', and 'the democratic maintained. Thus, democracy is seen as a peace proposition'. Basically, the differences indicate that 'the democratic peace' is contested by solution for peace and both are mutually scholars and no universal agreement has been achieved on the validness of 'the democratic peace'. reinforcing. The words of 'theory', 'thesis', 'hypothesis', and
179 180 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems most powerful liberal contribution to the This essay is divided into two sections. debate on the cause of war and peace’.122 Firstly, it will view the idea of the For its proponents, the democratic democratic peace theory which was firstly peace theory brings an optimistic view on coined by Immanuel Kant over two the future of international peace. For them, hundred years ago. Secondly, it will discuss to create peace is simply to spread the debate of the democratic peace theory. democracy to all countries around the From this point, this essay tries to show the globe. It is believed that the more problems of the democratic peace theory. democratic they are, the more peaceful they will be. This is a reason why ‘the idea of a Kant and Perpetual Peace democratic zone of peace is routinely Much has been written about the voiced in both academic and policy making democratic peace theory. It is widely 123 circles’. However, such a generalization is recognized that the democratic peace theory questioned by its opponents who argue that is rooted in the idea of Immanuel Kant the reality is not as simple as that. The through his influential essay entitled proponents of this theory have overstated Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch their generalization. The opponents written in 1795. Kant gave a philosophical examine critically the claim of the justification for the democratic peace proponents which resulted in theoretical theory. Kant ‘posited that a republican form and methodological debates. of government, exemplifying the rule of The aim of this essay is to overview law , provides a feasible basis for states to the democratic peace theory. It is an attem- overcome structural anarchy and to secure 124 pt to answer such questions: What is the peaceful relations among themselves’. democratic peace theory? What is the Based on this, Kant believed that if all debate among experts about the democratic nations in the world were republics, then it peace theory? To what extent the would end war since there would be no democratic peace theory can be applied? aggressors who flaming war among them. Such a belief was probably influenced by 'proposition' suggest that 'the democratic peace' the condition of Kant’s time in which needs to be examined empirically. In this essay, I prefer to use 'the democratic peace theory', although ‘Europe was hardly an area in which it is sometimes used interchangeably. 125 122 Sebastian Rosato. 2003. “The Flawed Logic of republics flourished’. Democratic Peace Theory”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 97 No. 4 (November), p. 585. 123 Miriam Fendius Elman. 1997. “Introduction. The 124 As cited by Steve Chan. 1997. “In Search of Need for a Qualitative Test of the Democratic Peace Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise”, Theory” in Miriam Fendius Elman (ed.), Paths to Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 41, No. Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?, CSIA Studies in 1 (May), p. 60. 125 International Security, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bruce Russett. 1993. Grasping the Democratic The MIT Press), p. 7. Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World, Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems 181
Kant partially emphasized the impor- Kant distinguished three “definitive tance of the so-called “republican/consti- articles” of peace, which together constituted a tripod of peace. In the tutions” which is now often viewed as contemporary international system, 126 synonymous with democracy. Kant Kant's definitive articles of peace correspond to the interlocking himself was rather sceptical about i n s t i t u t i o n s o f d e m o c r a c y (“republican constitution”), democracy based solely on majoritarian e c o n o m i c i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e rule and hence would probably reluctant to ( “ c o s m o p o l i t a n r i g h t ” a n d “universal community”), and be called a democrat if democracy was international organization (“pacific understood as the rule of popular will as federation”).130 127 today. Thus, it shows that what is now commonly called democracy by the Kant believed thet these three eleme- proponents of the democratic peace theory nts are the basis for perpetual peace. De- is slightly different to Kant’s view. mocracy, interdepedence, and international However, it is generally agreed that law and organization are essential to achieve “republican constitution” is compatible perpetual peace. It is believed that demo- with the concept of democracy because the cracy prevents international war, economic elements of “republican constitution” interdependence reduces international war, consists of ‘freedom (with legal equality of and international organizations maintain