Democracy in Lebanon and Israel:

A Pathway to Peace?

Whether democracy is a possible origin of peace in various parts of the world is a long-

debated question amongst political scientists. Many educated on the subject currently believe

that adopting a democratic regime could be a possible source of peace in countries facing severe

conflict, including the many of which that are located in the Middle East. However, the solution

of implementing a stronger democratic regime may not always be applicable to every nation and

situation. Democratization does not necessarily have the potential to diminish all international

affairs issues, either, because it is unreasonable to rely on one change to fix all issues in any

given area. Two clear sides have been taken on the issue. The side believing in the saving power

of implementing a democratic regime draws evidence and support from the words of Immanuel

Kant and the democratic peace theory, while the opposing side refutes these claims by turning

Kants own words back on him. Two countries in the Middle East that could possibly benefit

from further democratization are Israel and Lebanon. Israel is a developed nation that has an

advanced democracy and Lebanon is a developing nation with a relatively weak democracy

compared to western-style democratic regimes. It has been seen in multiple other Middle Eastern

nations already that implementing a democratic regime, or partially democratic regime, can

relieve some issues of political conflict and tension both within the state and with other states in

their foreign affairs.

Literature Review

Though many educated on the topic have written about their belief that democratization

within a country inevitably leads to peace both domestically and internationally, there are also
some who have noted their opinion that this is not at all the case. Those who believe in the

subsequent inevitability of peace after democratization takes place generally base their argument

on the modernization and democratic peace theories. The democratic peace theory states that

democratic states are reluctant to go to war with other democracies. This approach is also known

as mutual democratic pacifism (Hart). The philosophy behind the theory is based on the ideas

and writings of Immanuel Kant. This entails that as more states become democratic, there will be

more peace amongst them because each state will be hesitant to threaten the other democratic

states. However, many writing on the topic take on a contending opinion to the democratic peace

theory that is generally referred to as the realist theory. Writer Christopher Layne touches on this

side of the argument in his work titled Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace.

Layne uses the theories drawn from Kants principles and turns them against the argument itself

to disprove it. The realist theory dictates a somewhat anarchical view that since there is no

omnipotent, all-powerful state reigning over international politics in its entirety, each state

creates its own political regime and makes its own decisions. Because of this, the main goal of

each state is to survive, not necessarily to coincide with politically similar states (Layne). So,

under this theory, if two democratic states came to the brink of war, each side would only be

looking to defend itself rather than reach a compromise simply for the purpose of preserving

democratic relations and peace. In reality, however, it works on a case-by-case basis meaning

that in some instances, democracy could be what is needed to create peace in a region, however

some rivalries run deeper than what democratization can fix and will, in turn, not be solved quite

so simply.

2
Argument

There are several states within the Middle East specifically that are considered

democratic regimes. Lebanon, the only democracy in the Arab world, is an example of a

developing nation with a rather weak democratic system. According to the World Database of

Happiness, Lebanon has a score of a 4.71 out of a possible ten in terms of how happy its citizens

are and the general standard of living (Veenhoven). This score is quite indicative of how weakly

democratic the nation itself is. Democracy is unsoundly implemented in Lebanon for many

reasons, but in the past few years they have been becoming increasingly less democratic. For

instance, the government resorted to passing a law in June of 2013 that allowed for the extension

of the current parliaments term to 17 months (Chamma). This is an example of the government

taking advantage of the little power that the citizens of Lebanon have and abusing the power that

the government holds over the nation. By wrongfully extending the term, they took away the

principal democratic right of the people to vote for a new parliament after a pre-determined

period of time. Not only did this create anger toward the government, it also created a disruption

of peace amongst the citizens spurring initially peaceful riots and protests that were later made

violent by the work of government law enforcement (Chamma). In the case of Lebanon, further

democratization in Lebanon could have made truly free and fair elections for parliament, which

would have created a less violent, more peaceful environment for the citizens. In terms of

Lebanons peaceful relationships with other states, they have not faired well in the past.

According to the Global Peace Index, Lebanon is one of the least peaceful nations in the world.

