Are the Current Policies for Methods and Levels of Democracy Promotion Appropriate Given the Legitimacy and Practical Application of the

Demo cratic Peace Theory?

By: Hannah Al-Ghareeb

Research Question

The research objective is to test the congruence of the Democratic Peace Theory. As to whether

it deserves its high credit, popularity, and warrant in being the designated governmental system

to be spread ideally, among other nation states. The inspiration for this investigation was incited

by the current state of turmoil within international politics, which has reached radical extremes

as a result of increased tensions for power. Modern history is drowned with ideological warfare

currently led by the reincarnated East vs. West struggle. Current nationalistic threats to the U.S.

have sprouted from Pan-Arabinism, and have become the new opponents upon the United States

and Western Europe’s chess board. Power tensions have increased through movements of the

21st century, as waves of political and cultural domination have spurred through rises in

nationalism that has in turn exasperated the fearful competition of diversity and variation; rather

than the potential contributions of such.

This project carries grave importance because current international foreign policies operate out

of notions of democratic ideals. About 90% of the western hemisphere (U.S and western

Europe) is democratic and highly influenced by the U.S. Since these ideals are instilled in the

foundation of diplomatic culture, they are used to evaluate the governance of nations as well as

their behavior with outsiders. It seems intuitively ethical to spread a system famous for being the

most equitable yet seen throughout history, as the foundational values and desires are assumed to

be universal of all global citizens. However, it is difficult to evaluate what rights are being

granted or given, because they are defined and valued differently according to culture and

context. Furthermore, sociological practices that provide more advantages than disadvantages

may work in one region while not in others. This consequence of diversity complicates

endeavurs of the spread of an ideology. Democracy is the current preference of the western

world and its preference in associating with governments who share this fashion. The main

reason for this is because the popular notion that the Democratic Peace Theory creates and

maintains peace between democracies period. However, this theory does not seem to be as full

proof as widely believed. In fact, the theory carries holes that illude whether there is a direct

causal relationship between the two variables of democracy and peace. These overlooked flaws

could have and may have already spurred catastrophic cycles of violent conflict as a side effect

of the overzealous promotion of this system. In these current harsh times conflict is

exponentially increasing with building angst towards the United States assumed to arise from a

clash of civilizations, religions, or ideologies. It is difficult to tell what is real with the

promotion of false truth claims, being today’s fad. What if the angst is occurring in response to

the Middle East’s history and ever growing intolerance to occupying imperialist

neoconservatives? The same people who have interests in their resources and security potential,

whilst supporting Israel (a common confrontational neighbor to many Arab countries) as it

continues international violations of human rights? These are further questions which need in

depth analysis; however the point is is what if the Democratic Peace Theory is a coincidental

accident? If there are other causal mechanisms which transform conflict into peace building

underneath this overarching theory, then why should the promotion of Democracy be as invested

in as it is today? For then it would only serve to reward western nations with dealing with non-

democratic nations more easily. If foreign policy and ethical evaluation of international relations

is layered upon layers of theories and inherent truths, what good is any of it if the foundation is

not valid?

Furthermore, failures to collectively tackle humanitarian threats such as global climate change

and the disintegration of finite resources, has exasperated the sense of entitlement to leaders of

nation states. As a result, the advantageous end of resource disparity is prioritizing competition

and using this advantage to weaponize technology as well as weaponize cultural diversity. This

is exhibited through stereotypes used against cultures that are defined by wrongful or lack of

education, perpetuated by the media of the masses, and legitimized more than ever to rationalize

the dehumanization of marginalized parties. Restructuring of theories, policies, cultural values,

and most importantly infrastructure, must be kept current to accommodate to today’s evolved

social habitat. It is for these reasons that this investigation required in depth analysis of this

theory and case studies to which its potential flaws are able to surface.

Whether people exhibit internal or external differences, diversity to western and eastern

governments incites threat to one another’s stability. Unconventional lifestyles means individuals

are not following the popular hegemonic ideals which unify social thought, values, and choices;

which are usually shared by a national identity. Small numbers of individuals critically

thinking, choosing, and acting within their own definitions of reality, eventually becomes its own

hegemonic pattern. Inevitably this number will grow, leaving the maintenance of local and

supranational order unmanageable; and perhaps allowing civil anarchy to be manifested,

ironically the greatest common fear of all nations.

