Democracy as an International Issue. (Global Insights)

Democracy as an international issue goes far beyond its direct connection to international peace. Where domestic peace has broken down, the international community must be able to assist in its restoration. In this work, democratic governance, and the realization of human rights, are essential. The United Nations (UN) not only can offer essential help in repairing democratic breakdowns in domestic peace but also must explore democratic principles at the global level. Democratic Peace Many associate connections between democracy and international peace with Immanuel Kant, whose essay of 1795, "Perpetual Peace," argued that "republics"--which meant essentially what today we call liberal or pluralistic democracies--were less likely than other forms of state to go to war with one another. Broadly speaking, the last 200 years have proved him right. During that time there have been many horrible wars, which technology has made ever more destructive. Liberal democracies played a big part in those wars. But almost always they fought as allies. Dynastic states have fought each other throughout history--as have religious states, totalitarian states, and military dictatorships. But liberal democracies have generally found other ways to settle their disputes. (1) Let me qualify that observation to avoid building too many hopes upon it! Until recently only a few liberal democracies existed. So we lack enough case histories to justify sweeping generalizations or confident predictions. Also, democracies often have behaved aggressively toward nondemocracies. These wars are not always the fault of nondemocracies, as the history of colonialism illustrates. Sometimes democracies argue that their opponents are illiberal, autocratic, or undemocratic. They may be right, but saying so does not justify war. Nonetheless, the peace among democracies is supported by credible evidence and has substantial foundations. The most convincing explanation is that liberal democracy is essentially an open, transparent system with built-in safeguards against military adventurism. Democratic rulers cannot mobilize their countries for war without convincing most citizens that war is both just and necessary. This means convincing them that vital national interests or principles are involved and that there is no peaceful way to achieve the same objective. That is much easier if the government on the other side can be portrayed as evil, aggressive, and not open to rational persuasion or reasonable compromise. People in a democracy find it easy to believe the worst about another country with a closed political system. When decisions are made behind closed doors, it is difficult to tell whether the reasons given are the real ones, or indeed whether something quite different from what has been announced is being planned. Regimes that are not accountable often can control or manipulate the mass media. They find it easier to mobilize a society for war, whether against a similar regime or against a democracy. By contrast, it is much harder to convince people in a democracy that war is necessary against another country with an open and transparent political system. In such cases, the two peoples can engage, not just through war and diplomacy, but on a much broader front. They can see into each other's political processes and also influence them. The more open and accountable governments are to their fellow citizens, the less likely they are to use force, at least against other states whose systems are similarly open. Democracies are least true to themselves when their governments pursue covert policies. Even the greatest democracies have worked to undermine the stability of other elected governments, by means that they would probably not have dared to use if decisions had been open to public scrutiny. Kant himself understood this danger, which was why he considered "publicity" a necessity. …