Ideology of Power

Introduction
This paper will focus on a particular assumption of the Democratic Peace Theory, which is, that
Democracy-or any type of government for that matter-can be quantified. In order to address this
assumption, a brief summary of current thought regarding Democratic Peace Theory will be included.
Next, I will define the problem with Democratic Peace Theory as the unquantifiable nature of human
beings. This paper will take on a realist point of view while examining the nature and behavior of
human beings in a globally political context. The realist perspective is especially important when
examining the real-world instances included in this essay.

Opposing Thought
This paragraph will feature several proponents of Democratic Peace Theory, whose stances are
counter to those presented in this essay. In order for one to follow the logic of this paper, basic
understanding of the findings produced by the opposition is necessary. Democratic Peace Theory is an
idea which attempts to explain why democracies tend to be peaceful with one another. The idea that
democracies are peaceful with one another is an underlying assumption within the Democratic Peace
Theory. There is a massive body of research centered around the Democratic Peace Theory. Many
researchers examine, in an in-depth way, the mechanisms which seem to keep democracies peaceful.
Leblang and Chan are two Democratic Peace Researchers, who assert that political and social
institutions are able to influence a democratic government's decision as to whether or not they go to
war. In their article, Explaining Wars Fought by Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints
Matter,, the two find that if the electoral system of the particular democracy tends to favor incumbent

candidates, then the leaders are more likely to go to war. Similarly, Chan and Safran wrote an article
which claims that democracy itself acts to keep its elected officials from engaging in war. In an article
titled, Armed Forces and Society,, Choi writes that public opinion and institutions are inseparable
and thus, must be studied in unison. In his article, the Democratic Peace and the new Evolution an old
idea, author, Jarod Hayes puts so much faith in the Democratic Peace Theory, that he encourages the
further research into ten distinct areas. Hayes believes that further research may lead to an entirely new
field, which he calls, Democratic Security. The researchers featured above focused their efforts on
mechanisms which work in a world without subterfuge of any sort. For instance, it is certain that public
opinion influences a president's decision as to whether or not he should engage in an open-ended war.
However, the existing body of research fails to address the underhanded tactics that democracies use
against other countries, despite government type.

The Unquantifiable Nature of Humans

The central idea of this essay is that Democratic Peace Theory cannot be valid, because
democracy cannot be quantified, as it is a form of government. Governments are comprised of vast
numbers of people, whose behavior cannot be quantified on an individual or collective level. Though
there seems to be a lasting peace between large democracies, the fact that they are democracies hardly
has anything to do with it. Additionally, after establishing that democracy is not a quantifiable term, it
will become apparent that large democracies intentionally destabilize smaller democracies whose
actions are not or may not be in the best interest of the larger democracies. Furthermore, the
mechanisms of social/institutional constraint, championed by Democratic Peace Theorists, are
irrelevant, because the aggression perpetrated against smaller, budding democracies by larger, more
powerful democracies, is carried out in a covert way.

Realism
Because of the nature of the globally political nature of this topic, this argument will assume a
realist perspective. This perspective is most fitting, because this paper will discuss many instances
which are in line with the tenets of realism. In arguing that democracies are not inherently peaceful, I
will show that global politics is a free-for-all with no higher or collective mechanism for peace. It will
be clear that states will attempt to acquire as many resources as they can, because states are motivated
by self-interest. During the course of the discussion within this essay, it will be evident that as human
beings, it is in our nature to get what we want, and that when we are able, we do- even democracies. It
will also be evident that states are concerned with their own survival and will do anything they see as
being a contributing factor to their survival.

Pursuit of Power
Two or more super-powers have not fought one another since World War II. However, during
the cold war, the United States and Russia were constantly engaged in proxy wars, either with boots on
the ground, or they were peddling their ideologies by means of supplying weapons, training, and
supporting fighters in various conflicts who shared, or were at least willing to hear, their respective
ideologies. The two most prominent examples are the Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. In both cases, the Soviets were taking advantage of the situation in order to promote
communism, and the Americans were combating it in an attempt to demonstrate that democracy is the
superior system. These were undoubtedly wars of ideology, but there was a bigger goal, something that
transcends ideology, nationalism, etc. Vietnam and Afghanistan, like all wars, were struggles for the
ultimate human achievement, power. All of the things that states need and strive to acquire and

maintain: security, influence, resources, territory, legitimacy, are secured through power. All of these
things are sought after by every living thing on Earth, but the roots of power are different for humans.
In the animal world being physically stronger, faster, more agile, and smarter is enough to grant that
animal absolute power. The animal world is purely physical. We, however, are abstract, and creative
creatures. The root of human power is of our own making. It is something for which there is no real
value, only that which we give it collectively. It is money.