For this reason, powerful governments strive to achieve a prestigious international status;

through victorious wars, possessing an admirable economy, and even exhibiting an envied

culture, so that its ethnocentrism is understood and cultural hegemony is spread as consent.

Consensual Hegemony is always favored. Governments would use less expensive resources in

propelling coercive forces to gain compliance; where force usually entails resistance and

conflict. When people willingly grant consent to accept or deny ideas, they actively surrender

certain rights to distrust, confront or question authorities.

Consequently, the most efficient means to gain consent is through trust. Inherently, humans trust

others based on a basic idea that someone who has more in common with them, whether it be

ethnicity, country of origin, culture, physical characteristics, or other aspects, signifies similar

mentality, moral values, and therefore similar goals. This is called social logic. For example, an

Italian man who requests a mechanic somewhere new will prefer an Italian mechanic for he will

trust that they are more likely than others to share similar cultural backgrounds, aspects that they

identify with, and therefore mutual definitions and therefore clearly defined expectations.

As threats to national security increase, so does the perpetuated fear of foreigners (and their

misunderstood foreign habits). The monopolized umbrella of the mass media employ spin

doctors with the tasks of exaggerating cherry picked stories capable of legitimizing stereotypes

and fear tactics. This is an example of Gramcian methods. Gramcian methods explains how

these methods demonstrate that consent can be achieved by the social construction of realities

painted by the wealthy power holders whom have the means to do so. When the availability of

information is controlled by elites ensuring complying individuals, these individuals begin to

rationalize with harmful impractical decisions of their leaders. From this current apparatus of

internal processes, external ones are affected and transcended across cultures and inserted into

the culture within international diplomacy and within supranational bodies like the UN. It is for

these reasons that advocating the spread of the world’s greatest power’s system of governance

would create endless benefits. Therefore, the leaders of the United States believe that by

increasing its cultural hegemony of social logic and extended social contracts, its security issues

would dissipate through consent. However, when armed military intervention enters a state

without properly processing justification among the UN, wishful ambitions to insert democratic

rational everywhere transcends under occupation into forceful imposition. This is seen in the

case of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Methodology

Mainstream Qualitative Case Methods are the main methodology used for this study. The reason

for this is because Quantitative methods look for correlations between two variables, not

necessarily causal analysis. It does search for a conditional probability where one may say if the

independent variable exists then there is such high probability that the dependent will arise or co-

exist that it can be predicted. Although this may suggest a cause and effect relationship,

positivism shows that even within a natural science like chemistry, it is difficult to isolate all

other interacting variables away from the control and experimental ones. As in it is tricky to find

the direct root causal variable of a phenomena, especially when numerical analysis of machine

readable social data rarely shows deep rooted triggers of phenomena beneath the surface, which

may change. Inherently, this is because of its large sample population and extreme nomothetic

applicability to other areas. As when using parsimonious conclusions to apply fungibility across

populations, the explanations sometimes encompass too much reductionalism and other ways of

taking certain factors for granteed. For example when coding for political terror or democracy,

these definitions are so subjective that quantification is only able to encompass a small portion of

reality; and who’s reality? In relation to this research question in the democratic peace theory,

quantification has attempted to analyze and even test its congruence, however it leaves out cases

where the CIA influenced the outcome; which leaves out a lot.

Mainstream qualitative methods attempt to solve this problem of equifinality by ferreting out the

complex chains of variables, offering rich insight and closer examinations into smaller sample

populations. Within this methodology, are methods to conduct social research carrying the

attached ontological position that there exists a reality which lies in between positivism and

interpretivism. There are certain realities which can be observed in natural light, or by being on

the ground witnessing and absorbing direct, immediate information. Biases exist however can be

so minimized by systematically collecting data in a variety of sampling methods to ensure cross-

examination. They are also decreased to a high degree via in depth case studies and

ethnomethodology, which both customize questions and analysis to properly interpret cultural or

contextual factors that may change the implications of the data. This ontological position

recognizes that the reality which can be discovered lies deeper under layers of societies.