Scoring a 2.622 out of 5 points, Lebanon is ranked as the 17th least peaceful nation out of the 162

1 http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/nat_fp.php?cntry=156&name=Lebanon
&mode=3&subjects=0&publics=0
2 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2014/LBN/OVER

3
countries in the world. Many factors contribute to this total, however several key factors that

relate to the democratic position of Lebanon are political instability where they scored in the

severe category with a 4 out of 5, neighboring country relations where they scored severely with

a 5 out of 5, and the Political Democracy Index where they scored a 5 out of 10. These three

factors all indicate how weakly democratic the Lebanese government is and how that has

contributed to their failed ability to deal with international relations in the past. Had the state

been more strongly democratized giving the citizen basic rights that any democracy should

provide, there would have been a significant decrease in internal violence as well as a greater

incentive for the citizens to participate when their help was needed.

Israel, a more developed nation, is considered to be the most advanced democracy in the

Middle East (ONeil). Scoring a 73 out of ten in terms of how happy the citizens are on a study

done by the World Database of Happiness, Israel is much better off than Lebanon as well as

many other countries in the Middle East in general (Veenhoven). The countrys score on this

scales is very indicative of how advanced their democratic regime, in fact, is. Compared to

countries in Europe and North America, however, Israel is still not incredibly democratic. In

light of recent events surrounding Israels Knesset election, their legislative body, many have

come to question the democratic future of the state. With the majority reelection of Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the question of whether or not the government is still trying to

implement a two-state system with Palestine has been brought forth. The majority of the Israeli

population believed all along that Netanyahus goal was to combine the Israeli and Palestinian

states into one united body, but after giving off mixed signals around the time of the election, the

Prime Ministers motives have come into question (Milbank). This begs to question the future of

3http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/nat_fp.php?cntry=37&name=Israel
&mode=3&subjects=191&publics=34

4
the overall level of democracy in the nation. Netanyahu essentially deceived the Israeli people in

order to gain votes from his opposing parties. If Prime Minister Netanyahu goes against his word

and fails to create a two-party system, the backlash from the people could be immense. This is a

case in which having a stricter democratic regime could have prevented citizen anger and

retaliation against the government. Israel is relatively peaceful domestically, however they have

struggled in their international relations a bit more. In the Global Peace Index assessment, Israel

scored an overall of 2.694 out of 5, which places them as the 14th least peaceful nation in the

world. This is only incrementally higher than the score of the considerably less democratic

nation of Lebanon and that is mainly due to the severity of Israels militaristic state. A few of the

factors that contribute to this score that are particularly relevant to the discussion of Israels

democratic standing are political instability where they scored 2 out of 5, political terror where

they scored 4 out of 5, neighboring country relations where they scored a 4 out of 5, and the

Political Democracy Index where they scored a 7.5 out of 10. These scores indicate that even

though Israel is a relatively strong democratic state, they have struggled internationally in the

past. For this reason, becoming a more heavily democratized state is likely not the most plausible

solution for Israel to become for peaceful. Unlike Lebanon, Israel is already an advanced

democracy, so other factors have contributed more to their low Global Peace Index score than

their democratic standing (ONeil). For instance, a reevaluation of military power and weaponry

exportation may be a better way for Israel to become a more peaceful nation.

Though many who have spoken on the topic believe that enacting completely democratic

systems in non-peaceful, struggling nations is the best step to take, there is a large population of

individuals who believe that simply strengthening a states democratic standing will not solve any

4 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2014/ISR/OVER

5
major problems. Since many who believe in the saving-power of democracy take support from

the words of Immanuel Kant and the democratic peace theory, those refuting have critiqued these

sources. A major issue that opposing individuals have with the argument is surrounding the

democratic peace theory. This theory states that democratic nations are reluctant to enter into war

and violence with each other (Hart). Supporters of this theory believe that it applies to this

general argument because as more nations become increasingly democratic, there will inevitably

be greater peace in the world. Those in opposition disagree with this idea and believe that the

system is a bit more anarchical than how the democratic peace theory describes it to be

