Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) is a political theory that argues that democratic states are less likely to go to war with each other than non-democratic states. This theory has been the subject of much debate and has been applied to various regions of the world. One of the key arguments in DPT is that democratic states have greater transparency and accountability, which leads to a greater ability to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and other non-violent means. This is because democratic leaders are accountable to their citizens and must consider public opinion when making decisions about war and peace. Owen argues that the connection between democracy and peace is rooted in the liberal principles of democracy, such as individual rights, free markets, and the rule of law.[1]. According to Owen, these principles create an environment where states can resolve conflicts through negotiation and compromise. Bruce emphasizes that the link between democracy and peace is more complex than some DPT theorists suggest. Russett argues that other factors, such as economic interdependence and international institutions, prevent war between democratic states.[2]. Michael Doyle put forward that there is a strong connection between the values of democracy and peaceful international relations. He proposes the idea of “liberal peace,” that spreading democracy can promote peace and peacekeeping in the international system.[3]. However, the history of foreign intervention in the Middle East has created a complex political landscape, which may need to fit more neatly into the DPT framework. Additionally, the existence of democratic states in the Middle East does not guarantee that they will act peacefully toward non-democratic states or other democratic states.
Regarding the Middle East, the theory has been met with some skepticism. The key critique of DPT is that it only applies to some regions of the world, particularly in the Middle East. This is because many Middle Eastern countries have weak democratic institutions and a lack of civil society participation. [4]. Additionally, many Middle Eastern states have authoritarian regimes that suppress political opposition and stifle democratic processes. This can lead to increased conflict as citizens have fewer avenues to resolve disputes peacefully. Furthermore, some scholars argue that the democratic peace theory does not fully consider the complexity of the factors that drive conflict in the Middle East. For example, factors like historical animosities, ethnic and religious differences, and struggles for resources can play a significant role in the region’s conflicts, and these factors are not necessarily related to the level of democracy in the states involved.
Effects of colonialism
Alternatively, DPT does not consider colonialism’s role in shaping the Middle East’s political landscape. For example, the current conflicts in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the colonial policies of the United Kingdom and France, which drew arbitrary borders and created artificial nation-states in the region. The legacy of colonialism has resulted in ethnic and religious divisions, which have been exploited by authoritarian leaders in these countries, leading to civil wars and ethnic cleansing.[5]. The case of Iraq serves as a prime example of how colonialism has affected the ability of a country to become democratic. After World War I, the British created the state of Iraq, which brought together different ethnic and religious groups, including Sunni and Shia Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen. The British-installed monarchy could keep these groups under control, but after it was overthrown in 1958, the country was plagued by civil war and dictatorship. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and removed dictator Saddam Hussein. In the aftermath of the invasion, the country struggled to establish a stable government and reconcile competing ethnic and sectarian groups. Despite early efforts to establish a democratic government, these efforts were hampered by the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State (IS), which took control of large portions of the country. . Additionally, the rise of extremist groups like IS has undermined the ability of democratic institutions to prevent conflict. Thus, this case demonstrates that DPT does not necessarily hold true in the Middle East.
Similarly, the case of Syria illustrates how colonialism has affected the ability of a country to become democratic. After World War I, the French created the state of Syria, which brought together different ethnic and religious groups, including Sunni and Alawite Arabs, Kurds, and Druze. The French-installed government could keep these groups under control, but after the country gained independence in 1946, the country was plagued by civil war and dictatorship. [6]. The country has been in the midst of a civil war since 2011. The conflict began as peaceful protests against the authoritarian regime of President Bashar al-Assad but quickly escalated into a violent civil war. Despite early efforts to resolve the conflict through peaceful means, the conflict has escalated and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. This case also demonstrates that DPT does not hold true in the Middle East. Additionally, the authoritarian regime of President al-Assad has suppressed political opposition and stifled democratic processes, which has prevented the peaceful resolution of the conflict. Therefore, the case studies of Iraq and Syria demonstrate that Democratic Peace Theory does not necessarily hold true in the Middle East. As such, alternative explanations for the conflicts in the Middle East should be considered.