subjects), representative government, and international peace and security. However, 128 separation of powers’. They are the many proponents of the democratic peace fundamental elements in the application of theory overemphasize the importance of democracy today, indeed. democracy. They do not see all three In spite of “republican constituions”, elements as an inherent part of peace and the other key elements of the perpetual hence have to be applied altogether at the peace that Kant also stressed are “cosmo- same time. In fact, as Oneal and Russett politan law” and “pacific union”. The for- argues, perpetual peace is not only a result mer deals with international commerce of democracy, but also product of trade and free trade, and the latter relates cooperation among countries and joint 131 to treaty in international law among membership in international organizations. 129 republics. In this regard, Meierhenrich According to Kant, “republican notes that: 130 Jens Meierhenrich, 2007. “Perpetual War: A (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press), Pragmatic Sketch”, Human Rights Quarterly, 29, p. p. 9. 633-634. 131 126 Ibid, p. 4. John R. Oneal and Bruce Russett. 1999. “The 127 Steve Chan, op.cit, p. 64. Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, 128 Bruce Russett, op.cit, p. 4. Interdependence, and International Organizations”, 129 Ibid. 1881-1992”, World Politics Vol. 52.1. 182 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems
135 constitution” that respect to law is the war” between liberals and nonliberals’. peaceful form of the state and hence With regard to the significance of Kant’s
necessary in order to prevent the ruler ideas today, Doyle opines that:
declaring war easily and unilaterally P e r p e t u a l P e a c e … h e l p s u s without considering law and public opinion. understand the interactive nature of international relations. Kant tries to As Waltz points out, ‘in a republic the teach us methodologically that we unambiguous test of right is applied to can study neither the systemic relations of states nor the varieties of every piece of legislation, and every act of state behaviour in isolation from each the executive will in turn follow the other. Substantively, he anticipates 132 for us the ever-widening pacification universally established law’. Moreover, as of a liberal pacific union, explains this pacification, and at the same time Owen argues, ‘the people who fight and suggests why liberal states are not fund war have the right to be consulted, pacific in their relations with nonliberal states.136 through representatives they elect, before 133 entering it’. This is the reasons why war Furthermore, Doyle argues that ‘Kant never or at least rarely occurs among should not and cannot be simply applied. “republican constitution” states. Eventually, But some of Kant’s ideas can still be according to Kant, it will lead to perpetual inspiring, analytically and normatively, peace. including most centrally his vision of an Michael W. Doyle points out that the expanding separate peace grounded in notion of Kant on perpetual peace is republican institutions, liberal norms and 137 basically developed from three definitive commercial interdependence’. Such a articles of peace which consists of view suggests that although Kant’s ideas on republican, the pacific union, and peace deserves for an appreciation, a cosmopolitan law. For Kant, a liberal peace critical approach needs to be taken to is not a utopian ideal to be reached if the examine the applicability of his ideas. three definitive articles are fulfilled 134 altogether. In Perpetual Peace, Kant A Progressive Debate shows us that ‘liberal republics lead to The first time Kant published his dichotomous international politics: peaceful theory about two centuries ago, not much or relations a “pacific union” among even possibly no country could be similarly liberal states and a “state of categorized as democratic country according to today’s standards. Before the 132 Kenneth N. Waltz. 2008. Realism and International Politics, (New York and London: Routledge), p. 8. 133 As cited by Jens Meierhenrich, op.cit, p. 638. 134 Michael W. Doyle, Liberal Peace: Selected Essays 135 Ibid, p. 151. (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 25-26; 136 Ibid, p. 68. 68-70; 207-208. 137 Ibid, p. 214 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems 183
142 late nineteenth century, democratic members of other pairs of states’. Also, governments were scarce. As Gowa says, ‘democracies are more pacific in general 143 ‘no evidence of a democratic peace is than are other types of states’. According 138 apparent before World War I’. to Russett, such a statement indicates a Accordingly, less attention has been paid to complex phenomenon of the democratic Kant’s theory because it was probably peace theory. Furthermore, Russett explains presumed inapplicable. However, it has that: changed since the middle of nineteenth (a) Democracies rarely fight each other (an century in which the democratic peace empirical statement) because (b) they have theory has been contested by philosophers other means of resolving conflicts between 139 and social scientists. In the 1960s, the them and therefore