Is 'Democracy' an Obstacle to Peace?
While proponents of democracy assert that its spread is essential for achieving peace, two allied democracies, the United States and Israel, are engaged in wars that are actually exacerbated by both countries holding general elections. From the outset, democracy has been viewed in the American mindset as more than just a form of governance.
Riviera Plus
·3 minutes read

While democracy supporters assert that its spread is essential for achieving peace, two allied democracies, the United States and Israel, are engaged in wars that are actually exacerbated by both countries holding general elections. From the outset, democracy has been viewed in the American mindset as more than just a form of governance. Liberals and conservatives alike have sanctified the idea of democracy, making exaggerated claims about the benefits that democratic societies reap. It has been said that democratically elected governments are more tolerant, more respectful of minority rights, more accountable for their actions, and less prone to waging wars. Based on these ideas, several successive American administrations have made the promotion of democracy a priority in foreign policy, considering it essential for achieving global peace. While the United States and some of its allies boast about these traits and take pride in the notion that their democracy places them above societies that adopt other forms of governance, their claims of purity and commitment to idealistic principles do not hold up under scrutiny in reality. The stark contradiction between the values espoused by America and other democracies and their actual behaviors has been evident since their inception; the American democratic experiment was built on the backs of oppressed labor and at the expense of the genocide of indigenous populations. In recent decades, when the George W. Bush administration launched its campaign to promote democracy worldwide, it did so amidst a devastating war waged against Iraq, accompanied by practices revealed in secret prisons. The same largely applies to Israel, which we in the United States consider, and which considers itself, 'our closest ally' and 'the only democracy in the Middle East.' Like us, Israel claims that its democracy elevates it above its neighbors, making its actions more just and its behavior more ethical. Holding elections in democracies is another reason to boast about their superiority. However, instead of serving as a time for correction or purification, elections are often exploited by competing parties to justify bad behaviors and inflame social tensions, as we see in both Israel and the United States. For example, President Donald Trump needs an exit from his war with Iran, particularly due to its negative impact on the economy and consumers, and the insecurity and instability it stirs in the Gulf region. However, he fears appearing weak if he ends the war without achieving a decisive victory, given the potential negative impact on his political legacy and grip on his electoral base, which he needs to rally in the upcoming November elections to ensure the Republican Party's victory. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have assumed he could manage a government coalition that includes parties more extreme than his own. However, his partners have used their positions to inflame tensions with Palestinians both inside Israel and in the occupied territories. When Netanyahu felt compelled to join ceasefire agreements that were supposed to stop the bombing in Gaza and Lebanon, it became clear that his commitment to them was extremely limited. In the face of criticism from his opponents and even his coalition partners that he is jeopardizing Israel's security by not 'getting the job done,' he continued to violate the ceasefire agreements without facing any accountability, while doing nothing to rein in the rampant violence in the West Bank that is fueled by his allies. In summary, elections in both cases, instead of applying the values that are supposed to be hallmarks of democracy, do the opposite. Political rhetoric becomes coarser and more divisive, social tensions escalate, and warlike behaviors are encouraged. What is even more concerning is that journalists and commentators recognize that the words and actions of Netanyahu and Trump are aimed at pleasing their voters more than addressing the realities on the ground, yet they often treat the political spectacle as if it were a real reality.
President of the Arab American Institute
Suggested
Read also
PoliticsAnalysis: Despite the Weight of American Sanctions.. Why Does the Iranian Regime Show No Signs of Yielding?
WorldThe "Yemen Dawn" Operation Continues.. and the Army: We Will Continue Until Every Inch of the Country is Liberated
Politics