In: Economics
scholars argue that increased democracy increases the risk for violent conflicts because a country is more “war prone” and aggressive during political transition, primarily during democratisation. How would that, in your opinion, affect the case for democratisation?
Yes, it is true that increased democracy increases the risk for violent conflicts because a country is more “war prone” and aggressive during political transition, primarily during democratisation.
Let us take a example of India and Pakistan. India is worlds largest democracy whereas Pakistan has a military rule and army controls the government.
Recently there was an attack on Indian soldiers and that killed 40 soldiers. People in India wanted govt. to take revenge and teach Pakistan a lesson.Elections were nearby. Indian air force targeted a few terrorist camps and then Pakistani people wanted govt. to retaliate. Any govt. which wants to be reelected has to bow down to public pressure.
Similarly Brexit was also a bad move for Britain. Govt. bowed down to political pressures.
It shows having democracy may not lead to best decisions all the time.If India and Pakistan have a war and as both countries having nuclear weapons both countries will suffer. If losses are too many then a process of full democratisation will be halted and rather than paying attention to real issues like freedom of speech and expression, right of information and universal access to health and education focus will be more on rehabilitation and at least a few generations will suffer.
Currently Britain parliament is mainly discussuing Brexit than real people issues.