do not need to fight democratic peace theory was evaluated each other (a prudential statement), and (c) scientifically by researchers. During 1970s they perceive that democracies should not and 1980s, this theory has been attracting fight each other (a normative statement 140 more attention from researchers and it about principles of right behaviour), which remains the same until today. reinforces the empirical statement. By this There are several phrases used by reasoning, the more democracies there are scholars to express the meaning of the in the world, the fewer potential adversaries democratic peace theory. The democratic we and other democracies will have and the 144 peace theory, basically, argues that it never wider the zone of peace. or at least rarely happens that democratic To put it simply, the democratic countries are involved in war against each peace theory can be viewed from two other. Similarly, it also argues that propositions. First, it is called the dyadic ‘democracies have almost never fought proposition which argues that democratic 141 each other’. Likewise, it is understood states rarely fight each other and it takes that ‘members of pairs of democratic states two democracies to make peace. Such a 145 are much less likely to engage each other in view is supported by most scholars. It is serious disputes short of war than are usually based on ‘a shared culture and shared democratic norms among 138 Joanne Gowa. 1999. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace, (Princeton, New Jersey: democracies, or to the institutional Princeton University Press), p. 3. 139 E. S. Easley. 2004. The War over Perpetual Peace: An constraints on a leader’s actions; that is, the Exploration into the History of a Foundational International Relations Text, (New York: Palgrave structure of a democratic government Macmillan), p. 2. 140 Piki Ish-Shalom. 2006. “Theory as a Hermeneutical 142 Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Joanne Gowa, op.cit, p. 5. 143 Politics of Democratization”, European Journal of Miriam Fendius Elman, op.cit, p. vii. 144 International Relations, Vol. 12(4), pp. 575. Bruce Russett, op.cit, p. 4. 141 145 Bruce Russett, op.cit, p. 4. Miriam Fendius Elman, op.cit, p. 10-11. 184 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems
makes it difficult for leaders to make complex and slow, allowing the leaders of 146 war'. Moreover, ‘the dyadic argument democratic states to reach peaceful suggests that democracies carefully identify resolutions of conflicts between them’. the type of state with which they are Second, it is named the normative interacting, and adjust their behaviour dimensions of democratic societies which 147 accordingly’. ‘claiming that the norms of tolerance and Second, it is named the monadic openness function at the level of the proposition which argues that ‘democratic relations between them’. As a result, state are less prone to use force regardless according to Ish-Shalom, ‘there is more of the regime type of their opponents’ and it willingness to reach compromises, and 150 is alleged that ‘the more democratic the conflicts are settled peacefully’. In this state, the less violent its behaviour toward regard, ‘political conflicts in democracies 148 other states’. Elman opines that there are are resolved through compromise rather 151 two central arguments of the monadic than through elimination of opponents’. propositions. ‘First, democratic states are In the literature of the democratic less likely to see war as a viable foreign peace theory, according to Gowa, there are policy option. Force is not seen as a three explanations that confirm the role of legitimate tool of foreign policy, but rather democracy in enforcing peace. Gowa as an option of last resort. Second, the identifies that ‘some studies stress the role regime type of the opponent is not likely to of political culture; others emphasize the play a crucial role in democratic states’ deterrent effects of trade; and still others 149 decisions to go to war’. point to the ability of democratic regimes to 152 In the discussion of the democratic constrain leaders’ action abroad’. The first peace theory it is often questioned in what argues that ‘a norm of peaceful conflict way democracy is able to enforce resolution prevails within democracies. international peace. According to Ish- This norm precludes recourse to violence to Shalom, there are two major theories to settle any disputes that may arise within explain it. First, it is called the structural democratic states’. Furthermore, ‘the norm dimensions of democracy which ‘claiming that governs conflict resolution within that the division of power, checks and democratic states also regulates the balances, and leaders’ accountability to the settlement of disputes between them. If the public, make the decision making process interests of two democracies clash, each
150 146 Ibid, p. 11. Piki Ish-Shalom, op.cit, p. 575. 147 Ibid, p. 17. 151 148 Maoz and Russett (1993) as cited by Jens Ibid, p. 15. Meierhenrich, op.cit, p. 637. 149 152 Lo.cit, p. 17 Joanne Gowa, op.cit, p. 6-7. Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems 185
