The Drones and Democracy Debate: Commentary

            Peter Singer argues that drone technology serves to undermine democracy. “New technology is short-circuiting the decision-making process for what used to be the most important choice a democracy could make,” he writes in a New York Times piece, “blurring the civilian and military roles in war and circumventing the Constitution’s mandate for authorizing it.” Charli Carpenter responds by to Singer by raising questions about some of the assumptions which underlie his arguments. In particular, Carpenter wants to see concrete evidence that “stand-off weapons make armed conflict easier and therefore likelier,” and furthermore evidence that the increased amount conflict does in fact undermine democracy. I hope to respond to this concern (one among many) which Carpenter brings forward. The numbers show that drone attacks have in fact been increasing in frequency, and it seems clear that their use can be called into question from a legal standpoint. At least qualitatively, this seems to indicate a negative impact on democracy.  

            The frequency of drone attacks has been increasing ever since the new technology first came onto the scene. Blanchard reports that 219 drone attacks took place in Afghanistan in 2009, compared with only 74 in 2007. Furthermore, Becker and Shane describe President Obama’s seeming lack of hesitation when ordering drone strikes against foreign targets. We have quantitative and qualitative evidence that drone strikes are on the rise. Although we might question the number of casualties resultant from these attacks, it is clear the use of drones for targeted killings abroad has increased.

However, Carpenter is not convinced that, on balance, drones increase the total amount of armed conflict once everything is said and done. For example, while it might be true that the number of drone strikes is going up, other armed engagements may concurrently be decreasing in frequency as a result, perhaps due to increased combat efficiency. If this is the case, drones would actually decrease the net amount of armed conflict between states as well as any corresponding harms to democracy. This stance is a perfectly reasonable one to take, and one that certainly requires more research to come to a satisfactory conclusion on. But I don’t think this concern gets at the heart of Singer’s argument, which relates the use of drones in particular to democratic outcomes. If we only used ground troops in Afghanistan and never drones, it is plausible that the democratic undermining Singer talks about would never have changed from the status quo.

If indeed there is something unique about drone usage that leads to less democracy, however, then it follows that Singer is correct in his hypothesis. The anecdotal evidence from Singer seems compelling because the president simply does not face the kind of political backlash for using drones when compared to more conventional forces. If a drone gets shot down, no one cares – as was the case in June of 2011 when an unmanned helicopter was grounded by pro-Qaddafi forces. However, Congress made a big deal when the President notified them about a non-combat operation involving a small unit in Uganda. Even if a small risk to US lives is present, Congress wants to know. If we were using live human beings to carry out targeted killings abroad, the chances of severe political backlash are therefore much higher. Because drones eliminate this chance, the President can essentially bypass Congress with no repercussions.

But what if drones simply make “an old trend especially obvious,” as Carpenter says? Might the “war on terror” in general undermine democracy? This is certainly a plausible argument. But drones reduce the political costs that would typically be associated with the President’s use of force outside the explicit consent of congress. At the very least, this should make us concerned and lead us to another tricky question regarding the nature of social and technological change. Are drones just another tool that allows politicians to undermine democracy? Or has the development of drones itself led to the undermining of democracy? Even when framed in this way, however, it seems like drones either enable the undermining of democracy or actively facilitate it. In either case, Singer has his point.