Democratic Peace Theory

Even those American citizens who are firm in their dislike of the U.S. must admit that they live in a particularly privileged society.

For example, just south of the border, in Mexico, 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. Even the poorest Americans are richer by leaps and bounds than the world’s poorest. Fully one billion people worldwide live on less than one dollar a day. Another two billion live on twice that. That’s one half of the world’s entire population, one out of every two people on this planet, living on two dollars per day or less. Thirty thousand children die every day from preventable diseases like dehydration and diarrhea.

We should be thankful. Though I was once an ardent socialist, more extreme than I am now, I have come to realize that capitalism is responsible for the astronomical standard of living that the “comfortable” in America enjoy. Those who would smile upon our free market, however, must understand that they have not it alone to thank, but its inherent exploitation and waged enslavement of the worldwide masses. We should not be so quick to lovingly endorse our own institutions.

Which leads me, in an admittedly roundabout way, to my real point. Some of our neighbors and fellows, ever blind in their patriotism, chalk up American success and prosperity to its myriad domestic institutions. This is a terrible mistake. It’s not easy to say that, because we have institutions X, Y, and Z, and because we have attitudes and practices A, B, and C, that America is successful.

The particular target of my article is the notion that democracy as a form of government has as a necessary consequence sustained peacefulness. Though I haven’t taken an hour of social science or international affairs classes, I can tell you intuitively that a single institution (such as democracy) cannot account entirely for the behaviors and attitudes of millions of people. This should be readily apparent.

So, I take aim at “democratic peace theory,” a hypothesis in international affairs and politics that says that democratic countries are less likely to – or never do – go to war with one another. Simply: “no democracy has ever declared war on another democracy,” or “democracies never go to war.” The idea proves popular from our university Ivory Towers all the way down to the common man, whose faith in democracy is unerring, and even further down to President Bush, who counts this theory as a reason for his obsession with ’spreading democracy.’

Immanuel Kant was an early proponent of a similar idea. In his book, Perpetual Peace, he argued that, if all nations of the world were democracies, the result would be, you guessed it, perpetual peace. His reasoning was that no country would vote to send its children off to die. Give Kant some credit, for he was alive before the Weimar Republic, one of the most liberal democracies the world has seen, gave rise to Hitler’s Germany. Liberalism and democracy are, in my mind, no surefire guarantee for peace and prosperity.

Yet the idea of democratic peace remains oft-cited. Such a popular theory, with such implications as justifying regime change over nearly half of the world, demands serious critical consideration.

Let us consider the strong claim that a democratic government always leads to peace. At least, that there is always peace between democracies. It should take only one counterexample to refute this. Do we have any? Yes, we have several.

Consider the War of 1812, in which the United States declared war on England, which was ruled by a king as well as Parliament. Consider the Civil War, in which the United States declared war on the Confederate States, both of which were democratic. Consider lastly the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict, in which the two democratic governments fired multiple salvos over their border over the course of about a month.

Democratic peace theorists are not daunted, and have come up with numerous qualifications to refute these examples. One skeptic, Peter Singer, dismissed democratic peace theory by saying that it depends on how one defines “democracy” and “war.” Indeed, he is exactly right.

Defenders of the theory require that democracies are ‘established’ (at least three years old), and that the population is enfranchised (that is, at least 2/3 of adult males can vote). Assumably, their election processes must as well be legitimate, they must have a competitive multiparty system, and the atmosphere is free from persecution and coercion. Defenders of the theory qualify war by requiring 1000 combat deaths between both sides.

The War of 1812 is no longer a valid exception because England had poor electoral representation. The Civil War is no good because the C.S.A. was a young democracy. And the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict fails because Israel was fighting Hezbollah, and was not technically at war with the army of Lebanon. (Each of these examples is arguably invalid for additional reasons, but the ones I have listed are good enough to discredit them.)

Is this theory still intuitively acceptable? I, for one, have grown only more skeptical after the qualifications are introduced to discredit my examples. Why must a democracy be three years old? Is there not a better way of determining if it is legitimate and functioning? Why must 2/3 of males have voting rights? Why not all males, and why not females as well? Wouldn’t that be more fair, and a better model for true democracy? Why must there be 1000 battle deaths between both sides? It is conceivable that a single person could die in a legitimate armed conflict. Perhaps qualifying “war” in such a way is mincing words, or just really making sure it’s a large scale conflict.

Defenders could mitigate their claim by saying that ‘most of the time’ democracies don’t go to war with one another, or that being democratic significantly lessens your chance of going to war with another democracy. I will not consider such claims here, save to say the more extreme claim remains dubious.

