Conclusion

Using the Perspectives

John M. Owen IV, "Iraq and the Democratic Peace," Foreign Affairs (Nov.-Dec. 2005).

As the concept of democratic peace has gained wide acceptance in political science circles in recent years, scholars have been working to refine the theory and determine the causes behind it. Two prominent democratic peace researchers, Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, published a book in 2005 that seeks to do just that. According to their book, Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War, the democratic peace does not extend to fledgling democracies-and because of this, U.S. intentions to democratize Iraq may do much more harm than good in the long run.

In a review of Electing to Fight published in Foreign Affairs, John M. Owen explores the conclusions that Mansfield and Snyder drew from their quantitative research. As he summarizes the authors' thesis, "[I]n countries that have recently started to hold free elections but that lack the proper mechanisms for accountability (institutions such as an independent judiciary, civilian control of the military, and protections for opposition parties and the press), politicians have incentives to pursue policies that make it more likely that their countries will start wars."

1.  According to Mansfield and Snyder, why are democratizing countries likely to go to war?
     

2.  What role do you think accountability plays in preventing democracies from going to war?
     

3.  From which perspective is this explanation drawn?
     

The thesis that Mansfield and Snyder develop—that democratizing countries are more war-prone than full democracies or even autocracies—came from a statistical analysis of world politics since 1815. These data supported a number of assumptions in addition to the conclusions they drew about emerging democracies' bellicosity. It "support(s) the . . . claims that major powers are more likely to go to war than minor ones and that the more equal are the great powers, the more likely are wars between them. But democratization makes war more likely even after one takes these factors into account."

4.  Which perspective is most likely to claim that major powers are more likely to go to war than minor ones? Why?
     

5.  Think back to earlier chapters that discussed power politics and war. Within realism, which school would argue that "the more      equal are the great powers, the more likely are wars between them"? What is the reasoning behind this claim?
     

Reflecting on the claims of Mansfield and Snyder, Owen draws out the implications for the future of Iraq. "What if, following the departure of U.S. troops, Iraq holds together but as an incomplete democratizer, with broad suffrage but anemic state institutions? Such an Iraq might well treat its own citizens better than the Baathist regime did. Its treatment of its neighbors, however, might be just as bad."

6.  Do you agree with the logic presented by Owen? Why or why not?