Democracy & Security: Does Democratization Mean Security?

Democracy and Security: Core Values and Sound Policies” Conference to Take Place in Prague 5-6 June 2007. Hosted By Prague Security Studies Institute, Jerusalem-Based Shalem Center’s Adelson Institute For Strategic Studies and Madrid’s Foundation for Social Analysis and Studies

Panel 2

Do we believe that democratization enhances security, and that democracy brings more security? Many people in the free world believe that attempts to stablish a democratic society in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority have led to instability and anarchy, ultimately strengthening the radicals. As a result, the dangers for the free world have increased. Does this mean that the free world should aspire primarily to the attainment of stability and consequently support friendly tyrants because they are the only ones capable of imposing and enforcing order in their countries? Do not “fear” societies provide only an illusion of stability? Are there circumstances when a democracy should cooperate with a dictatorship? Who is more effective in the war on terror – a strong dictator or a democracy? Can international stability be built and maintained between states, some of which are free and democratic and some of which are not?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK- There has never been a famine in a democracy. Democracies do not go to war with other democracies. They are more peaceful. They will go to war with dictatorships. 80% of the time the dictatorships initiate the war. Countries in transition to democracy are mostly poorer countries. If you control for the income levels you find countries in transition are more peaceful. Democracies are much less likely to have internal war. People in democracries find peaceful ways out of problems. That is the reason behind the current US policy for the Middle East.


JOSEF JANNING– The less democratic a regime the more likely for armed conflict and violence. Out of 119 states, 40% are incomplete democracies and account for 80% of violence. In moderate autocracies 50% of the political conflicts are violent.

MITHAL AL-ALUSI– Leader of a the Party in Iraqi Democratic party of the Iraqi nation. is an Iraqi politician and the leader of the Democratic Party of the Iraqi Nation, DPIN. He was elected to the Iraqi Council of Representatives as an independent in the December 2005 election. He is a Sunni Muslim Arab secularist politician and supports a close alliance with the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Israel.
Today he thanked those countries who are supporting Iraq.
He also was very thankful to those who have lost family members in Iraq during their democratization process.

Mithal al-Alusi thanked America and the Allied Forces for their sacrifices.

Mithal also says things are going well in Iraq despite what is being reported.

MUDAWI IBRAHIM ADAM– believes that democracy cannot be established by invading and occupying a country.

MARTIN KRAMER- He is a sceptic of the democratization process. The Middle East is home to fear regimes like Saddam and “sharing societies” with rulers who share powers and avert war. He believes that Iran and Syria are examples of types of democracies.

MITHAL AL-ALUSI- Iran is the main problem in the region. They are spreading violence to Iran and Syria… The Hariri trial is a good thing. We don’t always get the right signal from the UN, this time they did the right thing. It also helps in supporting for the liberals in Syria.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK– It is not unusual for tyrants to feel fear. It is our job to make those fears come true.

Prague Blogging- 2007 Democracy & Security Conference
Blogging From the Communist Parliament Building
A Night Out With Jose Maria Aznar, Vaclav Haval & Natan Sharansky
Senator Joe Lieberman Gets Personal in Prague
Democracy & Security: Has Democracy Reached an Impasse?

You Might Like