Democracy originated more than 2,400 years ago in ancient Greece.

The word “democracy”

means “rule by the people.” While this definition tells us that the citizens of a democracy govern
their nation, it omits essential parts of the idea of democracy as practiced in countries around the
world. Democracy had been defined as a political order in which the supreme power lies in a
body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. The
notion that democracy fosters peace had sparked considerable debates in the political and as well
as the academic discourses, in as far as the principles and tenets of democracy are critically
examined. Therefore, the essay is going to serve as a double edge sword on the notion that
democracy that democracy fosters peace. This is due to the fact that looking at the key or tenants
of democracy like peaceful regular free and fair election, active participation of the nationals in
politics and civic life, protection of human rights, rule of law in which the laws and rightful
procedures apply to mention but a few, can also be the primitive sources of violence or
instability in a state as evidenced by most of the countries in the international system.
Nevertheless the admirers of democracy vigorously claim that democracy fosters peace basing
on the tenants or the principles of democracy if there are fully upheld as evidenced in countries
like Mauritius. The democrats base also their arguments that democracy fosters peace due to the
foregoing smooth and sounding attributes of democracy and peace in democratic states as
evidenced and explained by the Democratic Peace Theory. Hence, the discussion to follow
serves to address contrasting facts and views towards the relationship between democracy and
peace. Due to the fact that democracy would be also a political blindness to credit it for the
creation and existence of peace as it can also be a primitive source of political doldrums and
mayhem and chaos amongst states especially in the African continent and other states.

To begin with, one of the prominent characteristic or principle of democracy is the regular
holding of free and fair electoral processes. This had become the major necessary casual factor
for the creation and existence of peace as argued vigorously by most of the admirers of
democracy over the years. In a democracy, the just powers of government are based upon the
consent of the governed. Free elections and other forms of civic participation are essential to
democracy. If the People are to rule, they must have practical means of determining who shall
exercise political power on their behalf. If they are to rule, the People must also monitor and
influence official’s behavior while in office. Elections are at the heart of the practical means for
the People to assert their sovereignty and as the citizens acts as overseers of government, the
People must have alternative sources of information. No single source, especially an official
government source, is sufficient. Freedom of the press is therefore an essential aspect of
democratic government and they will be peace as the citizens would have the feeling that there
are in charge of their government as evidenced in Mauritius. Elections in themselves do not
fulfill the requirement of modern democracies they must be free, fair, and sufficiently frequent if
the People’s will is to have effect. However the elections had proved to be a necessary casual
factor for violence, murder and extreme human rights abuse in some states. Chigora (2008)
cemented that elections have emerged in Zimbabwe as ground through which conflict and
violence have emerged and intimidation being a tool used for suppressing dissenting voices and
silencing other alternative views. This was evidenced by the events that occurred during the 2008
and 2013 electoral processes in Zimbabwe. Hence ,Mauna (2006) said that democracy is not a
one size fits all as some states may hold free, fair and harmony were as in some states differs. In
this regard it becomes political blindness for one to argue that democracy fosters peace.

Constitutionalism that is the use of constitutions to limit government by law is also another
principle of democracy. The People do not give power to government to oppress or abuse, but
rather to protect their fundamental rights, interests, and welfare. Therefore they limit government
power by authoritative fundamental laws called “constitutions.” In every democracy, with three
Exceptions (Britain, Israel, and New Zealand), the constitution is a written document.
Constitutions are the means used to state what powers government shall have. In defining these
powers, constitutions limit them. This is so because governments may exercise only the powers
defined in the constitution .Nevertheless, in most countries the amendment of these constitutions
is being done without the concern of the citizens and making the constitutions vulnerable for
manipulation by the elite and this would also result into violence within the states. Hence,
democracy cannot foster peace as it also creates harm with it.

More so, Liberal democracy recognizes the moral primacy of the individual and that all persons
have certain fundamental rights. A central purpose of democracy is to protect these rights in the
practical world of everyday life. For example these fundamental rights are freedom of
religion/conscience the right to practice any religion or none. Political freedom the equal right,
for example, of all citizens to participate in choosing those who govern and to remove them at
will through elections, freedom of the press, including electronic media, freedom of individual
expression. In other words democracy advocates for individual rights or liberties or privilege and
Bremer (1992), has it that these form of liberties would make the nationals feel content hence
democracy fosters peace. Nevertheless, these individual liberties or rights can be controversial in
different states and they can an ingredient for instability, thus some scholars and political
analysts Tafataona Mahoso postulated that not all human rights are right as he was giving
reference to South Africa. In South Africa there is the provision of these individual liberties or
freedoms amongst the nationals and this had resulted in the loosening up of the presidential
powers as well as the police and this had virtually opened the gates of violence and instability in
South Africa despite her being democratic and this was evidenced by the xenophobia attacks
against foreigners that occurred in 2015 as South African democracy offers extreme individual
liberties. Therefore, democracy cannot foster peace but rather the only thing that promote peace
is peace which is just another name for individual liberty as postulated by Ostrawki (2001).