country involved expects the other to sit Singer (1976) revealed the same finding down at the bargaining table rather than to that ‘democracies participated in fewer 153 resort to force’. The second explanation wars than non-democracies from 1815 158 ‘emphasizes the role of trade in deterring through 1965'. Such conclusions were recourse to force’ and the inclination to also supported by Zeev Maoz and Nasrin trade more and maintain lower trade Abdolali who found that ‘based on their 154 barriers among democratic states. In the analysis of data spanning 150 years, 159 last explanation, ‘the relatively restricted democracies “never” fight each other’. autonomy of leaders of democratic states In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, plays a central role’. The leaders are Rudolph Rummel contended such constrained and watched by ‘opposition conclusions based on quantitative data. leaders, periodic elections, and the presence Rummel argued that the democratic peace of a legislature’ which are able to sanction theory ‘was not a statistical artefact’ and 155 them. As a consequence, they cannot claimed that ‘liberalism reduced 160 decide to go to war based on their own international violence’. In response to decision. In short, theories and explanations Rummel’s conclusion, Eric Weede noted above emphasize the power of democracy that ‘the democratic peace proposition was to achieve international peace. Democracy subject to some important qualifications is seen as a self-constraint mechanism for growing out of the type of warfare that was war. studied and the time period that was There are substantial progresses of examined’.161 the democratic peace theory so far. Chan A number of studies which were notes that the attention of the democratic conducted in the late 1980 and the early peace theory can be traced to an article 1990s have come to ‘an apparent published by Dean Babst in a journal consensus: although democracies are not namely Industrial Research in the early generally less warlike than non-democracies 156 1970s. In this article, Babst stated that ‘no (the so-called monadic hypothesis), they wars have been fought between rarely (if ever) fight each other (the dyadic 162 independent nations with elective hypothesis)’. Most studies above support 157 governments between 1789 and 1941'. In the democratic peace theory. the same decade, Melvin Small and David During 1980s and 1990s, many more
158 As cited by Steve Chan, ibid, p. 61. 153 Ibid, p. 6. 159 As cited by Joanne Gowa, op.cit, p. 5. 154 Ibid. 160 As cited by Steve Chan, lo.cit, p. 61. 155 Ibid, p. 7. 161 Eric Weede (1984) as cited by Steve Chan, ibid, p. 156 Steve Chan, op.cit, p. 60. 61. 162 157 Dean Babst (1972: 55) as cited by Steve Chan, ibid. Ibid, p. 61. 186 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems
studies on the democratic peace theory have theory can be applied universally. That is a been published by scholars across reason why some scholars have criticized discipline using different approaches. Chan and opposed the democratic peace theory compressed well these studies as follows: by showing its problems. In the following paragraphs the essay highlights the In the meantime, a number of studies have appeared that have sought to problems of the democratic peace theory. probe the empirical frontiers of the democratic peace proposition or clarify further its theoretical The Three Problems foundations. Some of this research The first problem with the has explored the proposition's “cosilience” (Olson 1982) by democratic peace theory is related to the extending its logic beyond the original concern with war to other definition. Some scholars argue that the phenomena such as foreign results of the democratic peace theory intervention, dispute mediation, trade practice, civil strife, covert depend on the definitions of democracy and 164 subversion, alliance membership, war which are used to analyse it. Russett and international treaties as well as the crisis-management and war- suggests that ‘we need to define what we winning capabilities of democratic or 165 mean by democracy and war’. Indeed, it is democratizing states….Other studies have offered collateral evidence for important to define clearly what is meant the democratic peace proposition using historical, anthropological, by democracy, war and peace. Noticeably, and experimental approaches….Still there are different views on the definition others have presented various political, economic, psychological, of democracy and war as well as peace. and philosophical perspectives to In the literature of democracy, there illuminate why the democratic peace occurs….Finally, several recent has been a debate among social scientist, s t u d i e s h a v e f o c u s e d o n especially political scientists, about what differentiating between the monadic and dyadic hypotheses that compose democracy really is as well as which 163 the democratic peace proposition. countries should be called democratic and It is clear so far that the democratic which types of democracies are more peace is somehow a Janus-faced theory. peaceful. Speaking generally, the experts The democratic peace theory is advocated agree that the democratic theories can be as well as opposed by scholars from various grouped into two broad paradigms.
