Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War and Democracy: The Democratic Peace

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War and Democracy: The Democratic Peace

    I am curious what others think of the proposition that “democracies do not make war on other democracies”. The logical conclusion that follows from this statement is that all nation-states should become democratic, and thus inter-state wars will end. But is this really true? Is the internal political structure of a state really deterministic in how that state conducts foreign and defense policies? I think it is an important topic as it has become the basis of US foreign and now defense policy (exporting democracy, even by force). Is that a wise course of action or should we not care what the state’s internal politics look like as long as it plays by the rules.

    Here is an excerpt from Kant’s Perpetual Peace:

    The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis); the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.3

    FIRST DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR PERPETUAL PEACE


    "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican"


    The only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican. 4 This constitution is established, firstly, by principles of the freedom of the members of a society (as men); secondly, by principles of dependence of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects); and, thirdly, by the law of their equality (as citizens). The republican constitution, therefore, is, with respect to law, the one which is the original basis of every form of civil constitution. The only question now is: Is it also the one which can lead to perpetual peace?

    The republican constitution, besides the purity of its origin (having sprung from the pure source of the concept of law), also gives a favorable prospect for the desired consequence, i.e., perpetual peace. The reason is this: if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war. Among the latter would be: having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future. But, on the other hand, in a constitution which is not republican, and under which the subjects are not citizens, a declaration of war is the easiest thing in the world to decide upon, because war does not require of the ruler, who is the proprietor and not a member of the state, the least sacrifice of the pleasures of his table, the chase, his country houses, his court functions, and the like. He may, therefore, resolve on war as on a pleasure party for the most trivial reasons, and with perfect indifference leave the justification which decency requires to the diplomatic corps who are ever ready to provide it.

    In order not to confuse the republican constitution with the democratic (as is commonly done), the following should be noted. The forms of a state (civitas) can be divided either according to the persons who possess the sovereign power or according to the mode of administration exercised over the people by the chief, whoever he may be. The first is properly called the form of sovereignty (forma imperii), and there are only three possible forms of it: autocracy, in which one, aristocracy, in which some associated together, or democracy, in which all those who constitute society, possess sovereign power. They may be characterized, respectively, as the power of a monarch, of the nobility, or of the people. The second division is that by the form of government (forma regiminis) and is based on the way in which the state makes use of its power; this way is based on the constitution, which is the act of the general will through which the many persons become one nation. In this respect government is either republican or despotic. Republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the executive power (the administration) from the legislative; despotism is that of the autonomous execution by the state of laws which it has itself decreed. Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.
    Every form of government which is not representative is, properly speaking, without form. The legislator can unite in one and the same person his function as legislative and as executor of his will just as little as the universal of the major premise in a syllogism can also be the subsumption of the particular under the universal in the minor. And even though the other two constitutions are always defective to the extent that they do leave room for this mode of administration, it is at least possible for them to assume a mode of government conforming to the spirit of a representative system (as when Frederick II at least said he was merely the first servant of the state).5 On the other hand, the democratic mode of government makes this impossible, since everyone wishes to be master. Therefore, we can say: the smaller the personnel of the government (the smaller the number of rulers), the greater is their representation and the more nearly the constitution approaches to the possibility of republicanism; thus the constitution may be expected by gradual reform finally to raise itself to republicanism. For these reasons it is more difficult for an aristocracy than for a monarchy to achieve the one completely juridical constitution, and it is impossible for a democracy to do so except by violent revolution.

    The mode of governments, 6 however, is incomparably more important to the people than the form of sovereignty, although much depends on the greater or lesser suitability of the latter to the end of [good] government. To conform to the concept of law, however, government must have a representative form, and in this system only a republican mode of government is possible; without it, government is despotic and arbitrary, whatever the constitution may be. None of the ancient so-called "republics" knew this system, and they all finally and inevitably degenerated into despotism under the sovereignty of one, which is the most bearable of all forms of despotism.
    Immanuel Kant, "Perpetual Peace"
    Last edited by Shek; 22 Apr 07,, 20:06. Reason: Change bold to quotes

  • #2
    Here's a similar discussion relative to the Middle East, http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sta...ddle-east.html.

    I think there is some merit to it, but the key is that it the democracies must be similar in terms of values. Thus, western, liberal democracies may not be prone to fight one another, but is it simply because of democracy, or is it because of the similar values and philosophies that then led to the adoption of democracy. I tend to believe that it is the latter and not the former.

    Now, I am not a hardcore realist either, and I do think that the internal matters of a state do matter, especially as globalization and the internet means that the internal matters of the state can have consequences beyond the control of the state in which originate from. However, I think that we need to take a pragmatic approach to these internal matters rather than solely an idealist approach. Thus, as an example, just because we don't like how Iran conducts its internal matters shouldn't dictate that we don't talk to them (and yes, we don't like how they conduct their external matters, and so I know that it is not solely their internal matters that has led to two decades of diplomatic isolation). But, in talking to them, I have no problem with us reminding them of what we think of their internal matters if it advances our self-interests.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #3
      So what about wars between democracies? Have they existed in the past?