Phenomena in sociology do not arise or dicipate the same as the scientific world, and therefore

procedures such as comparative historical analysis, path dependency, and phemenology are

necessary to discover or disarm real truths. At the same time, these qualitative methods of data

extraction can be generalizable and fungible to other phenomena. These characteristics make

this method instrumentally unique and important. If international and domestic decisions are

being made based off of social research findings, then it is pertinent that the information

collected is as close to reality as possible. For individuals make short and long term decisions

which are based and/or influenced by the actions, patterns, and outcomes of the choices of

others’. To imagine decisions based off of poor data lacking validity and statistical notions

which do not represent a population, carries detrimental consequences. Now imagine this on a

larger level; sub-group, nation state, region, globe, and the implications can be catastrophic while

the effects lasting.

It is for these reasons that the primary mode of research for this question utilized the extended

case method. This method is a type of qualitative research utilizing analytical methods like case

studies, ethnography, and field research to evaluate and suggest modification to pre-existing

social theories via congruence testing. It serves to illuminate flaws within existing social

paradigms, thus refining and accommodating them to the changing realms of social interactions

as well as advances in research. In reference to this method, Michael Burawoy states that

theories and case methods exhibit a unique relationship. In extended case methods, one must be

well versed in a particular theory in order to analytically determine holes in the theory’s logic

which is not complementary to observations seen among varied cases. It contrasts with inductive

grounded theory where the aim is to investigate without allowing pre-existing presumptions and

truth claims into a researcher’s conscious mind; reducing bias in data collection. Burawoy has

outlined the extended case method in such a way where it retains its positivist ground for

statistical analysis and yet is reflexive; relationships between the cause (independent variable)

and effect (dependent variable) are circular. Both variables effect one another and makes it

difficult to distinguish the real causal factor. For this reason it may seem like a mixture of

Positivism and Interpretism, however as Burawoy explains the interpretivist ontology is taken

into consideration only to ensure validity by using its methods. In a sense by encorporating such

a reflexive science, he shows a need to accommodate for the marginalized areas in positivism.

Positivism remains the core foundation for its structured way of collecting data and the benefits

from such. However, allowing what he calls space into the investigation scope, one can

creatively use deductive and inductive research to achieve the whole point of qualitative

methods; and its necessary distinction from quantitative analysis.

It is for these reasons why these methods carried the ontological positions and methodologies to

fit the parameters in satisfying validity and reliability, in testing the democratic peace theory and

its application.

Why Promote Democracy?

Modern times have been flooded with ideological warfare; even prior to the Cold War, in which

the winners must engage in longitudinal balancing acts between hard and soft power. Powerful

elites must compete amongst threatening internal powers as well as external ones. There lies

tensions between realist elicitations that states whom behave within the rational actor model are

validated in seeking to hoard securable resources and to do so in a ways which do not exempt

their status upon the international arena. One strategy in managing this diplomatic tactic is by

establishing this cultural hegemony through consent of citizens as well as diplomats. By the

United States holding dominant power and political influence since World War Two; especially

among the western hemisphere, their democratic system of politics has become not only a

political hegemony, but a cultural one as well.

The emergence and maintenance of Democracies have lasted centuries for structural and

ideological reasons. It has also been sought after by many areas and populations of the globe,

who seek its promises of equality, power to change one’s own government, and lessen conflict.

It is for this reason that since the Cold War, many countries have transformed autocracies into

democracies; improving relationships and creating absence of wars with other democracies. To

add to this, since 9/11 the U.S. has taken up democracy promoting projects in the Middle East to

instill threatening failing states with more stable governments, that are in turn more suitable for

U.S. interests.

The U.S.’s campaign of the necessary spread of Democracy surfaced for many reasons, idealistic

as well as instrumental. Therefore as for a definition of democracy, “a minimalist sense of

democracy is limited to holding multiparty elections in which the losing party voluntarily

transfers power”(pg 488). More defined versions include “…a one vote, one-person equality”

(pg 488) in which candidates must offer transparency into their ideological positions and goals.