So, what is the cause of peace and prosperity? In America’s case, it was likely our immense natural resources, our significant remoteness from the Old World, the Protestant work ethic, and a knack for exploiting other peoples. It cannot be said that democracy alone guarantees peace for a country: more likely it correlates with other features that, in tandem, are promising for peace.

Thomas Jefferson believed that a well-funded series of public libraries was necessary for a free and informed electorate. We should be weary of attempts to stifle the free flow of information in this country. I recall when Hamas won a significant portion of Lebanon’s parliament. There is no stopping, no stopping, a populous from democratically endorsing terrorism, or massive acts of violence against their ’sworn enemies.’ (In this case, the culprit was widespread religious fundamentalism.) Proponents of democratic peace theory, and those who laud democracy alone for creating stability, are forgetting a number of other important factors: for example, the education of the masses, a high standard of living, a free press, the right to assembly, to associate and to movement are all valuable and necessary for an informed and war-fearing mass.

Indeed, we have a number of things to be thankful for here in the States. Democracy, however, is not some panacea we should wantonly prescribe for the rest of the world because of a much qualified and viciously contentious theory.

Saddam’s Hanging

What a debacle! Having seen the footage on YouTube of Saddam’s hanging, I have mixed feelings.

One feeling is anger, anger for a number of reasons. I am angry at the guard(s) who taunted Saddam. Those who defend the taunts, or are unwilling to condemn them outright, the present American administration included, could argue something like this: “The man was a monster, it doesn’t matter if we taunt him when he’s hanged.” Or, “Let’s make his last moments as uncomfortable as possible,” or “It’s no equivalent to what he did to those people he gassed,” etc. ad nauseum.

“Have you no dignity, sir?” We might as well admit that we are sinking to Saddam’s level: granted, our execution is focused and, supposedly, the product of due process of law. (Make no mistake: any real trial of Saddam would have incriminated half of the Western world.) Is it okay to be mean to somebody because they have been mean to others? Should we fight fire with fire, take an eye for an eye, or should we turn the other cheek, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us? Which cliché should we embrace in this case?

Why would childish taunts and hecklers be tolerated at a dictator’s hanging any more than they would at an American murderer’s execution? George Bush, as governor of Texas, executed a retarded individual with the mental capacity of a seven-year old. Would it have been okay to taunt him?

The taunting called to my mind, for which I am ashamed, the archetypical image of Palestinians hurling rocks at tanks, or Arabs in the streets hoisting their AK’s high and wailing in a bloodthirsty foreign tongue. Americans need see no more of such images, they would only justify their malformed beliefs about the Middle East. I feel dirty whenever one of those images reaches my television screen.

The point is that taunting is altogether uncivilized and indecent, sullying an otherwise solemn occasion. It is entirely uncalled for, vicious by nature, disruptive, unbecoming, grotesque and infantile. I would like to think that I would not have taunted Hitler, had he been hanged in front of me (or hanged at all), for that is certainly a greater show of dignity and remorse for all deaths. If I had been alive then, and had believed in the death penalty, my hypothetical relief would have been silent and dignified, thank you. I would imagine that seeing a man die is vindication enough. Why, why is taunting necessary? Silent indignation, relief or vindication would have shown a degree of superiority astronomically greater than any childlike taunt hurled at a defenseless and doomed soul whose only hope is likely to have a dignified last moment on earth. Why are we justified in frustrating his desires? Because he did it to someone else? A naked fallacy that needs no elaboration.

I am also angry at the Iraqi judiciary for sentencing Saddam to hang in the first place. Granted, it may have provided a shred of vindication for the small number of Westerners who still embrace the death penalty — the United States stands out starkly as a developed nation that endorses capital punishment, executing more prisoners than everyone except China and Iran. I am not the first, nor, certainly, will I be the last to add that Saddam’s execution will do little but make a martyr out of him for the minority Sunnis of Iraq. If there’s one thing Iraq needs less of, it is sectarian anger. Whether one admits to the existence of a Civil War, no one should deny that passions are enflamed, and this execution, no matter how noble, just, or destined it may seem as we gaze from our distant and insulated shores, will plunge the country further into chaos and clashes.

Another feeling is embarrassment. I am embarrassed such a mess could be made of an otherwise solemn occasion. The United States was quick to absolve themselves from any responsibility for the execution itself, as if it would have been pulled off without us. Perhaps, then, we should have been involved, to ensure that something, some semblance of decency, order and ceremony was present at the hanging. The event reflects poorly on the Iraqi government, which cannot easily be disentangled from the United States. The execution is yet another cruel, inhuman, degrading and embarrassing scar on the United States’ already poorly-informed and much-maligned conduct overseas.

One feeling I don’t have, come to think of it, is relief. This will not be the end, certainly. It gives me personally no feeling of closure. I remain awestruck by the absurd and counterproductive actions taken by all sides of the conflict, excepting no one.