A Democratic A Democratic Peace?Peace?

Paul BaconSILS, Waseda

University

Republican Liberalism

• Liberals believe that there are basically only two different types of state in the international system.

• These are democracies and non-democracies.• If this is true, it follows that three types of dyadic

relationship are possible.• 1. Non-democracy – non-democracy.• 2. Non-democracy – democracy.• 3. Democracy – democracy.• Can you give me examples of wars for each of these

dyadic types of international relations?

Democratic Peace TheoryDemocratic Peace Theory• According to Democratic peace theory (DP

T), liberal democracies never or almost never go to war with one another.

• Democratic peace theory has become influential in the policy world in Western countries.

• Scholar Jack Levy famously remarked that democratic peace theory is ‘the closest thing we have to a law in international politics.’

So what!?So what!?

• War is one of the most serious problems in the international system.

• If democratic peace theory is true, then it provides us with a way to break the realist cycle.

• This also suggests that domestic politics DO matter. – The domestic politics of a state dictate the international relations which that state is capable of engaging in.

• Moreover, the number of democracies in the world is increasing, and, if democratic peace theory is correct, this suggests that the number of conflicts will reduce.

• Theoretically, if all of the countries in the world became democratic, then the threat of war would disappear.

History of the theoryHistory of the theory• The idea that democracy is a source of

world peace came relatively late. • Immanuel Kant first stated the theory of

a peace between liberal democracies in his essay ‘Perpetual Peace’ written in 1795.

• At that time there were very few republics in the Western world and none of them was truly democratic by today's standards.

History of the theoryHistory of the theory• Since World War I, there has been widesp

read popular rhetoric that democratic states are peace-loving, but the idea was not systematically studied by social science.

• The gradual spread of liberal democracy in the world in the second half of the 20th century drew greater attention to the relationship between democracy and peace.

Rummel’s TheoryRummel’s Theory• Kant’s theory was expanded in the 1970s by Ru

mmel.

• The following five propositions formed the basis of Rummel’s original theory:

1. Democracies do not make war on each other.2. The more democratic two nations are, the less the violence between them.

Rummel’s TheoryRummel’s Theory

3. Democracies engage in the least amounts of foreign violence.

4. Democracies display, by far, the least amounts of internal violence.

5. Modern democracies have virtually no democide.

DemocideDemocide

• According to Rummel, nearly 174,000,000 people have been murdered by their governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1999.

• This figure is over four times the number of combat deaths in all international and domestic wars during the same period.

DemocideDemocide

• If all these dead were to populate a nation, out of some 190 nations in the world it would be the sixth largest.

• A related but slightly different concept is Rummel’s law, which states that the less freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.

Causes of the democratic peace?Causes of the democratic peace?Many theoretical arguments have been put forward as explanations for the democratic peace:

• Democracies are characterized by the RULE OF LAW, and are therefore more likely to resolve disputes between them through arbitration.

• Democracies share A COMMON CULTURE: the citizens of democratic societies are less likely to view the citizens of other democracies as enemies. Because their support for war is necessary (due to democratic decision-making), war is less likely.

Causes of the democratic peace?Causes of the democratic peace?• Democracies are INHERENTLY PEACEFUL. Wid

e citizen participation ensures that decision making power lies in the hands of those most likely to be killed or wounded in wars, and their relatives and friends (Rummel).

• Democratic countries tend to be capitalist states, whose TRADE RELATIONS with one another create interdependence among them (Schumpeter).

• This INTERDEPENDENCE limits the ability and willingness of democratic nations to go to war with each other, due to the incurred costs in lost trade.

Statistical EvidenceStatistical Evidence• Rummel studied all wars between 1816

and 1991. He found 198 wars between non-democracies, 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 wars between democracies.

• He argues that this is strongly statistically significant. For example, during the 1946-1986 period there were 45 states that had a democratic regime; 109 that did not.

Statistical EvidenceStatistical Evidence

• There were thus 6,876 state dyads, of which 990 were democratic-democratic dyads. None of the 990 fought each other.

• The probability of this lack of war between democracies being due to chance is virtually 100 to 1.

Statistical EvidenceStatistical Evidence

• Babst (1972) concluded that no wars had been fought between democracies between 1789 and 1941.

• Singer (1976) supported this. • Doyle (1983) found that ‘constitutionally se

cure liberal states have yet to engage in wars with one another’.

• Ray (1993, 1995) found no wars between democracies.

Statistical EvidenceStatistical Evidence

• Maoz & Abdolai (1989) analyzed all wars between 1816 and 1976 and found no wars between democracies.

• They found that this is statistically significant.

• They also found less lower-level conflicts between democracies.

• Bremer (1992) reported similar findings for the years between 1816 and 1965.

DefinitionsDefinitions• War is often defined as any military acti

on which results in more than 1,000 battle deaths .

• This is the definition used in the authoritative Correlates of War project at the University of Michigan.

• This project identifies 2000 cases of armed wars or other conflicts after 1816.

DefinitionsDefinitions

- A democracy is defined as a stabilized liberal democracy. - Rummel requires democracies to possess certain absolute criteria:- There should be voting rights for at least two-thirds of all adult males. - A democratic system should also have been in place for more than three years.

