DEMOCRACY IS PEACEFUL

Are democracies more peaceful than non democracies?



Are democracies more peaceful than non democracies?

Introduction

In any community we will generally find shared principles, habits, and rules that govern the conduct of members. Democracy is one such collection of principles, habits, and rules of conduct. Democracy is rule of the many, in contrast to rule by the few (oligarchy, aristocracy) or the one (monarchy, dictatorship). The people govern themselves in a democracy, and they do so without resorting to deception or threats of violence. Something like this idea must surely have arisen independently several times over the course of human history, but the term itself comes to us from the ancient Greeks (demos: the people; kratos: to rule), who were the first to examine carefully the theory and practice of democratic government (Almond, 1963, 88).

Democracy brings political equality and inclusion

Why not restrict citizenship in ways that prevent people with insufficient training and experience, or mistaken beliefs and undesirable habits, from having influence in politics? In ancient Athens, it was supposed that all citizens were similarly able to fulfill certain public duties. Thus it did not matter who occupied a particular office, and a fair way to allocate these responsibilities was to call upon citizens at random. Similarly, in most modern democracies all citizens are assumed to be competent to reflect on public matters and to be able to make sincere and informed judgments when fulfilling public responsibilities such as voting, jury duty, and serving in political office. Democracy thus presumes some measure of equality with respect to citizens' competence and sincerity (Verba, 1995, 44).

Democracy also demands equality in at least one of two further senses. First, citizens are to have equal opportunities to participate in deliberation and legislation on public matters. Second, the interests and opinions of citizens are generally to be given equal consideration in public affairs.

Equality of competence, equality of opportunity, and equality of consideration, taken together, amount to political equality. Citizens may be unequal in many respects: Some citizens may be stronger or more charismatic than others, and some will have had more formal education than their peers. Such inequalities are, however, taken to be largely irrelevant to the duties of democratic citizenship.

These three senses of equality easily conflict. If we suspect that most people are sufficiently competent to carry out public duties, then we may be tempted to cast the bounds of citizenship widely to include a great many people. That is, the presumption of roughly equal capabilities suggests greater inclusion as a democratic fundamental. If all citizens are basically equally competent, then citizenship should not be limited to those of noble birth, great wealth, or extraordinary erudition, but should extend to all minimally competent adults who are willing to abide by the laws and share in the responsibilities of public life. But when citizenship includes a great many people, it is extraordinarily difficult to ensure that each citizen has equal opportunities to participate in public deliberations and judgments (Hotelling, 1929, ...