Democracy and dictatorship are often viewed as two opposing leadership establishments, democracy having more desirable effects than dictatorship. Democracy is a form of governance where all members of the jurisdiction are given equal representation of their ideas and, even though the majority have the chance to make the decisions, the minorities’’ right are considered (Ghigoris, 2012). Recently, democracy has been cited to act as a unit in pursuit of a singular objective especially in terms of survival and security (Kinsella & Rousseau, 2008). Democratic states are bound to seek and defend a balance of power (for instance in security spending) and in this way, act almost similarly to autocratic states. In Dictatorship, all power is vested on one person who does not answer to other bodies such as political parties and are not obliged to protect those who are opposed to their rule (Encyclopaedia Britanica, n.p.). This reduces tolerance to opinions that are not beneficial to the country. These two forms of government have the potential to foster peace and stability in their member states if properly administered. This essay examines the two governance styles and ways in which each influence the political stability of the countries they are applied in.
It is a fact that most democratic states are relatively peaceful and face fewer wars than countries using other systems. This promotes the common assumption that democracy fosters peace. Furthermore, most democratic states are noted to be unlikely to go to war to other democratic nations (Placek, 2012). This observation is true but it still does not justify the true reason why most democratic nations are at peace with each other. Peace causes democracy and not the converse (Reiter, 2017). Peace leads to a proper application and sustainability of a democratic rule, without which, nations, even those that claim to be democratic, are prone to wars. The inability of democracy to foster peace and understanding is rampant, especially in developing countries. These countries fail to experience real democracy due to dominance of specific political bodies for, instance ruling families (Muzzafar, 2008). These countries face unequal representation, especially those opposed to the ruling parties. This builds contention and can easily lead to wars. Furthermore, the number of inequalities in the system, including allocation of resources, strongly affect peace rather than the assumed institution of democracy itself (Gleditsch, 2002). In specialized democratic regions, the leaders are more accountable and aim at making the electorates happy. Although one might find this assuring, it leads to an improper application of the rule. Such loyalty is often marred with the fear of losing power, which, in itself, creates inefficient systems (Lucca & Sjöström, 2011). Additionally, if populations are not well educated on the power of their vote, democracy becomes corrupted which undermines its purpose to disseminate peace (Heichel, 2014). It is therefore conclusive that democracy does not automatically produce peace but it is through its fair application that nations are able to obtain stability.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Leaders in a democratic system are more likely to enter into external wars than democratic leaders. A democratic leader’s position and security of his rule depends on meeting the needs of their citizens. These leaders find it necessary to appeal to a given voting block to remain in control (Ostrowski, 2001). The dictatorial leader has the option to forego external conflicts since their position is not influenced by his subjects and he can opt out of conflicts he deems unnecessary. The only difference between the grounds for going to war in a dictatorial and democratic government is that the democratic state would wish to peruse other avenues before settling have war (Dixon, 1994). This depicts the dangerous state presented in undiscerning democracy. Democracy can be peaceful if implemented in totality. Limited democracy exudes characters that are unstable and prone to conflicts. Uncontrolled democratic leadership in limited democracies can lead to focus of self-interest and that of the majority instead of focusing on fostering uniform peaceful coexistence within and with other countries.
Peace in dictatorial states depend on the leader’s ability to unify and eliminate policies that undermine the peaceful running of the country. Although such a government can proceed further and enhance the country’s state, they are more prone to war and violence than democratic systems (Weeks, 2014). The dictator can, when they feel threatened or on the verge of being thrown out, initiate wars to secure their positions, at the expense of the country’s stability (Lucca & Sjöström, 2011). Continuous wars among the members of the state and can easily breed war among the country and her neighbors. This, however, presents an unstable environment since there will be a series of battles before the preferred leader holds the office, and as expected, this might take time since it is ideally hard to find a leader that is preferred by all his or her subjects.
There is evidence of “dictatorial peace” among some states with authoritarian types of leadership. Although often prone to violence, some states are capable of developing and upholding other human rights and can potentially refrain from conflict. A study of these regimes depict that it is not the type of leadership but the expected changes in the leadership and policies (Marin, 2015). Countries with stable leaderships are generally more peaceful than those that are on the verge of major political changes.
As confirmed, democracy has a higher tolerance to wars and conflicts than dictatorial rule. It is, however, not automatic that any of the two governments in themselves foster peace within the country and among other states. Democracy should be applied in its entirety without considering special groups such as dominant ruling families or the voting blocks. Dictatorship should also focus on fostering stability and avoiding unnecessary shifts that can easily breed war. These foster peaceful coexistence as there is perceived equity and permanence.
References
Dixon, William J. 1994. “Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 14–32.
Ghigoris, A. (2012). Majority rules /minority rights. Retrieved from http://asmarino.com/articles/1592-majority-rule-minority-rights
Gleditsch, K. S. (2002). All international politics is local: The diffusion of conflict,
integration, and democratization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Heichel, J. (2014). Democracy vs. Dictatorship: Political Opposites. Retrieved from https://blog.udemy.com/democracy-vs-dictatorship/
Kinsella, D., & Roseau D. (2008). Democracy and Conflict Resolution. Retrieved from http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/offprints/shcr09.proof.pdf
Encyclopaedia Britanica. (n.p). Dictatorship. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship
Lucca, D., & Sjöström, T. (2011). Is democracy good for peace? Kellog. Retrieved from https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/is_democracy_good_for_peace
Marin, A. (2015). Dictatorial peace? Comparing the conflict-proneness of authoritarian regimes in post-Soviet Eurasia: a research agenda. Dictatorial Peace. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291312329_Dictatorial_peace_Comparing_the_conflict-proneness_of_authoritarian_regimes_in_post-Soviet_Eurasia_a_research_agenda
Muzafar, S. (2018). Is democracy possible in third world? Dawn. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com/news/866133/is-democracy-possible-in-the-third-world
Ostrowski, J. (2001). Does Democracy Promote Peace? Misses Institute. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/does-democracy-promote-peace
Placek, K. (2012). The democratic peace theory. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/18/the-democratic-peace-theory/
Reiter, D. (2017). Is democracy a cause of peace. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Retrieved from http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-287?print=pdf
Weeks, J. (2014). Authoritarian Regimes and the Domestic Politics of War and Peace. In Dictators at War and Peace (pp. 14-36). Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1287f18.6
