Session 4 - Democracies prefer peace?

The notion which is discussed in the reading of whether the type of national governments determine if the state would be peaceful or aggressive is an interesting one.

“History shows that when people have the opportunity to speak they as rule decide for peace if possible. It shows that arbitrary rulers are more inclined to favor war than are the people at any time.”

Considering the arbitrary rulers, Aristotle made the distinction between monarchy and tyranny. While both are one-man rule, a monarch rules for the general welfare of the people while a tyrant rules for his own good. In the same way, considering a rule where the masses take part in governing themselves, a distinction is made between democracy and mobocracy. So “the rule”, that when people take part in making their own decisions they decide for peace, does not seem to hold.

A look at the recent past too doesn't seem to support this claim at all. USA’s war with Afghanistan and Iraq shouldn't have happened if one was to go by the rule. The people should have rejected in multitudes to go to war with Afghanistan and while still in a conflict, engage with another country. Yet, history shows otherwise. The monarchies around the world are relatively peaceful too, if one is to judge them on the basis of their engagement in wars with other countries.

Hence the notion that a state is a peaceful state or an aggressive state seems to have little to do with the type of national government that it has and more with its priorities, interests and foreign policy objectives.