I can't tell if my post went through or not, so here it is again just in case...
Idea of Democratic Peace seems a modern adaptation of Kant’s idea of Perpetual Peace, that a regime type is a good indicator of war or lack of war. It is mostly a normative argument that it is a known “norm” that democracies do not fight other democracies, because both governments view each other as legitimate and can credibly commit to one another. This is the argument that seems to have driven US foreign policy for the last decade or so: we bring democracy because it will bring about peace in places of turmoil.
Democratic Peace has some good evidence, but I think we must be wary of pre-existing biases since we are members of liberal democracies. In fact, the idea that democracies are most likely to not fight with each other might have nothing to do with democracies, but other factors instead. For example, it seems that Democratic Peace is really the idea of capital peace. That is, when states go to war, or there is unstability--trading is disrupted, GDP goes down. More than ever if war takes place, then the cost of that would be much more severe. Is peace between democracies is really about trade interdependencies instead?
Other successful forms of governments are often overlooked. From lecture yesterday, Romania under Ceausescu saw a period of stability and even prosperity. Another prominent and current example is China. It has done an excellent job of opening up its economy and participating in the current world order, while keeping a tight upper hand domestically as an authoritarian regime. And while its growing economy and effects of globalization can eventually pose a threat to the stability of the regime, China presently seems to be enjoying its participation in the world economy.
I think we should rethink the idea of exercising ruthless unilateralism in the name of “democracy.” Carothers (and also Levitsky) from this week’s readings provide overwhelming amount of evidence where democracy promotion has been little to no good for the stability of that region or state. I agree with his “assumptions” from reading and I think that is well worth discussion. If our goal should be to curtail civil unrest and instability –forcing our way of government just won’t solve the situation.
1 comment:
I can't tell if my post went through or not, so here it is again just in case...
Idea of Democratic Peace seems a modern adaptation of Kant’s idea of Perpetual Peace, that a regime type is a good indicator of war or lack of war. It is mostly a normative argument that it is a known “norm” that democracies do not fight other democracies, because both governments view each other as legitimate and can credibly commit to one another. This is the argument that seems to have driven US foreign policy for the last decade or so: we bring democracy because it will bring about peace in places of turmoil.
Democratic Peace has some good evidence, but I think we must be wary of pre-existing biases since we are members of liberal democracies. In fact, the idea that democracies are most likely to not fight with each other might have nothing to do with democracies, but other factors instead. For example, it seems that Democratic Peace is really the idea of capital peace. That is, when states go to war, or there is unstability--trading is disrupted, GDP goes down. More than ever if war takes place, then the cost of that would be much more severe. Is peace between democracies is really about trade interdependencies instead?
Other successful forms of governments are often overlooked. From lecture yesterday, Romania under Ceausescu saw a period of stability and even prosperity. Another prominent and current example is China. It has done an excellent job of opening up its economy and participating in the current world order, while keeping a tight upper hand domestically as an authoritarian regime. And while its growing economy and effects of globalization can eventually pose a threat to the stability of the regime, China presently seems to be enjoying its participation in the world economy.
I think we should rethink the idea of exercising ruthless unilateralism in the name of “democracy.” Carothers (and also Levitsky) from this week’s readings provide overwhelming amount of evidence where democracy promotion has been little to no good for the stability of that region or state. I agree with his “assumptions” from reading and I think that is well worth discussion. If our goal should be to curtail civil unrest and instability –forcing our way of government just won’t solve the situation.
Post a Comment