In contract to this, an autocracy is a form of government which delegates dominant political

power to one person; as their decisions are not subjected to external or internal scrutiny.

President George W. Bush’s reign began with the focus on nation-building before it transformed

post 9/11 into an expansion of foreign policy and national security. Attempting to achieve these

ideal outcomes via democracy not only has it not taken hold within the two countries chosen by

Bush, however on the contrary may have incited more harm than national peace-building. The

popularity of such crusades have gained more public support than it has shown actual success,

surveys have shown that the majority of countries’ public opinion supports democracy.

Therefore democracy has become not only a political hegemonic system, but a cultural one as

well. Therefore it holds a position within U.S. interests to promote the spread of democracy and

“…any U.S. involvement in sustaining autocracy is immoral”(494); although it continues to

presently for security purposes. The argument behind pro democracy holds many inherent and

applicable truths. The widespread acceptance shows that it may not just be a civilization’s social

preferences, but that it seems to suffice universal needs.

The Democratic Peace Hypothesis, “…posits that democracies are more peaceful at least in their

relations to other democracies-than are other political systems, because it is harder to mobilize a

society to fight when citizens have a direct say over government policy” (1). There are attributes

within this type of regime which attract individuals, states, and supranational factions such as the

UN which also prefer it. As are there reasons for the United States’ current upheaval in

promoting the spread of such a system portrayed in power distribution. However, historical and

recent attempts to spread democracy have been met with resistant obstacles in non-western

regions of the world.

Hypothesis

I hypothesize that the Democratic Peace Theory is flawed in ways that should be modernized to

today’s current political climate, if its intended use aims to be applicable to non-western regions.

The foundational reservations it carries eliciting individual rights from and in relation to one’s

government is universally desired by most people and holds ethical rational. However, it carries

issues in it unclear cause and effect relationship, as well as to what specific premises play a

functional role in the process of peace. Furthermore, issues in implementing democracy

throughout non-western regions carry unique obstacles rooted in ideology, structure, and in

response to current regional and international conflict; hindering progressive intentions and

backfiring by yielding unstable, resentful, war stricken nations. The degree to which democracy

promotion has be evaluated as superior, advised to foreign nations, and imposed by coercive and

consensual means, should be warranted by much more substantial evidence than what is

available.

In order to construct the base definition of democracy, in its most basic form it is where the

opponent has a chance of losing and if so happens will be removed from power. To add, if fair

voting procedures are to be produced, it requires the trust of citizens to be protected from

political, ethnic, or cultural pressures and attacks during this type of power shift that needs the

compliance and voices of citizens. Furthermore, the existence of infrastructure to ensure

protection of human rights abuses, a police force, and allows “…independent judiciary [and]

impartial elections” ( 1, pg 488).

The Democratic Peace Theory has carried a proud reputation among popular culture,

international politics, and foreign policy; all while being supported by quantitative statistics. The

Democratic Peace Theory is one of the most popular paradigms of political science presently,

and for practical instrumental reasons, however it remains unclear as to what elements within it

yield the desired outcome of which it promotes. The strongest supporting premise for the

success of this theory, is that historical analysis observes no evidence of democracies going to

war with one another. Democracies are less likely to fight when the citizens have some say to

what the government does with their tax money. In cases like Afghanistan where George W.

Bush bypassed congress this would obviously not apply, although citizens may apply scrutiny

and withdrawal from voting him back in office, after the fact. The idea is is that officials of a

democracy have to worry about actions and reputations which would incite voters to desire their

demotion from office. Citizens under democratic regime are attracted to fellow correspondents

in other democracies, decreasing conflict and respecting boundaries of sovereignty with more

ease. Economies among democracies have also shown to be more sustainable given vigorous

reward for technological advancement as a tendency, and competition between leaders yield an

overall increase of concern, accompanied with promises to be either delivered or at least

considered; in order to avoid demotion of position. Additionally, Foreign Policy and public

opinion polls reflect the notion that people will follow similar norms found under democratic

