Browsing by Subject "Democratic peace theory"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Egocentrism and violence : a critique of democratic peace theory(Bilkent University, 2004) Avşar, Şervan AdarThe main argument of this thesis is that democratic peace theory is violent at both the theoretical and practical level. This argument is developed by drawing on the ideas of French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas on egocentrism and violence. The advocates of democratic peace theory argue that democracies are peaceful in their relations with other democracies, whereas they are not peaceful in their relations with the states having any other type of regime. Therefore, democratic peace theorists claim that the spread of democracy is the basis of world peace. These central themes of democratic peace theory contain implicit egocentric and violent tendencies. First of all, democratic peace theory represents the primacy of the same by making democratic political system an ideal for all states. This is because there exists in democratic peace theory a fundamental narcissism of ego, which takes itself to be the centre of all meaning. Secondly, democratic peace theory is violent since it tries to comprehend the other through thematization and conceptualisation. In other words, through the spread of democracy it reduces the other to the same.Item Open Access Representative decision-making: challenges to democratic peace theory(Springer, 2015) Çuhadar, Esra; Druckman, D.; Galluccio, M.An attempt is made in this chapter to evaluate hypotheses derived from democratic peace theory. The key tenet of this theory is that democratic nations do not go to war with other democracies. Thus, regime type drives decisions to pursue war. The research to date has focused attention on regime type. This study expands this focus by examining the influences of a variety of variables on decisions made by role players to mobilize for war. In addition to own and other’s regime type, we include motivational, readiness, and identity variables. Further, the study examines two types of decisions: response to threats of violence and response to a humanitarian crisis in another country. The results show that the other’s regime motivates decisions to go to war when that nation is autocratic. However, that decision is contingent on the severity of the threat and the spread of public support for the action. The other’s regime type is not a source of decisions to act in humanitarian crises. The key factor in that situation is spread of support for the action. Interestingly, one’s own regime type (democracy) is the most important influence on both types of decisions when the other nation is democratic. These findings expand and refine democratic peace theory as well as provide a basis for further research.