The idea that democracies never fight wars against each other has become an axiom. While mature, stable democracies are safer, states usually go through a dangerous transition to democracy. Historical evidence from the last 200 years shows that in this phase, countries become more war-prone, not less, and they do fight wars with democratic states. This raises questions about the U.S. policy of promoting peace by promoting democratization. Pushing Russia and China toward democracy may actually bring war in the short term.
Submitted by Pat R. (Apr. 30, 2009) on April 30, 2009 - 9:09am.
While it may be true that democracies provide alternatives to war to solve problems, it's also true, as you point out, that democracy is only as good as its commitment to democracy provides.
Democracy as window dressing doesn't usually succeed because there are far too many able to gain a foothold to disrupt the system to promulgate their own agendas.
The outcome is obvious; conflicting interests seek their own level - usually far below the expectations of either, and nations, like persons, can quickly descend to new low levels of success which serves neither. The cold war may have fallen into this category with Russia for so long, only to be replaced with new and different management styles that were more adaptable to progress through Gorbachev.
It is as much the managers of systemic democracy as it is the facilities and commitment available that create successes or perpetuate failures.
The simmering dispute over the status of Taiwan may soon explode in violence. The Chinese regime sees Taiwan's recent democratization as an implicit challenge to its own authority and legitimacy and thus continues to threaten and intimidate the island. Meanwhile, Taiwan has procured advanced defensive weapons from the United States. Growing tensions across the Taiwan Strait, along with the lack of military and diplomatic communication, make conflict -- possibly involving the United States -- increasingly likely. To avoid such an outcome, Washington should actively facilitate cross-strait dialogue and deter provocations by either side. But it must do so soon, for both China and Taiwan are growing impatient.
Liberal democracy, led by the United States, may have emerged triumphant from the great struggles of the twentieth century. But the post-Cold War rise of economically successful -- and nondemocratic -- China and Russia may represent a viable alternative path to modernity that leaves liberal democracy's ultimate victory and future dominance in doubt.
Washington's repeated attempts to bring peace to Somalia with state-building initiatives have failed, even backfired. It should renounce political intervention and encourage local development without trying to improve governance.
Comments
Distinction between Strong & Weak Democracies
While it may be true that democracies provide alternatives to war to solve problems, it's also true, as you point out, that democracy is only as good as its commitment to democracy provides.
Democracy as window dressing doesn't usually succeed because there are far too many able to gain a foothold to disrupt the system to promulgate their own agendas.
The outcome is obvious; conflicting interests seek their own level - usually far below the expectations of either, and nations, like persons, can quickly descend to new low levels of success which serves neither. The cold war may have fallen into this category with Russia for so long, only to be replaced with new and different management styles that were more adaptable to progress through Gorbachev.
It is as much the managers of systemic democracy as it is the facilities and commitment available that create successes or perpetuate failures.
You make some great points.