Root causes of challenges
The root causes of contemporary political, economic, and religious challenges to regional security and stability in the Middle East are complex and multifaceted. Some key factors that have contributed to these challenges include 1. Political instability: The region has long been plagued by political instability and autocratic regimes that have suppressed dissent and denied basic human rights to their citizens. This has led to widespread popular discontent and a lack of trust in government institutions, which has fueled resistance and violent extremism. 2. Economic inequality: The Middle East is one of the most economically unequal regions in the world, with vast disparities in wealth and access to resources between rich and poor. This has contributed to widespread poverty and unemployment, which have fueled political unrest and extremist ideologies. 3. Sectarian divisions: The Middle East is home to diverse ethnic and religious groups, and political leaders have often exploited these divisions to maintain power and control. This has fueled deep-seated mistrust and resentment between different communities, which has led to violent clashes and civil war[7]. 4. Foreign intervention: The region has been the site of frequent foreign intervention by outside powers, destabilizing the region and fueling conflict. This has included the establishment of military bases, the imposition of sanctions and embargoes, and arming of local proxies. 5. Climate change and resource scarcity: The Middle East is one of the most water-stressed regions in the world, and increasing water scarcity has fueled competition and conflict over resources. Climate change has also contributed to the displacement of communities and the erosion of agricultural land, which has further exacerbated the security challenges in the region. 6. Legacy of colonial rule and Western powers’ subsequent imposition of artificial borders and political structures. This has led to ethnic and religious divisions within countries and has also contributed to a lack of effective governance and political institutions[8]. This has resulted in ongoing conflicts and power struggles between different groups and has hindered the ability of countries to address economic and social issues effectively. 7. The rise of extremist groups like ISIS and the ongoing sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims have contributed to ongoing conflicts and violence. Furthermore, the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also been a major source of religious and ideological tensions, with many seeing it as a struggle between the Islamic and Western worlds.
Effects of the Shi’a-Sunni divide on regional stability
The Shi’a-Sunni divide, also known as the Sunni-Shi’a split, is a religious and political divide that has significantly impacted regional stability in the Middle East. The divide has played a major role in shaping the political and social landscape of the region and has been a major source of conflict, tension, and instability. One of the main ways that the Shi’a-Sunni divide has impacted regional stability in the Middle East is through political polarization.[9]. Political leaders and groups have often used the divide to mobilize support, create divisions, and consolidate power. This has led to the rise of sectarian-based political parties and movements, which have often been at odds with each other and have contributed to regional political instability. For example, the sectarian divide in Iraq has been a major factor in the country’s political instability since the US-led invasion in 2003. The Shi’a-dominated government has struggled to maintain power and control over the Sunni-dominated regions of the country, leading to the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS and increased sectarian violence.
Another way that the Shi’a-Sunni divide has impacted regional stability in the Middle East is through the rise of extremist groups and sectarian violence. Extremist groups have often used the divide to justify their actions and mobilize support for their cause.[10]. This has led to an increase in sectarian violence and terrorist attacks across the region. For example, the conflict has taken on a sectarian dimension in Syria, with the Shi’a-dominated government and its allies fighting against the Sunni-dominated opposition groups. The conflict has led to the rise of extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS, which have carried out numerous attacks against both the government and civilians.
The Shi’a-Sunni divide has also played a major role in shaping regional alliances and the balance of power in the Middle East. Regional powers such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have often used the divide to further their interests and maintain their influence in the region. [11]. For example, the ongoing conflict in Yemen is the impact of the Shi’a-Sunni divide on regional stability. The Houthi rebels, who are primarily made up of Shi’a Muslims, have been fighting against the government, primarily Sunni Muslims. The conflict has been exacerbated by the involvement of other regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, who have used it to further their interests. The result has been a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, with millions suffering from food insecurity and lack of access to basic services.
Effects of the Arab Spring
The Arab Spring refers to a series of popular uprisings and protests swept across the Arab world in 2011. The effects of the Arab Spring on regional security and political development in the Middle East have been significant. One of the most notable effects has been the region’s destabilization, as many countries affected by the Arab Spring have seen increased violence and conflict.[12]. For example, in Syria, the Arab Spring led to a brutal civil war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced millions of people. Another significant effect of the Arab Spring has been the rise of extremist groups, such as the Islamic State (ISIS), which have exploited the chaos and instability to gain a foothold in the region.[13]. For example, in Syria, the Arab Spring led to the weakening of the Assad regime, which provided an opportunity for ISIS to establish a presence in the country. Similarly, in Libya, the overthrow of Gaddafi created a power vacuum quickly filled by extremist groups, including ISIS.