societies, conflict resolution tactics used within their own democracy, and are less likely to

support attacks upon another nation if it is a democracy. When a state shares the same system of

governance, familiarity, trust, and relations grow. The fact that a democratic society supports the

attack of a democracy substantially less than one of an autocracy does not necessarily pinpoint

the reasons peace is created from nations sharing this particular system. However, when people

are told that the country of concern is of a democratic regime, there is a sense of security which

decreases fear; as well as the security dilemma. Constituents believe that the other carries

similar values of morale, attached to the political obligations of a democracy. This suggests that

similar social logic invokes an unspoken social contract to which the volatile nation would be

less likely to react with unprecedented violent force, but civilized conflict resolution. The

institutionalized mutual respect this commonality invites also makes it difficult for politicians to

explain why they would invade or meet another nation with hostility.

Moreover, democracies are expected to follow international law more rigorously on behalf of

their conditioned behavior to abide by national and international standards, for fear of losing

position. e an autocracy is the consolidation of power by one entity, meaning the tolerance and

occurrence of scrutiny is extremely little. The last observation which is seen in support for this

theory is that democracies do not seem to have territorial disputes. It is assumed that they are

satisfied among their liberal peace and economic, political, and military alliances, that there is no

need for imperialistic ambition.

On the other hand, Farber and Gowa prelude that democracies were able to achieve peace

because of shared goals and interests during the cold war that the western democracies had with

allies. Post war emerged alliances. This historical evidence is interesting, for experts in conflict

resolution might describe the outcome as activation and suppression pressures. These occur in

the midst of difficult times where ethnic groups suppress their nationalistic identities to

collaborate towards a shared goal. Activation occurs before or after this process by activating

old hatreds for example.

Other social scientists have suggested that the relationship between the Democratic Peace Theory

and creating peace is simply a spurious correlation. The main problem is there seems to be a

chain of variables which may affect the conditions of which peace may prosper in a region.

After 1945, the newly formed democratic regimes had also established economic and political

alliances with the U.S. which is evidence of interdependence; a method used in resolving

intractable conflict. When one or more nations become involved in a transnational organization

which involves the interdependence upon economies, politics, desire for continuous trade, or

other factions which risks large amounts of money and prosperity, those nations are less likely to

engage in conflict. They are even less likely to go to war with one another considering the

expenses, then adding the idea that both or all nations involved will simply lose money. This

was seen when the European Union consolidated their oil and gas industries into a transnational

body interdependent on one another’s political behavior, and has thus been an example of

conflict resolution through interdependency. Gartzke (2007) supports the claim that “joint

capitalism” creates peace through a number of the ways as the ones mentioned plus decreasing

the ambition for territorial expansion by elevating the costs of war including potential profits lost

via trade and opportunities for further development, and that democracies allow for more direct

intentions through open circuits of communication (social logic and contract). Considering these

factors, Gartzke argues that democracies are statistically not less likely to engage in conflict with

one another. Studies where interdependent capitalism and democracies are not correlated was

not found to exist during the time of this research, so it is difficult to presume either way with

confidence.

This leads to the next observation, that democracies are less likely to wage war with a nation

who’s military is equal or better (which is not likely presently), for democracies would not prefer

to lose. This is not surprising for much more of the world would be ruled by autocracies.

Democracies are also found to have more stable economies over time, however autocracies can

boom its economy in shorter periods. This notion may offer insight as to why many countries

are reluctant to transcend their existing systems during an instable global economy.

Another theory is suggested by Rosato (2003) who states that the lack of conflict between

democracies is a consequence of the power distribution post World War Two. He assesses that

about 90% of “double democratic dyads” are among Western Europe and American territory.

This notion is supported with the fact that archival data shows the Democratic Peace Theory

taking on its presumptions only after 1945, when the U.S. consolidated dominant international

power. Another social scientist implies the cause and effect relationship occurs in reverse order.

Where peace building and the maintenance of it, contributes to the formation of democracies.

