Peaceful transitions and democracy
| Author | Reşat Bayer |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343310370102 |
| Date | 01 September 2010 |
| Published date | 01 September 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Peaceful transitions and democracy
Res¸at Bayer
Department of International Relations, Koç University
Abstract
While there has been extensive interest in the role of democracy in reducing interstate violence, the role of democracy in reaching
higher levels of peace has received much less attention. Since many countries have less than amicable relations, it is necessary to
consider how the quality of peace can be improved. The quality of peace becomes particularly relevant when assessing relations of
countries with a bellicose past. In order to capture improvement in relations, this article relies upon a framework that captures the
various levels of peace that countries experience. The study maintains that democracy contributes to former belligerents reaching
the highest levels of peace but that it is not helpful at the lower levels especially if only one side is a democracy. The article tests
arguments on a dataset that captures the transitions from one level of peace to another for all former belligerents since 1816 and
relies upon event history analysis. The results for peace are not the opposite of what is found for war. The findings demonstrate
that democracy plays a substantial role in peaceful transitions at all levels. However, while joint democracy is important for reach-
ing the highest levels of peace, democracy can hamper the progress of relations at the lowest levels of peace.
Keywords
democracy, diplomacy, reconciliation, rivalry, stable peace, war
Introduction
Peace is widely conceptualized as the absence of violence. In
much of the conflict studies literature, peace is said to occur
when datasets such as the Militarized Interstate Dispute data-
set or the Uppsala Conflict Data Program do not report use of
force for a particular set of countries. The rivalry literature cri-
ticizes this approach (Diehl & Goertz, 2000) by demonstrat-
ing that the non-observance of a hostile event in a given
time point does not reveal much about the quality of relations,
as the sides can continue perceiving each other as threats.
Other scholars have defined ‘the absence of turmoil, tension,
conflict and war’ as negative peace and argued that a positive
peace would entail substantially more: ‘a condition of good
management, orderly resolution of conflict, harmony
associated with mature relationships, gentleness, and love’
(Boulding, 1978: 3; Galtung, 1985). Overall, several scholars
assess the scholarship on peace unfavorably: ‘What can inter-
national relations theory and research tell us about peace? The
first thing to keep in mind is that there is not much scientific
knowledge about interstate peace’ (Vasquez, 1996: 274).
While there is much focus on whether interstate violence
has occurred or not, ‘the quality of peace between or among
the states in question’ (Ericson, 2000: 146) has received lim-
ited attention. The disparity in the quality of peace becomes
particularly apparent when considering relations between for-
mer interstate belligerents. The level of peace attained by
France and Germany is an exemplar of model relations. In fact,
this dyad has reached a level where resorting to violence is not
an option for the leadership of either side when trying to solve
differences. This is not the case for many other dyads. While
not at the brink of warfare, relations between Greece and
Turkey fall short of this stage. Decades of special attention
by the international community produced limited improve-
ment between Israel and its neighbors. India and Pakistan are
close to averaging one war per decade. Continuing problems
between Eritrea and Ethiopia suggest that improving relations
is just as hard in the post-Cold War era. The United States has
vastly different relations today with three Asian countries that
it fought in the 20th century: Japan, North Korea, and Viet-
nam. These dyads demonstrate considerable disparity in rela-
tions and leads to the following question: What makes some
adversaries reach higher levels of peace while others fall short?
This article contributes to our understanding of peace by
examining transitions to higher levels of peace between former
belligerents and focuses on the role of democracy. A ‘levels of
peace’ framework is necessary as the focus here is on improve-
ment in relations. The lack of interstate violence reveals lim-
ited information about the dyad. Only examining uses of
force can make relations appear worse than they truly are, as
Corresponding author:
rbayer@ku.edu.tr
Journal of Peace Research
47(5) 535–546
ªThe Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343310370102
jpr.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial