[epee re tn ene Tahar ema dope sat cy recone tes soe eoeae ee ee Seer ere per nies ee ed ee ee reas ee ees Srey ee Ey eerie eee eee er ee ‘THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE “The central contention ofthe democratic pesce i that democracies rarely if ever Sight wars ‘with one another eventhough they are not particularly reluctant to fight wars aginst non- ‘democratic oriberl regimes. But the democratic peace much more than just statement bout pacific democratic behavior. It encompases a lengthy is of fiy well-established facts about democracies in dsputes—facts that collectively help expain the potential paying impact of a democratic world order. The broad set of empirical regularities that collectively make up the democratic peace include the following: 1. Democracies tend not to fight wars with one another (Macr and Abdolali 1989; ‘Rassett 1993; Ray 1995). 4. Democracies tend to reach peacefil settlements wien disputes arse with other democracies (Dixon 1994). 'b, Democracies are more itly to fight wth one another when they ae in transition to Oneyearwar, ama W a> Oneyear war lngeW =2- Twoyesrvar email W_— Two-year as ange W ‘Vert a 100 = batine prewar iy peng Source buono de Mesut ta 208‘Pificiples of hteratona Poltios Present uh decoesh end of ascot nt a spn tad te oa cr Abra ical of te irs cosh My 1203, phn Desoatc sages nde May 1,207 se aq ition sting "tes for US nop thal set Goage ha cet va On ‘the ath ives he pets Mon cane ech See tyler ry el sald tht uh" pura ep te ie of ac dango ane eee” supporters even at the expense of those hofihg for democracy in their own land. We have slzady seen a hint about the fundamental problem for democrats in working to spread ‘democracy. In thinking about demo- cratic nation building, kep firmly in ‘mind what was said in the previous paragraph: defested state's leaders are not free to pursue whatever policies their own people want DEMOCRACY: A HINDRANCE TO DEMOCRATIZATION In the abstract, it s easy to contend ‘that we are all for seeing democracy spread around the world It is alsa ceusy to contend that we seck to be secure within our own borders, free to pursue the polices that we most favor. The two, however often do not go together, necessitating tough choices between supporting democracy and supporting our own policy goals and our own security. CConsiderbow much more democratic current-day Ian is (for its tremendous democratic limitations) than it was under Shah Mohammad Reea Pablav (a monarch) prior to his being ‘deposed by Ia samc Revolution in 1979. Under the sab’ regime, the Iranian people hed ‘no sayin choosing their leaders or in removing them from power. Toda, Irn has competitive politcel partis and elections that hve el winners and losers, Tobe sure n0 one ean run for ‘fice without the approval of Iran religious leaders in the Supreme Council (whose members sre not elected), but the choices are still vastly larger than they were under the shah. Equally, consider how lite the United States and other Western democracies teat the democratically lected lenders of Hamas a legitimate spokespeople forth desires of the Palestinian people. [Neither Tra’ theocracy nor Palestine (or at lett Gaze) Hames is welcomed as «source of ‘improvement in American security, despite their both being more or less democratically cho- 4m. Its evident thatthe immediate concern for adverse security consequences often trumps ‘the longer-term benefits everyone realizes through democracy. That may well be why the ‘record fr exporting and spreading democracy isa dismal and iseppointng siti. ‘The sting and optimistic words of Woodrow Wilson and George W, Bush are but a pale reflection of American policy or of the polices of other democracies now or inthe past. AS ay a