Another effect of the Arab Spring on regional security was weakening of the traditional balance of power in the region. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran were forced to adapt to the new political landscape, and their relationships with other countries in the region were affected. The Arab Spring also brought to the forefront the growing divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the region, which has contributed to the worsening of the situation in countries such as Syria and Yemen.[14]. In terms of political development, the Arab Spring has led to mixed results. In some countries, such as Tunisia, the Arab Spring has resulted in greater political freedom and democracy.[15]. However, in other countries, the Arab Spring has led to a regression in political development. Therefore, in many cases, the transition to democracy has been difficult, and the political situation in these countries remains uncertain.
In conclusion, it is important to recognize that Democratic Peace Theory alone cannot fully address the complexities of the Middle East and must be used in conjunction with other frameworks and approaches. The root causes of the region’s political, economic, and religious challenges are deeply rooted in history and colonialism and cannot be easily explained by a single theory. The Shi’a-Sunni divide also plays a significant role in regional instability, as evidenced by the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The Arab Spring, while initially promising, has not led to the region’s widespread democratization but has led to further destabilization and violence. Ultimately, a nuanced and holistic understanding of the Middle East’s conflicts is needed to fully understand and address the region’s ongoing challenges to stability and security.
References
Abdo, Geneive. The new sectarianism: The Arab uprisings and the rebirth of the Shi’a-Sunni divide. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Battaloglu, Cihat, and Fadi Farasin. “From Democratization to Securitization: Post‐Arab Spring Political Order in the Middle East.” Digest of Middle East Studies 26, no. 2 (2017): 299-319.Top of Form
Doyle, Michael W. “Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs, part 2.” Philosophy & Public Affairs (1983): 323-353.
Guazzone, Laura, and Daniela Pioppi. The Arab state and neo-liberal globalization: The restructuring of state power in the Middle East. Garnet Publishing Ltd, 2022.
Majed, Rima. “Sectarianization: mapping the new politics of the Middle East.” Global Change, Peace & Security 31, no. 1 (2019): 121-124.
Moaddel, Mansoor, and Michele J. Gelfand, eds. Values, political action, and change in the Middle East and the Arab Spring. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Owen, John M. “How liberalism produces democratic peace.” In Realism Reader, pp. 292-300. Routledge, 1994.
Russet, Bruce. Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton university press, 1993.
Zabad, Ibrahim. Middle Eastern minorities: The impact of the Arab spring. Routledge, 2017.
[1] Owen, John M. “How liberalism produces democratic peace.” In Realism Reader, pp. 292-300. Routledge, 1994.
[2] Russet, Bruce. Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton university press, 1993.
[3] Doyle, Michael W. “Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs, part 2.” Philosophy & Public Affairs (1983): 323-353.
[4] Majed, Rima. “Sectarianization: mapping the new politics of the Middle East.” Global Change, Peace & Security 31, no. 1 (2019): 121-124.
[5] Majed, Rima. “Sectarianization: mapping the new politics of the Middle East.” Global Change, Peace & Security 31, no. 1 (2019): 121-124.
[6] Guazzone, Laura, and Daniela Pioppi. The Arab state and neo-liberal globalization: The restructuring of state power in the Middle East. Garnet Publishing Ltd, 2022.
[7] Majed, Rima. “Sectarianization: mapping the new politics of the Middle East.” Global Change, Peace & Security 31, no. 1 (2019): 121-124.
[8] Guazzone, Laura, and Daniela Pioppi. The Arab state and neo-liberal globalization: The restructuring of state power in the Middle East. Garnet Publishing Ltd, 2022.
[9] Abdo, Geneive. The new sectarianism: The Arab uprisings and the rebirth of the Shi’a-Sunni divide. Oxford University Press, 2017.
[10] Majed, Rima. “Sectarianization: mapping the new politics of the Middle East.” Global Change, Peace & Security 31, no. 1 (2019): 121-124.
[11] Abdo, Geneive. The new sectarianism: The Arab uprisings and the rebirth of the Shi’a-Sunni divide. Oxford University Press, 2017.
[12] Zabad, Ibrahim. Middle Eastern minorities: The impact of the Arab spring. Routledge, 2017.
[13] Battaloglu, Cihat, and Fadi Farasin. “From Democratization to Securitization: Post‐Arab Spring Political Order in the Middle East.” Digest of Middle East Studies 26, no. 2 (2017): 299-319.Top of Form
[14] Moaddel, Mansoor, and Michele J. Gelfand, eds. Values, political action, and change in the Middle East and the Arab Spring. Oxford University Press, 2017.
[15] Zabad, Ibrahim. Middle Eastern minorities: The impact of the Arab spring. Routledge, 2017.
write