It has been nearly twenty years since Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the ‘End of History’ in reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the unstoppable rise of what many believed to be a new, democratic first world order. With these reactionary movements in political theory widely popularized, so too was the Democratic Peace Theory: a notion that had gradually evolved from Immanuel Kant’s early chrysalis in the essay Perpetual Peace, which called for the eventual abolishment of standing armies with the advent of a “republican civil constitution” for every state and an international order that mirrored those unbreakable domestic democratic elements.
Liberal democracies did not go to war, and Fukuyama argued that this was the final level of self-perfection that international governments would ever have to endure. A massive, in collapsible economic trade network (which has failed to truly catch on in many developing countries) would, over time, ultimately unite the disparate ideological frontiers of the modern world into a cohesive whole.
Fukuyama’s theories have been largely disproven by the West’s (particularly America’s) export of democracy into seemingly infertile terrain. As Churchill acknowledged, democracy is the worst system besides everything that has already been tried, and in the Middle East and elsewhere, liberal political systems are not culturally tolerable or feasible given the massive challenge of establishing a functioning, competent bureaucracy (especially when facing grave security threats).
While today’s political climate does not constitute the end that Fukuyama probably envisioned, the Democratic peace theory has not been completely disarmed. The advent of effective IGO and NGO networks around the world has bolstered democratic ideals and strengthened the peace between many allied nations (especially in Europe and Latin America).
Some democracies do not lock horns. But then again, some do. India and Pakistan have been locked in a Cold War-esque stalemate since partition that seems to have no end in sight. Many International Affairs experts think Russian meddling in Ukraine is bound to lead to violence sooner or later, not to mention their brief occupation of Georgia in the summer of 2008.
Do these examples of conflict between “democratic” nations represent fundamental contradictions to the democratic peace theory?
Russia and Pakistan are often the subject of corruption scandals and allegations of non-democratic practices. Russia’s political system is essentially a centralized one-party democracy: a closed system with no tolerance for outsider candidates, and Putin seems to enjoy exercising power over bloc rivals at will. Georgia’s last election was plagued by ballot irregularities and there is still wide suspicion that President Mikhail Saakashvili and his allies tampered with results. While India’s bureaucracy is often overwhelmed by challenges of dire poverty and overpopulation, elections are conducted with relative stability and its stance toward Pakistan has cooled slightly.
In examining the actions of these democratic states (technically speaking), there is a direct connection between the level of freedom at home, and aggressiveness in foreign policy. Still, most interactions between democracies remain peaceful, leaving the democratic peace theory’s value intact.
I would take exception to what you said about Georgia. Since Saakashvili, independent observers agree that corruption has dropped immensely. Transparency international ranked only 5 EU countries more transparent than Georgia.
This might be because an overwhelming majority of the country — the figure that shows up again and again in NGO polls is something around 90% — support Saakashvili. Why would he need to get dirty?
Unless by “Georgia” you’re referring to the two breakaway states, of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, there’s very limited evidence to suggest corruption in Georgia. Those who mention it refer to the Rose Revolution as a CIA plot.
I think you misrepresent the Fukuyama formulation. He maintains that democracy must and will be formed from within, not imposed from without — Marxism as opposed to Leninism.
It’s also a little disingenuous to call Russia and Pakistan democratic. Democracy is not just an election and transfer of power. By this logic we would have to call Iran democratic.
Democracy requires at least the following: a free and robust news media (Russia ranks 153rd and Pakistan 159th in press freedom according to Reporters Without Borders); a system of checks on executive powers (which Russia certainly does not have and Pakistan has wrestled with vis-a-vis control over the Supreme Court); and a judiciary insulated from extortion, bribery, and prebendalism — which is certainly not present in either country.
There’s a reason Freedom House ranks both countries as beeing “Not Free” and that they’re not included in the list of “electoral democracies.” Your exception to the rule is invalid, only further strengthening claim to the rule.
[...] 25, 2010 by dptrombly Jack has a good overview of the most resilient (and for IR scholars, vexing) theories in international politics today, [...]