Animal Instinct
As a species, human beings are more advanced than any animal on Earth, but we are still
animals. On an individual level, most people know not to steal from their neighbors. Is that because
they do not covet what their neighbor has? Or is it because they know there is an institution which will
punish them rather severely if they break the law? It is the latter. We are covetous creatures who are
hard-wired to do whatever we perceive as necessary for survival. In 1973, Chile democratically elected
Salvador Allende. Allende was a popular, liberal, and outspoken critic of the United States. At the
time, the United States was mining vast amounts of copper in Chile. Allende saw that the U.S. was
essentially strip-mining his country, and began planning to nationalize all copper mines in Chile.
Secretary of Defense, Henry Kissinger was not going to let that happen. Henry Kissinger was known
for ruthlessly pursuing American interests abroad, no matter what the cost. However, an outright
invasion was out of the question. The public was still weary from the Vietnam War, and public
opinion, as an institution, would never allow for such an intolerable war. The C.I.A. planned and
executed a military coup in Chile resulting in the death of the democratically elected president,
Allende. The United States installed Augusto Pinochet, the former head of Allende's army, as the
dictator. When it is a convenient means for obtaining and maintaining power, the United States(and

other democratic countries) are more than happy to spread democratic ideology. However, when
sabotaging a weaker democracy and installing a dictator is a viable option, what is to stop it from
happening? There are the internal social and institutional constraints which prevented the United States
from invading Chile, but the U.S. easily bypassed those constraints in a clandestine manner in order to
secure its supply of copper. If a bigger lion stumbles upon a smaller weaker lion enjoying a fresh kill,
he takes it for his own, because he can. Michael Mousseau notes that if countries are experiencing
mutual economic benefit, the two are not likely to go to war(186). It is now established that despite
being the most advanced life-form on Earth, as human beings, we are not far removed from animals. In
addition to being ruthlessly opportunistic we are territorial.

Our Territorial Nature

The cold war epitomizes the human lust for power on a global scale, and ideology was a major
medium through which power was sought. East and West faced off pitting the democratic capitalist
system against communism. The Soviet Union was forced to share the north eastern hemisphere with a
plethora of democratic, capitalistic countries. Obviously, fearing the prospect of a third world war
which would consist the democratic Western Bloc versus the communistic Eastern Bloc, this was not
ideal for the Soviets. The United States however, was able to keep its hemisphere clear of communism
with the exception of Cuba. The U.S. and Russia had the world divided into territories. Similarly, pack
animals tend to lay claim to territory. They compete for territory. It generally results in combat when
an animal from another pack wanders into a rival pack's territory. Though the United States would
eventually attempt to undermine the communist government of Cuba, foreign policy dictated that they
contain and prevent the spread of communism, especially in the north western hemisphere. In the early
1950's Guatemala was a budding democracy, led by Jacobo Guzman. Guzman lead a liberal

government which allowed a communist presence. Fearing another Cuba, in 1954 the C.I.A.
executed a coup in order to install a military dictatorship sympathetic to the United States. Again, the
traditional constraints which would have prevented an American invasion of Guatemala failed to
prevent the United States from undermining and overthrowing a democratically elected government for
fear that it might succumb to communism and foster another communist presence in the north western
hemisphere. Citing similar examples, author Sebastian Rosato writes, American interventions to
destabilize fellow democracies in the developing world provide good evidence that democracies do not
always treat each other with trust and respect when they have a conflict of interest(590).

In Summation
When the Democratic Peace Theory is examined through the lens of realism, it falls short.
Though democracies do not tend to fight outright wars with each other because of institutional
restraints, those restraints are easily bypassed to devastating effect. The type of government a country
has is irrelevant when examining the probability of that country violating the sovereignty of another. If
a country has a perceived need and the means, it will seek to impose its will upon another, because
there is no higher global authority, and domestic institutions fall short. Because of this lack of solid
rules, sovereignty is only what a nation can protect, or that which has not been taken from it. Susan
Braden, who worked for the Department of Defense under president Clinton writes, While the recent
historical record suggests that democracies don't go to war with other democracies, democratic regimes
can and do incite their citizens to go to war, just as authoritarian regimes do(5). Democratic Peace
Theory tends to lend itself to the idea that democracies are more benevolent than other types of
governments concerning global politics. This is simply not true. Democracies, like all other types of

governments can and do go to war with whosoever they choose if they have a perceived need and
believe they have the means.

Works Cited
Braden, Susan. "Promoting Democracy Won't Necessarily Produce Peace." International Journal On
World Peace 22.1 (2005): 3-7. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 February 2014.
CHAN, STEVE, and WILLIAM SAFRAN. "Public Opinion As A Constraint Against War:
Democracies' Responses To Operation Iraqi Freedom." Foreign Policy Analysis 2.2 (2006): 137-156.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 February 2014.
Choi, Seung-Whan. "The Democratic Peace Through An Interaction Of Domestic Institutions And
Norms: Executive Constraints And Rule Of Law." Armed Forces & Society (0095327X) 39.2 (2013):
255-283. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 February 2014.
Hayes, Jarrod. "The Democratic Peace And The New Evolution Of An Old Idea." European Journal Of
International Relations 18.4 (2012): 767-791. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 February 2014.
Leblang, David, and Steve Chan. "Explaining Wars Fought By Established Democracies: Do
Institutional Constraints Matter?." Political Research Quarterly 56.4 (2003): 385-400. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 18 February 2014.
MOUSSEAU, MICHAEL. "The Democratic Peace Unraveled: It's The Economy1 The Democratic
Peace Unraveled: It's The Economy." International Studies Quarterly 57.1 (2013): 186-197. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 18 February 2014.

Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic Of Democratic Peace Theory." American Political Science
Review 97.4 (2003): 585-602. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 February 2014.