DefinitionsDefinitions

Ray has argued that:• At least 50% of the adult population i

s allowed to vote.• There has been at least one peacefu

l, constitutional transfer of executive power, from one independent political party to another, by means of an election.

DefinitionsDefinitions• The most widely used data set in democratic

peace theory research is the Polity dataset, put together by a number of scholars, most prominent among whom is Ted Gurr.

• The Polity dataset does not codify states in a binary fashion (democracy/non-democracy)

• It gives each state a democracy score and an autocracy score for any given period.

Criticisms of the theoryCriticisms of the theory

• Critics point out that ‘democracy’ and ‘peace’ are essentially contested concepts.

• They are difficult to operationalize for measurement.

• They are subjective, so there is a risk of manipulation to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

Criticisms of the theoryCriticisms of the theory

• Critics of the theory have claimed that there are many exceptions to it:

- Germany during WWI- The American Civil War- Finland/UK war during WWII

Criticisms of the theoryCriticisms of the theory• The criteria for liberal democracies le

ave very few democracies before the late nineteenth century. For example:

• During much of the period of Rummel’s study, the US barely met Rummel’s criteria, if at all.

• The UK did not qualify until after the Third Reform Bill – 1888.

Criticisms of the theoryCriticisms of the theory• Critics argue that Rummel actually uses

a tighter definition of democracy than that which he offers in his official criteria.

• This leaves few democracies before the late nineteenth century.

• This makes the theory weaker, since very few democracies mean very few possible wars between democracies.

Criticisms of the theoryCriticisms of the theory• Rummel's requirement that democ

ratic states must be older than three years excludes some wars.

• Rummel’s criteria also exclude civil wars within democracies over legitimacy or secession, such as the American Civil War.

Criticisms of the theoryCriticisms of the theory• The ‘1000 killed in battle’ definition exclu

des attacks by one democracy on another of such overwhelming force that there is no effective resistance, and thus few deaths in battle.

• Democracies have engaged in covert conflict resulting in a change of regime on the losing side. For example, the British- and American-supported 1953 coup d’etat in Iran.

Criticisms of the theoryCriticisms of the theory• Correlation is not causation• Critics have argued that peace may

be explained by other factors that are not related to democracy. For example:

• Geographical isolation.• ‘Bloc peace theory’.

‘‘Bloc peace’ theoryBloc peace’ theory• The bloc peace argument is offered by Joanne Go

wa in Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace.

• According to this argument, the STRUCTURE of the international political system during the Cold War was responsible for creating the illusion of a democratic peace.

• At about the same time as many of today's democracies came into existence, the Cold War divided much of the world into two systems of permanent institutionalized alliances.

‘‘Bloc peace’ theoryBloc peace’ theory• Critics such as Gowa therefore claim that the inter

-democratic peace of the period is explained by a larger ‘bloc peace theory’.

• Almost all the democracies of the Cold War period were members of the Western bloc, and the members of that bloc did not go to war with each other.

• The ‘First World’ nations were allied with each other, chiefly in NATO. There was very little possibility of them attacking one another.

• This was because they were united in a collective effort to contain the bigger threat posed by Communism.

‘‘Bloc peace’ theoryBloc peace’ theory• Gowa observes that the system of alliances between the d

emocracies was therefore produced by this common interest.

• Also, once the alliance system had come into existence, the relations between two members of the bloc were not permitted to decline into full-scale war.

• The alliance provided common allies with the interest and the leverage to prevent it.

• Critics of DPT therefore conclude that democratic peace theory relies on a body of evidence drawn disproportionately from a period dominated by the Cold War.

• During the Cold War, the division of the world into east and west was more important than other potential conflicts.

Criticisms of the bloc peace theoryCriticisms of the bloc peace theory• Supporters of the DPT argue that according to the log

ic of Gowa’s theory, there should therefore have been no wars at all in the Western bloc, including no wars involving dictatorships, and also no wars in the opposing Communist bloc.

• 1. However, there WERE several wars between Communist nations: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Cambodian-Vietnamese War.

• There were also minor conflicts, not meeting Rummel's threshold of deaths, particularly the Sino-Soviet border conflict, and the Prague spring. Another possible counter-example is the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.

Criticisms of the bloc peace theoryCriticisms of the bloc peace theory

• 2. There were ALSO wars within the Western bloc between democracies and dictatorships, supporters of DPT argue, thus disproving the bloc peace theory.

• One example is the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, at a time when Cyprus had British military bases and close ties to Turkey's NATO partner Greece.

Criticisms of the bloc peace theoryCriticisms of the bloc peace theory

• 3. Supporters of DPT argue that there were many wars between dictatorships in the third World during the Cold War.

• 4. Supporters of DPT also note that there were no wars between democracies in the Third World during the same period.

• 5. Supporters also argue that external causes cannot explain the continued peace between democracies in Europe after the end of the Cold War.

• 6. There are also many democracies outside Europe who have not fought other democracies.

End of LectureEnd of Lecture..Thank you for your attention.