Undemocratic peace

Proponents of the democratic peace theory argue that democracies never or almost never go to war with one another. This theory has not been one without critique but recent developments in the world and a better awareness of conflicts around the world mainly due to the advent of social media have left a major dent in the idea that democratic states almost never go to war with each other.

One of the critiques of the theory also argues that war may not have been defined properly. Definitions of conflicts is another major problem. For instance, the Obama administration had indulged in a global assassination campaign using drone strikes, violating the sovereignty of nations around the world, compromising their communications infrastructure, making cyber-attacks against Iranian centrifuges, and so forth. If the powerful states always stuck to the definitions of conflicts that they themselves wrote then these acts and many others not mentioned here would be called acts of war and acts of aggression.

Instead of going into the details of flaws in the idea of democratic peace and pointing out every single weak link in the chain, I would rather argue that there are far stronger cases of undemocratic peace rather than weak examples of democratic peace.

Many nations have accepted the superiority of certain nations and only that has resulted in avoiding armed conflict with those nations. The entire Arab world with all the nation states in them, avoid angering Israel, for instance - not because that is what the vox-populi of that region wants, but rather because the power systems in place have been nurtured and controlled by the US so that there remains no wiggle room for any of those nations to practise an independent foreign policy especially toward Israel. If the decisions of the Arab world were to be made in line with the aspirations of the population of those states, Palestine would be a strong and established state today and perhaps Israel wouldn't have existed. This fake peace, achieved not through organic means but by the subjugation of the citizenry, has been one of the most undemocratic realities of the world we live in.

Even if we look at the relationship between Israel and the US, it may seem to many as this aged-old special relationship achieved through the Judeo-Christian ideals shared by both the countries, it has rather been a relationship established pretty recently. In the 1967 war, Israel was mainly supported by France and England. It was later that the US became an Israeli ally. The US, being a democracy where free speech thrives, is also home to some of the most sophisticated propaganda on earth. Americans are bombarded with this endless propaganda campaign that Israel is this victim state that needs to be protected by the US muscle. This narrative gets repeated endlessly and unquestioningly, instilling in the minds of the American citizens as this absolute truism.

Free speech is allowed in America but if free thought was also allowed then Americans would have resoundingly said no to this special relationship with Israel where the Zionist state continues to kill children and attack neighbouring states at will. The domestic media have been completely controlled when it comes to critique of Israel. Not a word can be uttered that might be critical toward the Zionist state. You can criticise America in America but you can't criticise Israel in America unless you are willing to risk your career to experience a nosedive. Politicians have to compete with one another over who would be a stronger supporter and defender of Israel. Given how minds have been controlled, how anyone with the guts to say anything against Israel is made to face terrible consequences, and the extremely undemocratic role of the Israeli lobbies inside America, this peace between America and Israel is nothing but the product of undemocratic practices.