1. POL 315: Politics of War & Security
Dr. Kevin Lasher

2. Democratic Peace Theory

3. Rising Tide of Democracies
A number of states became democracies after WW II (West Germany and Japan) 36 democracies by 1962 Another wave of democratization in late 1970s and 1980s (South Korea, some Latin American states)

4. Rising Tide of Democracies
Additional democracies created with the collapse of communism in USSR and Eastern Europe (not all suceeded) Another wave of democratization in much of Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa About half of the countries in the world today are democracies

5. Rising Tide of Democracies
In 1992 Francis Fukuyama declared the “end of history” in that all states were moving along the path toward democratic capitalism Last twenty years has seen a slowing or ending of the process of new democracies Some countries have retreated from democracy; half of countries are non- democracies of one sort or another

6. Rising Tide of Democracies
Russia under Vladimir Putin is a prime example of a country that has moved far away from democracy after significant democratic reforms in 1990s

7. Rising Tide of Democracies
While embracing a version of capitalism, China has not moved toward democracy in the last forty years of reforms

8. Rising Tide of Democracies
Numerous democratic states, even if the spread of democracy seems to have slowed
So what ?

9. “Democracies do not go to war against other democracies” is the closest thing to an empirical law in International Relations Theory
Interstate war

10. This statement is in dispute, depending on definitions of democracy, war and a host of other critiques

11. We can eliminate most of these problems by concluding that “Democracies almost never go to war with other democracies, especially in the last one hundred and fifty years.”

12. Therefore the number of democratic states that exist is relevant to the issues of war and peace
More democracies, less war (one reason for less war)

13. Today war between the US and Japan or the US and Germany is almost “unthinkable.”
The United States was at war with both countries seventy years ago.

14. War between Great Britain and France is equally “unthinkable” today despite the many wars these two countries have fought in the past.

15. Difficult to imagine a scenario for war between any countries of “modern Europe” (excluding Russia)

16. Similar scenario in almost the entire Western Hemisphere (recognizing lack of democracy in a few states)

17. Don’t need to get into the “underbrush” of the intense scholarly debate about democratic peace theory
Modern democracies almost never go to war with each other

18. How did we get the phenomenon of the democratic peace?

19. Immanuel Kant ( )
Liberal republics will not fight each other because the citizenry must consent, and they do not want to pay the costs of war (lives, taxes, damaged infrastructure, etc.)

20. Immanuel Kant ( )
“Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay” (1795)
Written when there were three “democracies” (or fewer)
Argues that republics (democracies) are inherently peaceful with other republics
The key to international peace is the spread of “republicanism”
No inevitability and no timetable

21. Immanuel Kant ( )
Republican states consist of a free market economy and representative government with separation of powers and equal citizenship
Liberal republics will establish a “pacific union,” a reality in which they will not wage war against each other
Liberal republics will obey a cosmopolitan law welcoming to foreign visitors and encouraging mutual commerce

22. Immanuel Kant ( )
Eventually all states will adopt a liberal republican system and the pacific union will expand to a universal “perpetual peace”
Kant makes no prediction when such a peace will be established, but clearly far in the future
Key point is that liberal republics (democracies) will not wage war against each other
Lack of democracies means Kant’s discussion was mostly “theoretical”

23. Rare Democracies
Kant’s idea about the “perpetual peace” was fairly well ignored since there were so few democracies Political scientists began to reexamine the idea as the number of democratic states grew, especially after WW 2

24. Bruce Russett
Democracies operate under certain restraints that make them more peaceful in relations with other democracies Democratic peace is the result of features of democratic states, and not other factors correlated with democracy
1993

25. Bruce Russett Democracy
Voting rights for substantial fraction of citizens
Government brought to power in contested elections
Executive popularly elected or responsible to elected legislature
Protections of civil liberties

26. Bruce Russett
Interstate wars with 1000 or more battle deaths

27. Bruce Russett
Russett argues no clear-cut cases of interstate wars between democracies in the period 1815-today Other scholars disagree and examine specific examples of “democratic wars” American Civil War, Spanish-American War, 1898 World War I (Germany?) Several others

28. Bruce Russett
Democracies do not wage war against other democracies (a few possible exceptions) However, democracies do wage war fairly frequently against non- democracies Democracies are “peaceful” only when dealing with other democracies Many empirical studies confirming this fact

29. WHY?

30. Bruce Russett
Structural/Institutional Model Cultural/Normative Model

31. Structural/Institutional Model
Violent conflicts between democracies will be infrequent because:
In democracies, constraints of checks and balances, division of power, and a need for public debate to enlist widespread support will slow decisions to use large-scale violence and reduce the likelihood that such decisions will be made
Leaders of other states will perceive leaders of democracies as so constrained
Thus leaders of democracies will expect, in conflicts with other democracies, time for the processes of international conflict resolution to operate, and they will not fear surprise attack

32. Structural/Institutional Model
Violent conflicts between non-democracies, and between democracies and non-democracies, will be frequent because:
Leaders of non-democracies are not constrained as leaders of democracies are, so they can more easily, rapidly, and secretly initiate large-scale violence
Leaders of states (democracies and non-democracies) in conflict with non-democracies may initiate violence rather than risk surprise attack
Perceiving that leaders of democracies will be constrained, leaders of non-democracies may press democracies to make greater concessions over issues in conflict
Democracies may initiate large-scale violence with non- democracies rather than make the greater concessions demanded

33. Cultural/Normative Model
In relations with other states, decision-makers will try to follow the same norms of conflict resolution which characterize their domestic political processes. They will expect decision-makers in other states likewise to follow the same norms of conflict resolution which characterize those other states’ domestic political processes.

