[ingramh]

I'm new to the forum and just wanted to see everyones' opinion on whether;

Spreading Autocracy can lead to peace.


What do we think? I do not believe in Democratic Peace Theory as the transitional stages often tend to be where conflict initiates. I am, however, pondering the thought of whether spreading autocracy can lead to peaceful relations between states.


For example let's look at Egypt- Mubarak, autocratic yet kept conflict out of Egypt for many years and maintained peaceful relations with the west. However as soon as Egypt began its transition this is where conflict arose. What do you think are the negatives of spreading autocracy to promote peace? Often, i think, autocratic leaders make much better decisions as they do not have to answer to the nation of think of the publics interests before they decide.

[Doomhammer]

Welcome to the forum, ingramh. Be sure to check out the Newbie guide: FAQ.


As for your comment, I consider myself an ardent opponent of the so-called Democratic Peace and I see merits to your argument. However, the fundamental problem is consciously propagating a particular regime type in the international system through the use of force. For example, Iraq was a dictatorship that used force against its neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), but it was a fairly stable state. Stable, that is, until severe economic sanctions and ultimately the Second Gulf War, which among other things brought a farcical democracy, undermined regional stability.

There are also countless autocracies that received help from Western powers in order to repress their societies. The internal security dilemma in these regimes often prevented them from attacking neighbors. If you look at the academic literature, there are some very interesting findings. Michael Barnett and Jack S. Levy find that third world regimes (autocratic ones) prefer to align with external powers in order to strengthen the regime domestically by acquiring military-economic aid externally and deploying these against their populace.* Stephen David argues third world leaders seek temporary alliances with other states in order to balance external and domestic threats by appeasing one or the other in what is known as omnibalancing.**
Also, there is a very interesting study by a civil-military relations expert called Stanislav Andreski who wrote about the peaceful disposition of military regimes and I think that might be up your alley. I have never been able to read this article because it's in an obscure journal that I cannot access.

*Jack Levy and Michael Barnett, "Domestic Sources of Alliances and Alignments: The Case of Egypt, 1962-73," International Organization 45, no. 3 (Summer 1991): 369-395.
** Stephen R. David, "Explaining Third World Alignment," World Politics, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jan. 1991): 233-256.
(You can probably find these on-line)

[starman2003]

For example let's look at Egypt- Mubarak, autocratic yet kept conflict out of Egypt for many years and maintained peaceful relations with the west.

And with neighboring states. On the other hand, Nasser was autocratic yet messed things up badly.

However as soon as Egypt began its transition this is where conflict arose.

Internally yes.

What do you think are the negatives of spreading autocracy to promote peace? Often, i think, autocratic leaders make much better decisions as they do not have to answer to the nation of think of the publics interests before they decide.

There's no doubt that autocratic leaders i.e. those with more power than elected ones, are potentially capable of greater achievement. What I find extremely interesting is the realization, in a nation long committed to democracy, that autocracy is preferable under certain circumstances. Stemming from bitter experience, it's a marked change from the "end of history" illusion of c 1989, when it was assumed democracy was bound to win out everywhere. With luck, political systems will be judged on actual performance from the point of view of the State--which of course doesn't bode well for democracy anywhere.

[Baff]

Democracy is a system of political rule designed to give the individual checks and balances against those with power.
If no one is in power, there is no requirement for it.

Rule must be established before it can be kept in check.

[Doomhammer]

With luck, political systems will be judged on actual performance from the point of view of the State--which of course doesn't bode well for democracy anywhere.

As depressing as it is, this astute observation is at the very least a sig worthy quote.

Democracy is a system of political rule designed to give the individual checks and balances against those with power.

,
It depends on your definition of democracy. I mean, usually regime types can be categorized on a spectrum of qualities. The checks and balances is not necessarily a feature of "democracy." For example competitive authoritarianism (which is a kind of democracy) and the similoar plebiscitary democracies have no value for checks and balances.

If no one is in power, there is no requirement for it.

So, you need a government and state for there to be a democracy?

[Harmattan]

If no one is in power, there is no requirement for it.

If no one is in power, someone will seize the power, whether you like it or not.

But actually people would like it. Because collaboration is mandatory for wealth. And few people like spending hundreds of hours debating how the collective can organize itself to build that damn road. Too many decisions, too much time, too many disputes, argumentations, undesired social interactions. I know plenty of people who would rather grab their gun and seize power rather than waste their life in assemblies. After fifty hours discussing this road, the body count will start increasing.

The only true way to render power structures mostly useless is to use technology to make everyone so damn rich that there will be no meaningful economic decisions to take. However I am afraid that with so much time on their hands, many people will delve into politics. And the more will do, the more they will want to make things right by prohibiting, regulating, controlling, etc.

[Potemkin]

Democracy is a system of political rule designed to give the individual checks and balances against those with power.

Didn't work for Socrates in ancient Athens, did it?

In fact, guarding the rights of the individual against the state is not a necessary component of a democratic system - under the democracy of ancient Athens, the individual had few rights against the democratic assembly. As I have often said before, democracy and liberalism are two different things.

[Rich]

Democracy is a system of political rule designed to give the individual checks and balances against those with power.

Didn't work for Socrates in ancient Athens, did it?

Well arguably democracy worked very well for Socrates. From the sources we have, he could have escaped and quite probably disappeared from the historical record. Democracy gave Socrates the opportunity for a kind of immortally. Long after the fall of Athens he has remained the gadfly of western civilisation.