Liberal Democracy and the Inferior 'Other'Other’: Could the peace liberal democracy promises to bring not extend to ‘Others’?

Advocates of liberal democracy argue that its principles and practices contribute directly to peace (at both inter-state and domestic levels). They rely on ideals such as the rule of law, institutional checks and balances on power, an ethos of tolerance, and free market economics to deliver the liberal peace. Liberals, however, overlook three important features embedded in the construction of liberal democracy which can serve to facilitate political violence: 1) the fixed and thus non-negotiable nature of liberal democracy’s core principles, 2) the inferior manner in which it conceives ‘Other’ social orders that do not share its core principles, and 3) the urge to proselytise Others. Together, these constitutive qualities can facilitate moves by leaders of Other groups to argue that liberal democracy threatens ‘their’ preferred identity, and thus its promised peaceful outcomes can be put in doubt.

What have we done wrong? The responsibilities of the rich

This paper surveys hostile reactions to claims that the I I September attacks were understandable in terms of the actions of the west towards poor parts of the world and the rich countries' own public commitments to democracy and affluence at home. The paper argues that domestic resentment is likely to continue to foment because concerted institution-building commensurate with the rich countries' material capacities has been neglected. Much responsibility for the global discontent can be attributed to policies advocated by the west and imposed on both rich and poor countries alike by policy-elites within the rich countries. Intellectuals have a role in re-activating the sorts of high-minded state-building and policy-making capacities that preoccupied them in the immediate post-1945 period.