disciplines. In some cases and in certain The first is elitist, structural, formal, times, there is a strong evident to validate and procedural. It tends to understand democracy in a relatively the democratic peace theory as some minimalist way. A regime is a studies have indicated above. However, it is democracy when it passes some hard to generalize that the democratic peace 164 Ibid, p. 63. 163 165 Ibid, p. 61-62. Bruce Russett, op.cit, p. 11-12. Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems 187
structural threshold of free and open Thailand and Cambodia in 2008, for elections, autonomous branches of example, which were triggered by border government, division of power, and checks and balances. This state of disputes, strengthen such a view. Within affairs precludes a tyrannical this context, Chan argues that ‘although a concentration of power in the hands of the elites. Once this structure is in large number of countries have recently place, a regime is a democracy. The adopted democratic structures of second paradigm, which is called 'normative', 'cultural', 'deliberative governance (for instance, universal democracy', and 'participatory democracy', tends to focus on other suffrage, multiparty competition, contested issues and to demand much more of elections, legislative oversight), it is not democracy. First, the emphasis is on the society and the individual citizens, evident that their leaders and people have not the political system and the internalized such democratic norms as regime. Second, there is also a demand for the existence of those regarding tolerance, compromise, and 168 democratic norms and democratic sharing power’. culture. This implies, among other things, political rights, tolerance, Conversely, if it is based on the openness, participation, and a sense of civic responsibility.166 second paradigm, then there are only a few countries should be classified democratic. It Nevertheless, there is no a consensus is likely to focus merely on mature among the democratic peace theoreticians democratic countries especially in the about the nature of democracy in relation to regions of North America and West the democratic peace theory. If the Europe. As a consequence, numerous cases 169 democratic peace theory is based on the of warring democracies will be excluded. first paradigm, then there are many It means that the democratic peace theory is countries should be called democratic. only relevant to countries in this region and Democracy in such a paradigm ‘is hence it cannot be applied to other relatively easy to build, but also relatively countries. In other words, the proponents of 167 easy to dismantle it’. It seems that the the democratic peace theory do not have a democratic peace theory is not strongly justifiable reason to spread democracy supported by the structural paradigm of around the world in order to enforce
democratic theory because interstate wars international peace. or at least armed conflicts remain taking Like democracy, the definition of place in countries that committed to this war is also contested by scholars. The structural paradigm. The armed conflicts proponents of the democratic peace theory between Russia and Georgia as well as who argue that democratic countries have
166 168 Piki Ish-Shalom, op.cit, p. 577. Steve Chan, op.cit, p. 66. Original emphasises. 167 Ibid, p. 578. 169 Miriam Fendius Elman, p. 21. 188 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems
not involved in wars against each other an old definition is not adequate to explain ‘have tended to rely on the definition most the changing character of war in the 176 widely used in academic research on the contemporary era. causes of war in the last two or three In addition, by using historical decades’.170 War is defined as, according to analysis Ravlo, Gleditsch and Dorussen that definition, ‘no hostility…qualified as show that the claim of the democratic peace an interstate war unless it led to a minimum theory that democratic states never get of 1,000 battle fatalities among all the involved in a war against each other is system members involved’.171 Such a undermined by historical evidence. Their definition excludes the wars that do not finding demonstrates that ‘most of fulfil the 1,000 battle-death threshold and extrasystematic wars have been fought by 177 hence minimizes the number of cases that democracies’ and ‘only in the postcolonial can be categorized war. As Ray observes, period are democracies less involved in 178 ‘in any case, there are not numerous extrasystemic war’. But in the colonial incidents having just below 1,000 battle and imperial periods, wars occurred among deaths that would otherwise qualify as wars democracies. 172 between democratic states’. Moreover, it Similar to democracy and war, the ‘allows democratic peace proponents to definition of peace is also debated by exclude some troublesome cases’.173 The scholars. Put it simply, according to the case of Finland is one of examples for this. realists, peace can be defined as the absence The case suggests that ‘although of war. As Waltz argues, ‘the chances of democratic peace proponents code Finland peace rise if states can achieve their most as a democracy, Finland’s alliance with important ends without actively using 179 Germany in World War II is summarily force’. However, ‘the absence of war is dismissed because fewer than 1,000 Finns something temporary’ and therefore ‘peace 174 180 were killed in armed combat’. Another is no more than a transient lack of war’. example is the 1967 Six Day War between For realists, the absence of war does not Israel and Lebanon in which Lebanon ‘only simply mean that there will be no war in the
