{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Mags:
2/28/2014 3:02:59 AM
9
Democratic Peace Theory
For those of you that don't know, the democratic peace theory essentially contends that democratic states are less apt to go to war against other democratic states than non-democratic states; at the same time, it also contends that democratic states generally have better relations with each other.
This theory is heavily debated among scholars of international relations. While it is true that democratic states have never gone to war with each other, the theory does have it's flaws. From [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory]Wikipedia[/url] : "Those who dispute this theory often do so on grounds that it conflates correlation with causation, and that the academic definitions of 'democracy' and 'war' can be manipulated so as to manufacture an artificial trend".
What do you think? Do you think the theory holds some empirical value or do you think it is hogwash? Why?
On a related note: What do you think of democracy promotion as a component of US foreign policy? This includes both military actions and the utilization of soft power to promote democracy.
-
Deserves a bump
-
1 ReplyEdited by Seggi: 2/28/2014 9:48:24 PMI guess... Some empirical value? It's hard for me to comment because I don't know much about this, (but gosh darn it I will do it any way) but the opinions of the populace toward war are always going to be important for actually engaging in that war in modern society - I think a free democracy just amplifies that effect, both because it's spread through the media and because candidates are likely to, eventually, be forced to capitulate to anti-war sentiment if it grows strongly enough to too adversely affect their candidacy. I mean, Russia was hardly a democracy in the early twentieth century, but the commitment to the first world war was a huge source of pressure leading to the overthrow of both the Tsar and the liberal provisional government - soldiers deserted and discontent cropped up (hue) in rural areas with every soldier that had to be quartered and every sack of grain that was taken. On the general reluctance of well educated liberal democracies to go to war with each other, though, I think the 'well-educated' and 'liberal' aspects are probably more significant than the democratic one. We value a high quality of life and freedom that a full-scale war-time economy simply could not provide, due to things like necessary (and significant) tax hikes and the likelihood of conscription. There's really no issue between developed nations that war would resolve satisfactorily enough to be justified when it can be tackled through diplomacy and economic avenues. War's just not that common any more, and it's even less common between closely aligned states, which liberal democracies tend to be. That's just what I've been thinking about it. Basically, it's a factor, but definitely not the only one.
-
It has a lot to do with psychology. Widespread xenophobia can account for a lot of the relations between Democratic states and non-Democratic states. For example, people of the West tend to classify themselves as the Free World. That leaves much to be decided about the rest of the world. Its much easier to attach ideas to something you're unfamiliar with rather than something identical to yourself. Its easy to point the finger at the other guy.
-
1 ReplyDemocracy is a dictatorship by the majority. If 51% of people in a Democracy vote for war then nobody can appeal. However, America is a Republic in which the minority (49%) do have a say Not really relevant but whatever >.>
-
The US cloaks itself in a veil of rhetoric about freedom and democracy, but in reality they don't care how many nations subscribe to that system of government or not; what matters is US financial interests and economic dominance via the IMF and World Bank. Chile is an example of a perfectly functioning democracy that got destroyed and turned into a dictatorship by US influence, which was then promptly utilized as a testing lab for Milton Friedman's "Chicago School boys".
-
1 ReplyEdited by Dr. Phil: 3/3/2014 12:56:00 AMI prefer the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention#.22Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention.22]Golden Arches Theory of Conflisct Prevention[/url]. If you're referring to all out war, fine, history [i]should[/i] be on your side. But I always remember Iran in the 50's, the Congo before Mubutu, etc..
-
7 RepliesOooooh I could use this in debate!
-
I believe democratic nations have a harder time doing anything decisive than other systems do, so that would apply to war as well lol.
-
I think it's true to a certain extent. All out war isn't likely, but even allied nations spy on each other.
