There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad,” states the charter of Hamas, several paragraphs before it accuses Jews of using “secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions” for sparking the French Revolution and the birth of communism. This is perhaps why the victory of the group, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, in last week’s Palestinian legislative elections has cast a long and uncomfortable shadow over hopes for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Combined with other democratic successes of Islamist parties last year, including the election of a Shia-dominated Iraqi parliament and the many electoral victories of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which Hamas emerged) in Egypt, Hamas’ election largely repudiates President George W. Bush’s assertion that the spread of democracy is the best way to ensure lasting world peace.
“The reason why I’m so strong on democracy is [that] democracies don’t go to war with each other,” Bush said during a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in late 2004. “I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace. And that’s why I’m such a strong believer that the way forward in the Middle East, the broader Middle East, is to promote democracy.”
To be fair, Bush was not the first to voice his support for the Democratic Peace Theory. The idea that democracies are less likely to become involved in international conflict was first introduced by philosopher Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace,” and was also behind Woodrow Wilson’s famous, and rejected, 14-point proposal at the end of World War I.
In the 1980s, social scientists resurrected Kant’s theory with much fanfare, as empirical testing seemed to support its underlying idea, though with some caveats: No democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy. It also became a main pillar of the Clinton administration’s foreign policy, which made the spread of democracy a key component of ensuring America’s defense.
Since it came into vogue, though, the Democratic Peace Theory has largely taken on more and more qualifications and limits. In recent years, political scientists have suggested that its empirical success may largely stem from the way its supporters have defined both “democracy” and “war.”
The recent academic criticism of the theory has come from international relations specialists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, in their new book “Electing To Fight.” Their most startling conclusion is that — far from promoting peace — the rise of democracy may actually lead to more war.
“Our research shows that incomplete democratic transitions — those that get stalled before reaching the stage of full democracy — increase the chances of involvement in international war,” Mansfield and Snyder write in the introduction. “Democratic transition is only one of many causes of war, but it is a potent one.”
Mature democracies, with developed institutions like robust political competition, a free press and independent judiciaries, may indeed promote lasting peace, they suggest convincingly. But through a series of empirical examinations and case studies, Mansfield and Snyder argue that in nations that are democratic in name only — those with voting, but without other requisite conventions of democracy — elections may actually lead to the rise of ultranationalist parties, which can push them into war. Despite its dry, scholarly delivery, the book makes a vital contribution to a timely debate about the structure of the international system.
Instead of critiquing America’s foreign policy, the two academics suggest their goal is to clarify when, and under what circumstances, America’s push toward democracies will succeed.
“Spreading democracy is a worthwhile long-term goal, both as a value in itself and as an eventual means to increasing global peace and stability,” Mansfield and Snyder state in the book. Their conclusion, though, is a more cautious one: “Urging a democratic transition when the necessary institutions are extremely weak risks not only a violent outcome, but also an increased likelihood of a long detour into pseudo-democratic form of nationalism.”
In Palestinian areas, where institutions are indeed weak and corruption is rampant, Mansfield and Snyder’s conclusions seem to find support.
“You’re seeing across the world, most notably in the Middle East, that democracy and freedom are on the march,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said last year, in response to questions about democratization in the Arab world.
With a militant group now in power through democratic elections — one that has promised to march all the way to Jerusalem — he might soon be regretting his choice of words.
