Susan Said:

Question about Democratic Peace Theory?

We Answered:

I think this is best answered with an Aaron Sorkin quote from a famous West Wing episode.

"Free trade is essential for human rights... and the end of that sentence is, 'we hope'. The President knows that Chinese political prisoners are still going to be sowing soccer balls together with their teeth whether we sell them cheeseburgers or not, so let's sell them cheeseburgers."

Point: having a McDonald's means nothing. Just because it hasn't happened before in thousands of years of civilization doesn't mean it won't happen in the near future; I remind you that nuclear weapons and eagle-eye satellites are relatively new, too. Democracies do tend to negotiate first out, but perhaps a better indicator is that today's countries will not go to war (or *avoid war*) out of religion or pride... but rather, their economy. Everyone has a stock market now. Everyone has treaties and commodities. And everyone fears to lose their wealth. The markets are, if you think about it, silly... and it's what's causing so much pain right now. It's what also keeps everyone towing a global line. Chew on that, along with the Big Mac.

Veronica Said:

Democratic peace theory vs. the Theory of Realism?

We Answered:

Donovan, apparently you do not understand the question. The Democratic Peace Theory has nothing whatever to do with a United States political party called the Democratic Party, nor does political realism have anything whatever to do with a recession. In the future, Donovan, please try to understand the question before you insert petty political biases into the discussion.

The Democratic Peace Theory refers to the idea that democratic nations do not war with each other, nor do they endure systematic domestic violence.

Political Realism would oppose the Democratic Peace Theory, claiming that it is somehow in the fundamental nature of man to make war upon each other.

Note to poster: strangers on Yahoo answers are not the best place to get information to do your homework.

Warren Said:

Do you think the democratic peace theory has shaped foreign relations over the last century?

We Answered:

The problem with this theory is that most of the nations of the world are not liberal democratic nations - however, the theory does stand when you look at the results between countries with such political systems. After all when was the last war between the USA and France. Although both countries have had different policies on things we have never fought a war against each other.

Good Luck!!!

Joyce Said:

Democratic peace theory -- your opinion on it and why?

We Answered:

Today they try to get every other country's economics so intertwined that war is very unlikely. In war one could be destroying their own production capacity.

Ann Said:

Why is democratic peace theory inconsistent with realism?

We Answered:

Democratic peace theory is not in keeping with realism because democratic peace theory advances the view that democratic nations will not go to war with each other. Realism focuses heavily on balance of power alliances and military development. In theory democratic nations should still be working to defend against the "threat" posed by the growth and development of other nations force projection capabilities.

Realism also casts the state as the most important actor in the international system. Democratic peace places a great degree of power in the hands of the population of democratic nations. The DPT argues that elected leaders in democratic nations will not risk the loss of power which may result from war; additionally, that populations of democratic nations must be convinced that war is necessary. This places a greater degree of importance on the population than the state as an independent stand-alone actor in the international system.

Chester Said:

What are the flaws of Democratic Peace Theory? and What form of Gov. is closely related to Democracy?

We Answered:

Quick list of a few flaws in DPT:

* How do you define a democracy? How do you define a war?
* Short era of sampling data
* Correlation does not equal causation (i.e., democracies might not go to war against each other, but is it b/c they are democracies, or b/c they have other common interests unrelated to their political system?)

As far as a form of government closely related to democracy, that's trickier. If we include sub-types of democracy, then delegative democracy is one choice. In DD, political leaders give power to unelected bureaucrats and civil servants who make decisions without reflecting the will of the people. If we're talking about non-democratic systems, then I'd pick competitive authoritarianism. In CA, there are elections (although they probably aren't entirely free or fair) that are competitive. In other words, there are several individuals or parties who could honestly win an election. The winner gets to rule more or less how they please, without respecting the rule of law, and without much accountability from courts, rights groups, or the press. Basically, the people are choosing their dictators. However, the elections are still held, because the government's control is not yet absolute. Ukraine in the late 1990s was probably an example of this system. It's not democratic, at all, in principle, but the elections really do matter, which makes competitive authoritarianism different from the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union, where there were elections, but only the Communist Party was on the ballot.