sent a few aircraft into Israel air space and 176 Ibid, p. 18. 175 177 sustained no casualties’. Obviously, such Michael Sheehan. 2008. “The Changing Character of War”, in John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An 170 James Lee Ray. 1997. “The Democratic Path to Introduction to International Relations, Fourth
Peace”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 8.2, p. 52. 178 Edition (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press). 171 Small and Singer (1982: 55) as cited by James Lee Hilde Ravlo, Nils Petter Gleditsch, and Hans Ray, ibid, p. 52. Dorussen. 2003. “Colonial War and the Democratic 172 Ibid, p. 52. Peace”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 47 173 Miriam Fendius Elman, op.cit, p. 22. August, p. 523-524. 174 Ibid, p. 22-23; see also Bruce Russett, op.cit, p. 18. 179 Ibid, p. 535. 175 Miriam Fendius Elman, ibid, p. 23; Bruce Russett, 180 Kenneth N. Waltz, op.cit, p. 63. Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems 189
future and they ridicule people who are democratic peace theory has been happy with such a peace. Realists believe expressed aggressively by the US foreign that ‘war is the common and unavoidable policy which believes that the promotion of feature of international relations’ and it democracy around the world is not only 181 means that peace as dangerous as war. In useful to enforce international peace, but the view of Waltz, ‘in an anarchic realm, also give a positive result on the US 182 peace is fragile’. Thus, for realists, peace national security. This is a reason why is a period to prepare war. ‘the promotion of democracy, genuine Other definitions of peace highlight and otherwise, has been a cornerstone of different aspects. Brown defines U.S. foreign policy for much of the international war as ‘violence between twentieth century’.187 In addition, organized political entities claiming to be ‘promoting democracy is a vital interest of 183 sovereign nation’. Boulding who rebuts the United States that justifies that use of 188 the realist definition of peace defines peace force’. as ‘a situation in which the probability of The importance of the promotion of war is so small that it does not really enter democracy has been supported strongly by into the calculations of any of the people political leaders from both Republican 184 involved’. According to Boulding, peace Party and Democratic Party such as the US should be a real peace which means a Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, ‘stable peace’. Boulding rejects the realist George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. As definition of peace since it is an ‘unstable Chan notes, ‘their statements often 185 peace’. suggest that democracy is the best antidote The second problem with the to war’.189 President Wilson who well- democratic peace theory is it is inclined to known as the liberal internationalism justify pro-democratic intervention. In this believed that ‘a steadfast concert for peace sense, ‘this thesis can fuel a spirit of can never be maintained except by a democratic crusade and be used to justify partnership of democratic nations’ and ‘the 190 covert or overt interventions against each world must be made safe for democracy’. 186 other’. The U.S. foreign policy is the best Similarly, President Clinton assured that example to see this case. The faith of ‘the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the 181 Piki Ish-Shalom, op.cit, p. 576. 182 Ibid. 183 Kenneth N. Waltz, op.cit, p. 60. 187 184 Seyom Brown (1994: 1) as cited by Piki Ish-Shalom, Forsythe (1992); Kegley and Hermann (1995) as op.cit, p. 576. cited by Steve Chan, op.cit, p. 59. 185 Kenneth Boulding (1979: 13) as cited by Piki Ish- 188 Jens Meierhenrich, op.cit, p. 646. Shalom, ibid. 189 Piki Ish-Shalom, op.cit, p. 566. 186 Ibid. 190 Steve Chan, op.cit, p. 59. 190 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems
advance of democracy elsewhere. ‘liberal peace is definitely part of the 191 195 Democracies don’t attack each other’. rhetoric of foreign policy’. Likewise, President Bush who is often In fact, the promotion of democracy called the neoconservative internationalism by force has encouraged war rather than stated firmly that ‘the reason why I’m so resulted in peace. Some studies have strong on democracy is democracies don’t succinctly shown that the attempts to create go to war with each other…I’ve got great democracies by external force have often 192 faith in democracies to promote peace’. failed. Based on their empirical analysis, Such statements has been used by President Gleditsch, Christiansen and Hegre Wilson to justify war against Imperial concludes that in the short term democratic Germany in 1900s, by President Clinton to intervention is indeed able to promote justify ‘aid to Russia and intervention in democratization, but some cases showed 193 Bosnia and Haiti’ in 1990s , and by clearly that it often created an unstable President Bush to justify war against democratizing country due to internal terrorism by invading Afghanistan and Iraq violence in the form of serious human in the early 2000. Also, under the rights violations or civil wars and therefore Administration of Obama the US in the long run it brought dangerous 196 democracy promotion tradition in foreign consequences. According to Mierhenrich, policy remains pivotal, although its ‘the result of pro-democratic intervention 197 application using somewhat different is democratic war, internal and otherwise’. approaches compared to his predecessors. Mierhenrich identifies that ‘ pro-democratic As Bouchet says, ‘for the Obama intervention causes war in two ways: (1) 198 administration as for its predecessors, by waging war and (2) by provoking war’. America’s security, prosperity and Thus democracy by external force is coun- predominant international status are all terproductive for peace. Perhaps what has viewed as going hand in hand with been occurring in Iraq today shows the 194 democratization abroad’. All this clearly truth of such a conclusion. show that, using the words of Doyle, 195 Bouchet, Nicholas. 2013. “The Democracy Tradition 191 Woodrow Wilson. 1917. “Making the World “Safe in US Foreign Policy and the Obama Presidency”, for Democracy”: Woodrow Wilson Asks for War”. International Affairs, Vol 89: 1, p. 43.
A third problem with the democratic root and hence it is not new phenomena. As peace is it is not supported by the case of Mansfield and Snyder explains: states in the early phases of transitions to Since the French Revolution, the democracy. As Mansfield and Snyder earliest phases of democratization argue, these states are more likely become have triggered some of the world's bloodiest nationalist struggles. involved in war than other states due to Similarly, during the 1990s, intense weak political institutions (such as an armed violence broke out in a number of regions that had just begun to effective state, the rule of law, organized experiment with electoral democracy parties that compete in fair election, and and more pluralistic public discourse. In some cases, such as the former professional news media) which are needed Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and 199 I n d o n e s i a , t r a n s i t i o n f ro m to make democracy work. The advocates dictatorship to more pluralistic of the democratic peace theory are inclined political systems coincide with the rise of national independence to deny the importance of political movements, spurring separatist institutions because they are likely to warfare that often spilled across international borders. In other cases, believe that the best way to build transitional regime clashed in democracy is just start. For Mansfield and interstate warfare. Ethiopia and Eritrea, both moving toward more Snyder, ‘this argument is incorrect and pluralistic forms of government in the 1990s, fought a bloody border war dangerously so’ because ‘ill-prepared from 1998 to 2000. The elected attempts to democratize weak states—such regimes of India and Pakistan battled during 1999 in the mountainous as the cases of Yugoslavia, Pakistan, borderlands of Kashmir. Peru and Rwanda, and Burundi—may lead to costly Ecuador, democratizing in fits and starts during 1980s and 1990s, warfare in the shot run, and may delay or culminated a series of armed clashes with a small war in the upper Amazon prevent real progress toward democracy 202 200 in 1995. over the long term’. They conclude that ‘in the short run, however, the beginning Mansfield and Snyder observe that stages of transition to democracy often give the ‘elite in newly democratizing states 201 rise to war rather than peace’. often use nationalist appeals to attract mass The path of democracy is not an easy support without submitting to full way, indeed. The failure of new emerging democratic accountability and that the democratic countries to achieve a institutional weakness of transitional states consolidated democracy has a historical creates the opportunity for such war- 203 causing strategies to succeed’. For this 199 Ibid, p. 654. 202 200 Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder. 2005. Ibid, p. 2. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies go to 203 Edward D.Mansfield and Jack Snyder,2002.
