The Democratic Peace

The Democratic Peace Thesis
Name:
Institution:
Course code:
Date:
The most significant breakthrough in the study of international security is the acceptance of the democratic peace thesis. The thesis refers to the absence of war between democratic states, which Jack Levy describes as the closest thing to an empirical law. The theory relies on different historical, economic, and political factors to suggest a strong predisposition against military violence between democratic states. Consequently, it challenges the validity of other political systems such as fascism, communism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism. This essay analyzes how the thesis uses strategic interests to explain peace and stability that characterize relations in liberal democracies.
Democratic peace has two aspects, structural and normative, that offer structural evidence and convincing explanations that are more logical. The structural account argues that democracies have elected officials and decision-makers that are accountable to their respective electorate. Therefore, the citizens and the government find war to be most unattractive. The government is concerned about the cost of war and the aftermath effects on the population. Citizens are more likely to vote incumbent leaders out of office if they intend to initiate a losing or unnecessary conflict.
Consequently, potential leaders in a democratic state will anticipate those electoral responses before deciding to start a war. This aspect does not assume that all leaders and citizens in democratic states hold liberal views. However, it argues that these states' democratic structures give the citizens leverage over governments' decisions.
The normative perspectives focus on shared democratic and liberal values as the reason for the peace between liberal democracies. This view suggests the democratic political culture encourages countries to pursue conflict resolutions CITATION Mou09 \l 1033 (Mousseau, 2009). Leaders in these democracies hold reasonable expectations that the other counterpart will approach a situation peacefully due to democratic alliances that have forged between two states. Therefore, this aspect shows how democracies can distinguish between ally countries and those they disagree with. Consequently, the state will respect a country that represents and looks after its citizen's interests, unlike a government that results in violence and oppression against other nations or its people. This type of perception explains why peace between nations did not hold up if one party felt that the other wone was not upholding liberal democracy. For instance, during the war of 1812, America did not consider England to be a democracy due to its Monarchy system of governmentCITATION PLA12 \l 1033 (Placek, 2012). The Confederacy also drew resistance from liberal unions because of their use of slavery leading to the American civil war.
"We can understand that there will be war and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth" – U.S President Barack Obama CITATION Jeh12 \l 1033 (Jehangir, 2012). Plato, a Greek citizen, also said that only the dead get to see the war's end. To understand peace prospects, one must understand why war has been such a reoccurring theme in history. From Plato's era to Obama's era, philosophers and theorists have focused on understanding human nature and its influence on life's political and social aspects. Consequently, it is now easier to understand what causes war and what motivations establish peace.
The 16th century marked the start of establishing nation-states and brought new potentials for political discourse. The two theories that have managed to argue peace and resolutions of conflicts is liberalism and realism. Liberalism is the freedom for individuals in that human beings have the morality to do the right thing. The Ideas brought forth by the theory stress individualism, human rights, liberty, and equality of treatment protected under the law. This perspective ties into the idea of representative government and the right to private property ownership. Liberal scholars such as Kant believed that if an institution is overseeing human relations, peace will prevail. In this world of liberalism, leaders exercise their authority depending on the consent of free-thinking citizens.
Consequently, the traditional version of democratic peace theory builds itself around the idea that democracies are a by-product of years of progression within history. The notion that individuals have learned from their past mistakes contributes to the peace enjoyed today. Values such as respect for human rights and allowing individuals to rule their county have undoubtedly reduced international tensions. The hegemonic stability theory proves that states can achieve peaceful solutions if two democracies want the same thing. The theory states that a nation with more economic and military strength than other states can control financial stability if other countries benefit from it.
The realism aspect, however, does not paint a rosy picture of peace and international relations. The main intention of realism is not to be optimistic but rather to paint the image of the anarchic nature of international politics CITATION And18 \l 1033 (Wive, 2018). Traditional realists hold skepticism about international politics because they believe it is in people's nature to disregard any set of rules if the outcome is beneficial to oneself. However, modern realism, referred to as neo-realism, tends to distance itself from past ideas. The new ideas acknowledge that states will follow the rules set; however, they will still use the international system to serve their interests due to the absence of authority. Therefore, realism considers peace as an illusion in modern inte...