Where I See Democratic Peace Theory Falls Short

The fatal flaw I see in the implementation of Democratic Peace Theory in US foreign policy is the final point that Jennifer Jackson brings up in her article. Her idea that democracy cannot be imposed, exported, engineered, enforced, or drafted by one country for another is central to many current affairs in world politics, specifically how the US views foreign counterparts. In our country’s eyes anything that is not democracy, or close to it, is looked at as a problem that needs to be solved for the good of the citizens not living under a democratic system. This sentiment has been used as the backing behind US involvement in foreign countries starting with the Woodrow Wilson administration. So if we desire peace, how can we cultivate and promote democracy without encroaching on another country’s system? 

When conflict or war occurs in other states the United States and often other countries want to intervene on the basis of humanitarian rights. The challenge lies within the cultural differences. In the present day most progressive countries tend to agree that women and people of all ethnicities should have a stake in their country’s affairs. A hundred years ago that did not hold true in the United States, and remains the case for many countries and cultures around the world that hold different beliefs about who (women or not) and what (religion or not) will play a role in the affairs of their country.

The key point to be seen here is that all countries, religions, and cultures evolve. Protestants and Catholics in Europe had a century and more of long and bloody battles before they came to the consensus that allowing one another to believe their separate ideas would be much easier than constant conflict. But we do not vividly (if at all) remember this battle,  nor did this battle take place in an era with technologically advanced weapons and an interconnected global economy. So when we see groups such as the Sunni and Shiite, who have little desire to work together, it is important to remember that its not that they are barbaric or must be changed, but that they are at a different point in their history. States that are still working on becoming a monolithic body cannot begin a transformation to democracy before healing their schisms.

For the past three decades or so the United States has focused its attention on the Middle East. Unlike past international worries, such as the spread of communism in Asia, and the cold war with the Soviets, the Middle East presents many more actors that oppose both democracy and each other. With our wars in Vietnam and Korea there were far fewer actors to divide the countries. In the case of Korea this made it possible to plant the seed of democracy in the South in the name of being against the North. Indeed the United States had vested interests in resources and security in the Middle East, but what we find most troubling is the minority rule that occurs.

Realists, Liberals, and Constructivists can break down the cause of strife that cultural evolution causes, such as that in the Middle East, into simple terms. Realists would attribute this to the constant shifts in power transitions and rivalries within a state. Liberals would say that the splintered groups within a state create dysfunctional domestic politics, while a Constructivist might blame the creation/existence of so many forms of “other” that a state cannot unite.  Yet, all are centered on the existence of differing identities, cultures, and ideas promoting the idea that everyone’s voice should carry equal weight. Coming from the United States, this is in my mind ironic because the US is thought of as such a diverse country. But I believe that we have learned how to unite under ‘being American’ and see people’s differences as adding to our society and culture. That way we have been able to peacefully unify under democracy. However, we cannot expect others to instantly be at the same point that we are at. This is where Democratic Peace Theory falls short.