In critique of the theory of democratic peace

Dr. Nayef bin Nahar - Professor at Qatar University
Translated by Moatinoon

Democracy when it came into existence was only a local desire when democracy began to exist, that is, society -- any society -- chooses it as an appropriate mechanism for the circulation of power, where it considers that this mechanism is best, just as there are societies that choose totalitarian, aristocratic or theocratic systems for cultural or religious reasons, there are also societies that choose the democratic system.

Democracy was therefore only a social doctrine, an instrument of domestic political action, but in the eighteenth century democracy theoretically transformed from a local doctrine into an international doctrine by the renowned German philosopher Amanuel Kahn (1724-1802). Having been a mere choice of society, democracy has become an option demanded at the level of the international community based on the most powerful theory contributing to the debate on the causes of peace and war, the democratic peace theory. The theory of democratic peace was launched by the German Amanuel Kant in his famous article To Perpetual Peace; A philosophical Sketch was then sanctioned by researchers in defence and objection to the present day, and later confirmed the idea of democratic peace and affirmed the correlation between democracy and peace between American experts in international cooperation Lauren Carner and Kenneth Wollack, who in their study affirmed New Directions for the Development of Democracy that strengthening democracies is the best solution to bring peace across borders.

The theory of democratic peace was one of the thoughts that contributed to what might be called the democratic jihad adopted by successive American administrations, particularly in the Cold War era. This theory demands that democratic States not only have their own system to be democratic, but that democracy must be an international doctrine embraced by the entire international community. Political systems throughout the world are democratic until the theory of democratic peace is achieved.

So the new theory of democratic peace is that it has transferred democracy from an optional local doctrine to an international doctrine imposed on peoples, although democracy is an expression of peoples choice, but the theory of democratic peace says: no democracy in accepting democracy. All societies must accept them or they are backward and retrogressive.
We will briefly explain the theory of democratic peace, which is the intellectual premise of Western policy for the spread of democracies in the world, and then try to discuss it by mentioning objections and revenues.

The foundations of the theory of democratic peace

The idea of democratic peace is based on two principles:

Principle 1: Democratic States do not fight among themselves, and history may be evidence of this; Because history has not witnessed a war between two democratic States, but why are democratic States not fighting?

In the view of the proponents of this idea, which prevents the emergence of a war between democratic States, among other things:

First, the decision of war in democratic States is not as easy as in non-democratic States; Because the decision of war in democratic states must pass through the states legislative institutions, this would complicate the issue, and the decision of war in dictatorships needs only a decision from the head of state.

Second, democracy would create a popular awareness, a political culture and socialization that prevented the collective community from accepting the idea of wars and military conflicts with other nations.

Third: There is mutual trust and respect among democratic States because they share the same principles and philosophy, and therefore will not resort to fighting some of them.

Fourth: As democratic States possess democratic mechanisms to deal with their internal problems, they will also use their democratic mechanisms to address their external issues.
Principle II: Relations outside the democratic region are contentious, i.e. the origin of the non-peace, including relations between democratic States and the undemocratic, because the natural State is the State of war and not the State of peace.

Discussion of the theory of democratic peace

The doctrine of democratic peace is based on the idea that democratic States do not fight between themselves on the basis of history that has not witnessed any war between two democratic States, and on the very logic of democracy that complicates the decision-making process, thereby reducing the likelihood of the creation of wars, and on other justifications that have already been made. This can be discussed through the following objections:

First: We do not recognize that democratic States are not fighting between themselves. For example, in 1953 the United States of America attacked the security of another democratic State, Iran, and dropped its democratically elected Prime Minister only because he opposed its interests. More than that, Britain sent democracy a military force in preparation for the declaration of war against Iran democracy at the time because Iran decided to nationalize the oil industry and expel the British company.

Second: Even if we go down and say that democratic States have not fought between themselves, the problem is that the area of application of the idea of democratic peace does not exceed democratic space, that is, democratic peace is confined only to the relations of democratic States, and democratic States relations with other States is not the area of examination of this theory. The lowest reading of history shows the magnitude of the catastrophes caused by democratic states along the stretch. No one forgets what America has done in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, what Britain has done in India, Iran, Congo and Afghanistan, and what France has done in North and West Africa. It is enough to remember that one and a half million Algerians have become grave owners only because they wanted their independence from democratic France.