      Here are some examples that could be considered wars between democracies:

      War of 1812

      American Civil War

      Spanish-American War

      World War I

      World War II (Finland vs. Allies)

      Israel-Lebanon (2006)

      Is this list accurate, or is it bunk? Why has President Bush made spreading freedom abroad the centerpiece of his foreign policy and basically his presidential legacy? Why are we spreading democracy to Iraq and the Middle East...who cares?

      Comment


      • #4
        Who said democracies can't fight eachother...that was never implied, although it is certainly hoped and usually there is little cause becasue systems are so similar.

        Iraq was about more than democracy though, first of all it was about eliminating a genocidal tyrant, that part seems to have been overlooked a lot.
        The greatest weapon is the truth

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Black Ghost View Post
          Who said democracies can't fight eachother...that was never implied, although it is certainly hoped and usually there is little cause becasue systems are so similar.
          Kant did, and you're right, it was never implied because it was explicitly stated. Democracy would lead to perpetual peace, therefore, there would be no fighting amongst each other.
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #6
            Herodotus,

            Not sure if I'd include Israel-Lebanon, 2006, as a refutation of Perpetual Peace since it wasn't a fight between two nation-states.

            However, a piece that I like on the subject, which I'm sure you're familiar with, is Christopher Layne's Kant or Cant: They Myth of the Democratic Peace (it's a JSTOR article). I liked his look at four different cases, the Trent Affair, the Venezuela crisis, the Fashoda crisis, and the Ruhr crisis. All four cases lead to the unhappy conclusion for liberalism that realism triumphs at the end of the day - shared democratic norms didn't carry the day, and only did actions conforming to realist thought stave off the crises.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Shek View Post
              Kant did, and you're right, it was never implied because it was explicitly stated. Democracy would lead to perpetual peace, therefore, there would be no fighting amongst each other.
              I was talking about what Hero said about Bush. Dont know much about Kant's work. Democracies could fight eachother though, theoretically.
              The greatest weapon is the truth

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Black Ghost View Post
                I was talking about what Hero said about Bush. Dont know much about Kant's work. Democracies could fight eachother though, theoretically.
                Sorry, I thought you were speaking about democratic peace theory and not Iraq. My apologies.
                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Black Ghost View Post
                  I was talking about what Hero said about Bush. Dont know much about Kant's work. Democracies could fight eachother though, theoretically.
                  But proponents of the theory argue that liberal (true liberal) democracies haven't fought each other, so if all states are truly liberal (small L) then that would end all wars; in their view. I don't know if Bush subscribes to the theory or not but his policies have been influenced by it, to some degree.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Shek View Post
                    Herodotus,

                    Not sure if I'd include Israel-Lebanon, 2006, as a refutation of Perpetual Peace since it wasn't a fight between two nation-states.

                    However, a piece that I like on the subject, which I'm sure you're familiar with, is Christopher Layne's Kant or Cant: They Myth of the Democratic Peace (it's a JSTOR article). I liked his look at four different cases, the Trent Affair, the Venezuela crisis, the Fashoda crisis, and the Ruhr crisis. All four cases lead to the unhappy conclusion for liberalism that realism triumphs at the end of the day - shared democratic norms didn't carry the day, and only did actions conforming to realist thought stave off the crises.
                    Yeah I have read Layne's piece, it is quite good. The counter-argument to that is those crises still did not lead to war among the participants, according to advocates of the theory.

                    Here is an article by David Spiro that looks at the statistical insiginifcance of wars or non-wars between democracies:

                    JSTOR: Accessing JSTOR

                    and Michael Doyle's article that touched off the debate in the early 1980s:

                    JSTOR: Accessing JSTOR

                    I am just looking for arguments/counter-arguments, pros, cons of the theory. If it's not a bunk theory, should it be US foreign policy to spread democracy everywhere for the sake of peace? if it is bunk, then why haven't liberal democracies fought each other, or have they?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
                      But proponents of the theory argue that liberal (true liberal) democracies haven't fought each other, so if all states are truly liberal (small L) then that would end all wars; in their view. I don't know if Bush subscribes to the theory or not but his policies have been influenced by it, to some degree.
                      True, it would make it highly unlikely that wars would start with completely liberal democracies, but that is ignoring other factors such as people and how they themselves act. Certainly I can see how this theory works, but it is flawed only in that just because a country is liberal at one point, that doesnt mean it will always be. There are always opportunties for wars to begin, although yes it would be theoretically much harder with completely democratic governments. In my mind though the only true way to end all war would be one government, one leadership through unified electoral states. Probably not anywhere in the near future, but maybe that is the ultimate hope -such as what is trying to be...slowly..put together with the EU.
                      The greatest weapon is the truth

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X