According to the democratic peace theory, it is believed that democracy is spread to all corners
of the globe, so shall peace. According to James (1995) The explanation among theorists for
such a principle has been that democratic states avoid conflict with each other because of the
similar natures of the democratic processes and the shared values within liberal societies that
constrain the states leaders from conflict escalation, hence democratic states are peaceful in their
relationships with each other Rummel (1995) and one can cite the relations between the USA
and Britain. Hence evidence provided by Morgan and Schweback (1992), casts some doubt on
the validity of the widespread assumption or assertion that democratic states are just as conflict
or war prone as undemocratic states. Basing with the above evidence or fact democracy is the
way to peace. However philosophers like Thomas Hobbes is of the view that, human beings are
irrational animals, selfish and brutal in nature, hence these would create wars or wage conflicts
between states due to unend desire for maximization of interest as evidenced by the USA
inversion of states like Iraq, Palestine despite it being a democratic state. Also, Professor
Tshiyembe articulated that, it’s not easy to build democratic peace by integrating and
harmonizing societies or states, in continent that is made up of diversity of ethnic, tribal and
cultural groups. Such a task is complicated by the fact that most of African states were created by
the colonial power and border fixed without any regard to already existing social or political
entities or tribal affinities. More so democracy cannot be universal and most of the African states
are still maturing hence trying to squeeze in the idea of democracy would result to instability
making it possible for it to foster peace, hence democracy can be viewed as a gradual process
and in contrary the realist viewed democracy theoretical.

Furthermore the history of the idea of democracy fostering peace emanated also from Immanuel
Kant’s 1795 essay perpetual peace. According to him perpetual peace would occur when states
have civil constitutions establishing republics. Doyle (1983, p226) for Kant a republic was a
regime that respected private property, and established a legal equality among citizens as
subjects on the basis of representative government with a separation of powers. The perpetual
peace hypothesis also shows that to a certain degree democracy can foster peace. However, there
are some states that are regarded as republics like Zimbabwe where it is said that there is gross
violation of human rights, unfair electoral processes characterized by vote rigging and
intimidation, yet there are republics meaning it emanates from democracy that is there on paper
not in practice. Hence, given the fore going explanation democracy is just a rhetoric in as far as
the maintenance peace of peace is concerned.

To sum up, the validity of the foregoing notion, it can be undoubtedly said that democracy
cannot foster peace as some of its tenets went by violating what peace entails and it is proving to
be toxic to other states. However, one should not cast a blind eye on the conclusion that
democracy can still foster peace if practiced fully and correctly as evidenced in Mauritius.
REFERENCE LIST:

Bremer. L. (1992) Democracy and interstate conflict, 1816, 1965.Int, Interact.18

Chigora P. (2008) On Crossroads. Zimbabwe’s Foreign Policy with the West. The Journal for
Sustainable Development in Africa. Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, North Carolina,
USA.Vol 9 no 1, January, pp 170-183

Doyle M. W (1983) Liberalism and world politics. Am.Political.Sci.Rev.80:1151.69.UK

James. L, R (1995) Democracy and International Conflict: An Evolution of the Democratic

Peace Proposition.arjournals.annualreviews.org/accessed23/03/16

Kant, K. (1983) To Perpetual Peace: A philosophical sketch. Reprint 1983

Mill. J.S (1859) On Liberty a system of logic ratiocinate and inductive. London

Morgan TC and Schwebach V. (1992). Take two democracies and call me in the morning: a
Prescription for peace? Int. Interact. 17:305.20

Mauna B. A (2006) The challenge of democracy. Yaoundé, Cameroon

Ostrowsk, J (2001) What is democratic peace/ http///www.mises.org.library/doc/democracy-

promote-peace accessed 18/03/16

Rummel R. J (1995). Democracies are less warlike than other regimes. Eur. J. Int. Relate.
1:457.79
 MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

Name : Omar N. Satiya

Reg Number : R144509f
Module : PPM209 Democracy and Human
Rights
Level : 2.2
Lecturer : Mr Chikerema
M.O.E : PDP

QUESTION

17. Democracy fosters peace. Discuss