What good is the theory of democratic peace as long as democratic States live peacefully among themselves and create wars and disasters in non-democratic States? The French writer Allen Badio, when he said: The truth is that democracy can only alleviate violence within Western societies by turning this violence abroad, further stated: Socialism brings violence inside and democracy out, and to be the executioner of other peoples rather than your own.

Third: Even if history does not prove any war between two democratic States, this does not necessarily demonstrate the validity of the principle, namely, that there is no mental or scientific correlation between the existence of a democratic system and the absence of war. Non-occurrence does not necessitate the abstinence of nowhere, as the speaker says, there may be other reasons for democratic States to deflect from war other than the question of its democratic nature.

Fourth: The absence of war between certain States does not mean the validity of the principles of those States. Otherwise, there have been dozens of Communist States circulating in the world. Yet in history we have not found a Communist State fighting with another Communist State. Does this indicate that the principle of communism is true?

Fifth: One of the democratic peace theorists claims is that there is mutual trust among democratic systems, which means that they will not reach the stage of military solutions. This, however, is undermined by the relative democratic concept caused by modern semantics of democracy: the State may be democratic in the eyes of its owners and many of its allies or even neutrals, but it is not democratic in its opponents. For example, the Republic of Iran is a democratic State in the eyes of many of Irans ruling elites, many States and intellectuals, for having some of the elements of the democratic process, such as regular elections, peaceful power trading and so forth, but it is not a democracy in the eyes of many, especially in the Western world, who see Iran as a tyrannical theocracy.

Similarly, with regard to Israel, Western Israel Because it is a Jewish religious state, the state cannot be both religious and democratic. Nor do socialists recognize liberal democracy, which occupies most of the Western world, where they see democracy as contradictory to liberalism and capitalism, and that democracy can operate only in a socialist system.

This relativism in the vision of democracy makes us question the value of the theory of democracies do not fight between themselves. What democracies do we mean, and we have seen the difference of people in defining democratic states?
Sixth: Advocates of the theory of democratic peace claim that democratic States solve their problems with others through democratic mechanisms other than dictatorships that do not already have them.

This is fictional and unrealistic. History tells us that democratic States apply only their democratic norms in their domestic affairs, while in the international context they forget democratic norms and tend to military solutions when their interests are jeopardized. For example, when Britain was afraid of Russian influence in Afghanistan in 1838, it did not find a democratic solution to these concerns, for example, the Central Government did not support or enable Afghan society to create effective institutions that counter Russian influence, but opted directly for a military solution so it went and occupied Afghanistan!! Democracy is no different from its British counterpart. When, at the end of the nineteenth century, Italys penetration into Tunisia was frightened, only its occupation found a solution. Certainly, any bad theory will always be exemplified by the United States of America. The history of the United States is full of preference for the military option over the democratic option in dealing with its issues and interests with others, the latest being the Iraq War in 2003; Although Americans have invented the lie of weapons of mass destruction, they have not tried to solve this -- illusory -- problem according to democratic mechanisms, but war has been their preferred choice.
While the founders of the democratic theory of peace have clear intentions, they certainly are not for American decision makers. The United States has not and will not embrace the spread of democracy in the world to Gods face. But it wants to be seen as an instrument of international hegemony to achieve its influence. In this context, the Austrian philosopher and jurist Hans Kückler believed when he criticized the use of democracy by American decision makers: Democracy is nothing but a motto for ensuring international hegemony.

Many researchers have tried to discuss the idea of democratic peace, such as American researchers Bruce Russett and Zeey Maoz, in their research Normative and Structural Reasons for the Theory of Democratic Peace. In fact, the most comprehensive and structured research was Sebastian Rosatos published at the end of 2003, entitled The Wrong (or Wrong) Logic of the Theory of Democratic Peace. I am not in a position to make any mention of Sebastian Rosato. He discussed the idea of democratic peace at length and elaborated on it at length. But the conclusion of what he said was that there were two logics on which the ideologues of democratic peace were based: normative and institutional logic, and then he made the bulk of his research into overruling those logics in all their elements, not only intellectual, but he cited dozens of factual examples that would refute that theory.

The bottom line in the theory of democratic peace

The foregoing conclusion is that the theory of democratic peace means that democracy must be an international doctrine; because the spread of democracy internationally necessitates the spread of international peace. We have already explained that this theory is fragile and is not proven before the debate, not from the logical theoretical side, nor from the practical applied side. Logically, there is no mental or ordinary correlation between democratic existence and peace, and realistically democratic States have proved to be the most peaceful and war-maker.