34. Cultural/Normative Model
Violent conflicts between democracies will be infrequent because:
In democracies, relevant decision-makers expect to be able to resolve domestic conflicts by compromise and non-violence, respecting the rights and continued existence of opponents.
Therefore democracies will follow norms of peaceful conflict resolutions with other democracies, and will expect other democracies to do so with them.
The more stable the democracy, the more will democratic norms govern its behavior with other democracies, and the more will other democracies expect democratic norms to govern its international behavior.
If violent conflicts between democracies do occur, at least one of the democracies is likely to be politically unstable.

35. Cultural/Normative Model
Violent conflicts between non-democracies, and between democracies and non-democracies will be frequent because:
In non-democracies, decision-makers use, and may expect their opponents to use , violence and the threat of violence to resolve conflict as part of their domestic political process.
Therefore, non-democratic states may use violence and the threat of violence in conflicts with other states, and other states may expect them to use violence and the threat of violence in such conflicts.
Democratic norms can be more easily exploited to force concessions than can non-democratic ones. To avoid exploitation democracies may adopt non-democratic norms in dealing with non-democracies.

36. Which Model is Correct?
“Evidence supports both of these explanatory models. The debate between their proponents is not settled, nor should it be seen entirely as a debate. They are not fully separable in theory or in practice. Both make a contribution, and the two kinds of influence reinforce each other to produce the democratic peace.” “Nevertheless, some evidence suggests that the normative model is the more powerful . Norms … were somewhat more strongly associated with peace between democracies than was our measure of structural/institutional constraints.” Russett, p.119

37. Which Model is Correct?
Other scholars have elaborated on Russett’s explanatory models Empirical results show that democracies rarely fight one another There has been a fair amount of dissatisfaction with the causal explanations offered by Russett and others More work needs to be done to explain exactly WHY democracies rarely fight one another
Don’t have powerful theoretical reasons to fully explain the democratic peace

38. Peaceful Democracies?
Are democracies generally more peaceful?

39. Peaceful Democracies?
Research is contradictory, but generally NO

40. Peaceful Democracies?
Democracies and non-democracies frequently have gone to to war with other non-democracies

41. Peaceful Democracies? International Wars 1816-2005
Democracies vs. Democracies
Democracies vs. Non-Democracies
166
Non-Democracies vs. Non-Democracies
205

42. Peaceful Democracies?
Great Britain and France (and other states) waged wars of colonialization and some wars during the process of de- colonialization in 1940s-1970s
US has frequently gone to war against non-democracies (for a variety of reasons) since World War II

43. US Wars since 1980s Recognize superpower status of United States
1983: Invasion of Grenada
1986: Air attacks on Libya in response to terrorist actions
: Invasion of Panama
1991: Gulf War with Iraq
1995: US and NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs
1999: Air attacks on Serbia to protect province of Kosovo
2001-present: Invasion of Afghanistan
: Invasion of Iraq
2004-present: Drone strikes on terrorist forces in various countries
Recognize superpower status of United States

44. More Democracies, More Peace
Ranks countries as “Free,” “Partly Free,” and “Not Free”
In 2015, 89 of 195 countries (46%) were ranked as “Free”
Democracies = “Free”
Very little change since 2000
Half-way to Kant’s notion of the core of “perpetual peace”

45. Should the US (and other countries) try to support the spread of democracy as a means to promote world peace?

46. Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama have all made the “more democracies, less war” argument

47. Yes we should promote democracy, but only in the most general and broadest sense

48. Very difficult to help build democracy in other countries, except at the margins

49. Other policies such as strengthening international and regional institutions and encouraging most countries to participate in the global economy might be more beneficial and practical than actually “promoting democracy”

50. Improving peacekeeping and combatting fragile states might also be more beneficial than actually “promoting democracy” (democratic peace theory is not relevant to the problem of civil wars)

51. Are we suggesting that war will disappear once the planet achieves “universal democracy?”
Kant’s “perpetual peace”

52. Philosophical question because we are only half-way to planet-wide democracy
Would all war disappear if every country was a democracy?
(Stable democracies almost never experience civil war)

54. 2019
Interstate war between two countries of any type is becoming more and more rare

55. Just More Peace John Mueller
This is his argument in War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment
Not exactly sure why, but interstate war has become quite rare for ALL countries
Mueller doesn’t make democratic peace theory irrelevant, but implies that multiple factors might help reduce war
John Mueller

56. Just More Peace John Mueller
Some optimism that the we could achieve “perpetual peace” without achieving universal democracy
Perpetual peace = lack of interstate war
Not very relevant for fairly frequent occurrence of intrastate war
John Mueller

57. Conclusion
Increase in democracies can lead to decrease in interstate war -- along with other forces that can also lead to a decease in such wars

58. The End