(Layne). There is not a supreme force of power that reigns over every state in the world, so each

state is an individual entity, making decisions and taking action with only its own success and

well-being in mind. Because of this, the one main goal of every nation is simply to survive and

then thrive, not to coexist with like nations. So, when one democratic nation is threatened by

another democratic nation, it is instinctual for them to think about surviving and beating out that

country rather than simply setting issues and threats aside for the sake of preserving democratic

similarities and relationships (Layne). Another reason why the democratic peace theory is

commonly refuted is because of its lack of quantitative evidence. Many pieces of literature on the

subject present multiple cases from around the world representing times in history when two

democratic nations were faced with conflict, but did not go to war. Those who believe in the

saving-power of democracy claim that they did not end up going to war because of the principles

laid out by the democratic peace theory. However, those who oppose the validity of the theory

provide evidence that says otherwise. In the majority of these cases, one of the democracies

backed out of the conflict due to internal issues such as economic problems, military shortages,

or other issues that had nothing to do with their desire to preserve democracy. Meanwhile, the

6
other nation remained ready to fight regardless. If cases in which this particular instance was the

reason for the two democracies not to go to war were removed from the arguments for the

democratic peace theory, then there wouldnt be considerable real-world evidence to prove the

theorys validity. For this reason, those who oppose the democratic peace theory claim that it

lacks quantitative evidence. Due to the sufficient evidence and reasoning presented by the

individuals who oppose the idea that implementing democratic ideals can foster peace in each

state, it is made clear why strengthening democracy only works on a case-by-case basis

depending on the country and its given situation.

Whether or not democracy is a universal source of peace has been discussed in the

political field for many years, and a definitive solution has yet to be reached. This topic is of

great importance because if implementing and maintaining a strong democratic regime can create

a peaceful state in any country, then all countries should become more democratic. However,

democracy cannot necessarily be used as a solution to create more peace in all countries because,

as seen with the examples in Lebanon and Israel, it only works on a circumstantial basis. For

Lebanon, further democratization and modernization is likely the best solution for creating a

more peaceful environment within the country as well as with foreign affairs. However, since

Israel is already an advanced democracy, further democratization is likely not the best solution to

create more peace. So, although implementing a stronger democratic regime can be a very

effective way to create a more peaceful nation in many cases, this does not apply to every

country and every case. Countries that are in similar situations as Lebanon, such as Iran and

Afghanistan, would likely see increases in peaceful conduct with the implementation of stronger

democratic regimes. However, there are many complicated factors that explain why countries do

not become democratic that violate the customs and values of the individual nations themselves.

7
Those countries that could greatly benefit from strengthening their democratic standing in terms

of becoming more peaceful should strongly consider doing so because they could also incur

other benefits with the change as well. This shows exactly why the topic of pathways to peace

is so complicated. Though the topic of democratization is often a difficult one to bring up and

discuss, it is extremely important. Although democratization may not have immense merits for

many states, those greatly lacking democratic reign could receive benefits beyond the generation

of peace that could solve many other long-standing issues.

8
 Works Cited

Akerman, Lior. "Is Israel a True Democracy?" The Jerusalem Post. N.p., 15 May 2014. Web. 14

Apr. 2015.

Al-Om, Tamara. "US & Middle East Relations." Web log post. Thoughts on the Middle East,

Politics, and the Media. N.p., 04 Sept. 2007. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Chamma, Marina. "Lebanon Lets Democracy Slip Away." Your Middle East. N.p., 20 Oct. 2014.

Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

"Global Peace Index." Vision of Humanity. N.p., 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Hamid, Shadi. "The Future of Democracy in the Middle East: Islamist and Illiberal." The

Atlantic. N.p., 6 May 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Hart, Michael. "Is Democracy a Cause of Peace?" Diss. 2014. E-International Relations. 20 June

2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace." International Security

19.2 (1994): 5-49. Stanford University. Autumn 1994. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Milbank, Dana. "Can Israel Remain a Democracy?" The Washington Post. The Washington Post,

20 Mar. 2015. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

O'Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of Comparative Politics. 4th ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2013.

Print.

"Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)." Project on Middle East Democracy POMED

Welcome Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Veenhoven, Ruut, and Erasmus University Rotterdam. "Happiness in Nations." World Database

of Happiness. Happiness Economics Research Organization, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 15 Apr.

2015.