By Design or Accident: Reflections on Asian Security

6. Democratic Peace Theory and Asia: The Jury is Still Out

6 Democratic Peace Theory and Asia: The Jury is Still Out The merits of democracy as a system of government are obvious to democrats. Even if its shortcomings seem more obvious to non-democrats, objective and fair minded democrats would readily acknowledge them. But the relationship between democracy and interstate relations, especially on questions of war and peace, is more controversial even among democrats. In academic circles, there are two broad intellectual traditions on the subject. The realist tradition argues that it is calculations of stark national interest that determine war and peace between states: systems of government are irrelevant. The liberal school on the other hand believes that systems of government do matter, and proponents of the liberal peace theory argue that liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. They cite empirical evidence in support of this claim, based on the study of international relations of liberal democracies in the past. There are eminent scholars in each camp. Is there any merit in the claim that democracies do not go to war with each other? (Note the emphasis, because liberal democratic states do invade non-democratic states Democratic Peace Theory and Asia 25 and tend to show strong distrust of powerful non-democratic countries.) Is there any basis for the claims of western leaders that making the world democratic would eliminate the scourge of war? Stated baldly, without any qualifications, the claim that democracies do not go to war with each other is obviously simplistic. It is easy to see how democratically elected populist politicians in both India and Pakistan may exploit the mutually hostile sentiments of the two populations for political gain and in the process lead the two countries into war. But does this really disprove the liberal peace theory? Here the definition of democracy becomes pertinent. After fifty years of clan and military regimes Pakistan has suddenly become a democratic polity since last year’s elections.Also, while India is a democracy, it is a weak one. Mere elections do not a democracy make. Both Pakistan and India have serious deficiencies in the rule of law, which some would regard as one of the necessary conditions before a country can be considered a democracy. The level of maturity of a democracy and its institutions is therefore an important factor and should not be dismissed lightly. Indeed some scholars have argued that the transition from dictatorships to democracy and the early phases of democratization may in fact witness more resort to war, because while authoritarian constraints on the free play of populist forces are no more, the habits and functioning institutions of a democracy are not yet in place. Mature democracies would be those which have educated and well-informed publics schooled in the habits and responsibilities of a democracy. They are also likely to 26 By Design or Accident be countries of at least a fairly high level of economic and social development. Surely the way democracy functions in societies like Britain, Canada and Sweden, is quite different from the way it would function in India and Pakistan where nearly half the people (and a majority of the women) are illiterate and where mass poverty continues to exist. The claim that mature democracies are highly unlikely to go to war against each other has at least prima facie validity. An examination of the state of relations between the democracies of Western Europe, between the US and Canada, and between Australia and New Zealand, would strongly suggest this. All are high income countries with an informed public opinion, a free press, a healthy civil society and the checks and balances of a democratic system. The only slight doubt about this prima facie validity of the liberal peace theory as applied to the mature democracies is posed by an argument advanced by the realist theorists: that the benign state of affairs between mature democracies is due not to democracy as such but to the fact that for most of the time after World War Two these countries had a common enemy, in the absence of which, at some stage, nationalism will reassert itself. But this is left to be seen. The liberal peace theory is still to be tested out in Asia. SomeWesternscholarshavemadeadistinctionbetweenliberal and illiberalAsian democracies. InAsia, even the liberal ones tend to be either geographically non-contiguous or are not sufficiently mature to allow the liberal peace proposition to be tested. Only...