Christopher Layne argues “ states that are, or believe they are, in high-threat environments are

less likely to be democracies because such states are more likely to be involved in wars, and

states that are likely to be in wars tend to adopt autocratic governmental structures to enhance

their strategic posture” (p.45 1994). Thus, there is yet other possible reason autocracies are

hesitant to become democratic.

Countries which are insecure about possible territorial disputes would much prefer autocracies.

The Arab spring has incited many upheavals in civil unrest, revolutions against their regimes,

and demands for basic civil rights provided by the government. When basic amenities are

neglectfully withheld by the government, it creates Protracted Social Conflict (PSC).

In a debate begging the question “Should All Nations Be Encouraged to Promote

Democratization?”, standing on opposite sides Francis Fukuyama of The Center on Democracy,

Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University answers yes, while Edward D.

Mansfield from the University of Pennsylvania and Jack Snyder of Columbia University say no.

They outline the cases in which democratic spread was successful and more importantly where it

was not. The failures of Iraq and Afghanistan has damaged the intention for years to come. The

main issue stated by Mansfield is that since democratic formation takes such a violent course, it

is not the time to take upon this crusade in such unstable international times. It leaves an open

vulnerability for the clashing of tribes and increase in corruption.

The history of democratic transformation has been sought with long term unsmooth processes,

and unzips a portal of vulnerability during these transitional democracies. The instability from

uprooting a history of political traditions, processes, and norms rooted in culture and nationalism,

invoke advantage points seen by authoritarian, nationalistic, or rebel groups to establish power.

If democratic practices do not spread and elevate a state’s economic position, certain factions

may attempt to seize control of the nation’s resources, leaving the citizens disgruntled and

unsatisfied with the fruits of the regime change.

This can be seen in recent cases of the Arab Spring, specifically the insertion of the Muslim

Brotherhood into Egypt’s current dictator overthrow. As well as current turmoil in Libya and the

fear of such trendy efforts in Syria. It is for these reasons that the overzealous promotion of

democracy should be reevaluated and treaded with caution. There are many conflicting factors

furthering the hostility and reluctance of the Arab World to join an additional western ideal of

government, especially when the U.S. government’s reputation has fallen from grace in their

recent efforts to occupy parts of the Middle East for political gain; whether mutually beneficial

or not. Such issues include lack of infrastructure and pre-existing conditions to ferret democratic

development, consideration of cultural values and norms, and trade-offs of the promotion of

democracy. Whilst considering securing threats of terrorism by the emergence of Islam

fundamentalists, in promoting democracy, there must be consideration of the trade-offs between

it and these other political goals of security, where the U.S. supports undemocratic regimes such

as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, China, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and perhaps Russia. “Promoting

democracy forcefully in such situations could weaken potential allies during a period when the

U.S. needs the full cooperation of states sympathetic to U.S. interests” (p489). For offering

alternative leadership would weaken the regime’s domestic support.

Culturally, many processes in forms of social construction and governmental and civil

organization will work wonderfully in one too many locations, while not in others. Every culture

has developed norms and customs to best suit the environment from which they adapted to, plus

the set of unique circumstances which ignited the path dependent cultural evolutions that people

currently cling to; to remain in previous conditions, retain cultural heritage and meanings, as well

as other reasons which result in attachment of certain nationalistic identities deemed purposeful.

Conclusion

Therefore, to assume that democracy would be the most optimal form of government or easily

maneuvered into the cultural hegemonies within regions is simply a fallacy of international

diplomacy and cultural tolerance.

Conflicts are spilling over micro and macro levels of society as a consequence of perpetuated by

the endless and contagious rederick of mass media. If current procedures are to be continued in

the future further studies should be required in order to verify the theory of peace holds validity

and reliability. It would be more practical to evaluate and modernize the series of steps that this

proicess takes. A place needs infrastructure before voting can even take place. It is not

necessarily the regime type; however the regime success depends on regime management. If

collective action is to succeed in de-weaponizing cultural diversity and the practices which

accompany it, re-evaluation and restructuring in the steps of the Democratic Peace Theory need

to be not only planned but implemented into action. Perhaps elites must lower their goals and

even re-name the institutionalizing of such a regime change so that these developing countries

with insecure power structures can better adapt and retain sustainable peace.