Why Democracies Are Peaceful (Towards Only Each Other)

Background: This paper refers to the book, Grasping the Democratic Peace, by Bruce Russett, a Yale University professor who specializes in international relations and political science. He has written a total of 27 books, but this particular work explores the implications of a post Cold War world where the yoke of communism has been broken and democracy has prevailed.

Question Russett Is Trying To Answer: Even since the rise of democratization in previously authoritarian regimes in much of Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, Russett wonders if this means more peace between states or even full-on world peace. Furthermore, the author goes on to propose the question of whether these developments towards democracy across the globe can supplant the realist principles of anarchy in the international system and the security dilemma that happens as a result.

Russett’s “Democratic Norms And Culture” Argument: The author opens this section by debunking the common assertion that states prescribing to democratic values and institutions are fundamentally geared to be more peaceful or conciliatory in the international system. History proves that democracies such as The United States, The United Kingdom, and France during the 18th and 19th centuries carried out numerous imperialistic wars in the name of ethnocentric views that argued those uncivilized natives ranging from the Philippines to those in the American frontier, to those in Sub-Saharan Africa needed liberation. Instead, Russett asserts a stronger, more plausible theory that democratic states are against violent conflict or at the very least are more likely to be more open to peaceful negotiations when it comes to interaction between fellow democracies because of their shared norm of a live-and-let-live mentality and the mutual respect they have for each other’s self-determination.

Arrow Diagram Of The Cultural/Normative Argument:

Russett’s “Structural And Institutional Constraints” Argument: The author proposes that the institutionalized separation of power or checks and balances associated with any functioning democracy forces the need of broad popular support before war can even take place, which takes time and complete confidence in a favorable cost-benefit analysis. Russett adds that democracies do not have a fear of sudden attack from states of similar type due to their lengthy, reluctant process to start a fight, so there is much more emphasis on continuing peace negotiations instead. Since democracies know each other to be slow to war, the aggressive democracy in a conflict might bully or pressure the conflicting one into conceding, simply out of fear that the mobilization process will be much faster for the state threatening violence.

Arrow Diagram Of The Structural/Institutional Argument:

Offer One Criticism Or Raise One Question About Each Of Russett’s Arguments: One question after analyzing the author’s “Democratic Norms And Culture” argument is that although democracies might be so inclined to be more peaceful with their brethren, why has history proven democratic states to not be so peaceful towards themselves? Examples of these extremely violent conflicts within democracies include the American Civil War over slavery, the Cristero Rebellion in Mexico over secularism, or the South Sudanese Civil War over suspected coup attempts. Why have these conflicts resulted in non-successful peace negotiations despite these still being democracies, who are prone to be more conciliatory when it comes to fellow democracies? Does this argument simply not apply to democracies domestically? One criticism of the author’s “Structural And Institutional Constraints” argument is that democracies in this modern day and age are actually peacefully with non-democracies except in cases of retaliation from terrorist threats. In this age of War on Terror, the only concrete conflicts democracies have had are coalition attempts to destroy terrorist organization that just so happen to be located in non-democratic states, so these wars’ purposes are lost in translation. In fact, the overall number of conflicts between states is at its all time low in history, so perhaps there is even a more general trend of peacefulness among all types of states.