Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful - Essay ExampleThe main reason people hold down monocracy and military rule is that countries led by such ruling systems argon more likely to engage in wars and other type of international conflicts as compargond to democratic system. Citizens of those states cannot obtain a quiet life history environment and this situation adversely affects their quality of living. As compared to monocracy, oligocracy, or military rule, democracies are inherently serenityful un slight they are unjustifiably attacked by external powers. Giving specific focus to the era of human War I & II, this paper will discuss how democracies are inherently peaceful. Democracy and Peace some authors opine that democracies strive to provide a peaceful living situation to their people and ensure that living standards of citizens are improved continuously. Undoubtedly, a countrys citizens are the primary stakeholders of a war as they actually bear the miseries of engaging i n or financing wars. Therefore, common people are less likely to mount wars or cross border intrusions. In a democratic country, people arrive more say in making decisions, and hence they can successfully veto individuals decision to fight and finance wars. In contrast, king is the sovereign ruler in monarchies and people have little lodge in decision making. As a result, kings can individually take decisions to start or support wars with little personal risk. In order to improve this worse situation, leaders worldwide are powerfully supporting democracy. In the opinion of mystifying, the Clinton administrations efforts to form a global community of democracies was an endeavor to bring peace to the whole world and it was greatly encouraged by many nations. As Bass notes, in their book Electing to fight, political scientists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder opine that emerging democracies are ofttimes wonky and are more likely to fight wars. To justify their claim that new d emocracies without having fully formed home(prenominal) institutions are aggressive, the authors cite the examples ranging from Frances attack on Prussia in 1870 and Vladimir Putins ongoing monstrous clampdown in Chechnya. However, sometimes even fully formed democratic countries become warlike because of several reasons. To explain, it is better to take care the 1959 attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel or Bush administrations invasion of Iraq. Those wars were fought because the democratic governments often found it difficult to trust dictators for serious negations. Similarly, the US attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was in chemical reaction to the 9/11 terror attack by Afghan militants. More clearly, some wars or interventions nonionized by democratic countries cannot be termed as aggressive or unpeaceful because they are ultimately aimed at the protection of fundamental democratic notions. As Buchanan points out, Elihu Root, Theodore Roosevelts secretary of state state d in 1917 that to be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can (np). The democratic peace theory, often referred to as democratic peace, strongly supports the argument that democracies are inherently peaceful. According to Pace, the democratic peace theory states that democracies are not likely to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies (269). The democratic peace is contrast to the theories describing war engagement and it can be considered as a theory of peace explaining motives that disapprove state-sponsored violence. The democratic peace theory is mainly based on the premise that democratic leaders are to bear the responsibility of war losses and they are responsible for answering a voting public. In order to retain their public support, democratic leaders