201 War (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press), p. 2. “Democratic Transition, Institutional Strength, and Ibid, p. 2-3. War”, International Organization 56,2,p. 297-298. 192 Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems
reason, the establishment of political rather than democratic peace’ and institutions is needed before promoting ‘democratic rights become democratic democracy in autocratic countries. In the wrongs, and policies of perpetual peace 207 words of Mansfield and Snyder, ‘before become prescriptions for perpetual war’. pressuring autocrats to hold fully In short, some cases have shown that the competitive elections, the international logic of democratic peace does not work community should first promote the rule of appropriately. In the words of Snyder, law, the formation of impartial courts and ‘none of the mechanisms that produce the election commissiion, the professionaliza- democratic peace among mature tion of independent journalist, and the train- democracies operate in the same fashion in 204 208 ing of competent bureucrats’. Beside, eco- newly democratizing states’. nomic and social modernization is also
important in order to build democracy. As Conclusion Gat shows, democracy in itself is not able This essay has reviewed and to lead to a democratic peace unless such discussed the theory of democratic peace. factors have fulfilled in advance. In this Scholars across disciplines have noticeably regard, ‘it has been found that economically contributed to our understanding of the developed democracies have been far more democratic peace theory. They have likely than poor democracies to be peaceful debated methodologically and empirically toward one another’.205 the puzzle of the democratic peace theory. Similar to Mansfield and Snyder, It is indeed difficult to simply judge Meierhenrich also has the same conclusion. whether the democratic peace theory is only He argues that ‘the new millennium saw a myth or a fact. Both the proponents and further evidence of the dangers of opponents have strong arguments to democratization. The pro-democratic support their views.
intervention in Afghanistan, following the This essay has tried to highlight the attacks of 11 September 2001, has spurred three problems of the democratic peace insurgent warfare not only in that country, theory. First, there are different definitions 206 but in neighbouring Pakistan as well’. of democracy, war, and peace used by Therefore, ‘democracy, if not handled with scholars and the differences implicated to care, can underwrite democratic war- the lack of robustness in the democratic
204 Ibid, p. 298. 207 205 Ibid, p. 334. 206 Jens Meierhenrich, op.cit, p. 660. Azar Gat. 2005. “The Democratic Peace Theory 208 Ibid, p. 673. Reframed: The Impact of Modernity”, World 209 Jack Snyder (2000) as cited by Meierhenrich, ibid, p. Politics, 58 (October), p. 78. 660. Munafrizal Manan, The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems 193
peace theory. The use of certain definitions References will affect the portrait of the democratic Bush, George W. 1994. “President and Prime peace theory. Second, the belief of the Minister Blair Discussed Iraq, Middle East”.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Lene Siljeholm of Democratic Peace Theory”, Christiansen, and Håvard Hegre. American Political Science Review, 2004. “Democratic Jihad? Military Vol. 97 No. 4 (November), pp. 585- Intervention and Democracy”, paper 602. prepared for the Workshop on Russett, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the “Resources, Governance Structures, Democratic Peace: Principles for a and Civil War”; ECPR Joint Session Post-Cold War World, (Princeton, of Workshops, Uppsala, Sweden. 13- New Jersey: Princeton University 1 8 A p r i l 2 0 0 4 . Press).
Mansfield, Edward D. and Jack Snyder. Waltz, Kenneth N. 2008.Realism and 2002. “Democratic Transition, International Politics, (New York and Institutional Strength, and War”, London: Routledge). International Organization 56, 2, Spring, pp. 297-337. Wilson, Woodrow. 1917. “Making the World “Safe for Democracy”: Woodrow Mansfield, Edward D. and Jack Snyder. W i l s o n A s k s f o r W a r ” . 2005. Electing to Fight: Why
Meierhenrich, Jens, 2007. “Perpetual War: A Pragmatic Sketch”, Human Rights Quarterly, 29, pp. 631-673.
Oneal, John R. and Bruce Russett. 1999. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific B e n e f i t s o f D e m o c r a c y , Interdependence, and International Organizations”, 1881-1992”, World Politics, Vol. 52.1, pp. 1-37.
Ravlo, Hilde, Nils Petter Gleditsch, and Hans Dorussen. 2003. “Colonial War and the Democratic Peace”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 47 August, pp. 520-548.
Ray, James Lee. 1997. “The Democratic Path to Peace”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 8.2, pp. 49-64.
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. “The Flawed Logic