Democratic Peace Theory
As a democracy, the United States tends to ally itself with countries that it has similarities to, one of these similarities more often than not is that the other country is a democracy. There is a political science theory called the Democratic Peace Theory states that democracies are very unlikely to fight other. For this theory to hold,there needs to be two democracies present, they do not go to war with each other because of their similar values which tend to promote peaceful problem solving instead[1]. While history can find little record of a democracy going to war with another democracy this theory is still contested, as there are many other factors that come into play in maintaining the peace. Despite the criticisms of the theory, the spread of democracy should still be promoted.
Although a relatively new theory, the democratic peace theory was hinted at early on in Immanuel Kant’s essay entitled “Perpetual Peace” written in 1795. In this essay he claimed that if all nations were republics there would be very little war[2]. He pointed to the fact that a majority of people would not vote to go to war therefore if all nations were republics then war would end because there would be no aggressors[3]. Democracy is so important because it can shape the landscape of the world as countries develop democracies; in the long run according to this theory the spread of democracy is crucial for peace.
The democratic peace theory was further explored in the 1960s scientifically and became an accepted political science theory and in the 1990s it grew even more popular[4]and [5]. Holding that there is certain truth to this theory it can be used to justify American wars against non-democracies as being preventative for future wars that could be worse[6]. The way that democracies operate promotes peace through their norms; they generally want the same things, which will lead them to fight non-democracies who do not have similar goals. Not only do democracies enjoy comparable principles but they also have similar economies and commonly form treaties with each other[7].The economies of democracies are often interrupted by war and tend to have a large degree of international dependence making the disruption of international trade and investment devastating. By the nature of democracy the leaders are held accountable for the state of the country and need to be reelected, since wars are generally met with public disapproval the leaders are deterred from engaging in war[8]. There are certain institutional constraints that are inherent to a democracy as well, such as the system of checks and balances. This leadsfor the decision to engage inwar to require many steps and discussion for it to be approved in contrast to non-democracies where the decision could quickly and easily be made behind closed doors with no thought as to the approval of the people[9].In the United States both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to vote in favor of war as well as the President as Commander in Chief. With so many individual opinions to be heard and debated, the process can take much longer in democratic states rather than nondemocratic. States are inclined to develop opinions on other states based on their similarities and differences, this is called in group and out group mentality where states identify and agree with the actions of their in group and try to find the worst in the actions of the out group. Those that have the most parallel structure for the in group are the easiest to relate to and the least likely to create conflict, by nature the presence of democracy creates great parallels and deters violence.
Political scientists who support this theory are countered by others who use current events to dispute its validity.They say that while in some cases the theory holds strong, in other cases democracies do not treat each other with respect when it does not follow their best interest. The democratic peace theory does not say that they go to war less but just that they have fewer justifications for war and most often use self defense to justify war. It also uses causal logic, which is explained as “A causal logic is a statement about how an inde- pendent variable exerts a causal effect on a depen- dent variable. It elaborates a specific chain of causal mechanisms that connects these variables and takes the following form: A (the independent variable) causes B (the dependent variable) because A causes x, which causes y, which causes B”[10].The logic behind the Democratic peace theory is thus indirect leaving space for the final conclusion to be questioned. While democracies often rely on mutual trust and respect with each other that helps prevent fighting, they still fight wars when they are not in danger and no serious threat is posed, supporting the argument that they are not as peaceful as they may seem. Also, while wars of self-defense are not always the protocol, another argument for war is when there are injustices occurring against the people of the country in which case it is also acceptable to go to war, but this is not always the case with wars that come from democratic states. During the imperialist period, the great powers of Europe waged war for reasons more concerned with land than any of the justifiable factors present. Democracies were involved in 66 of the 108 wars in the period between 1815 and 1975 with 33 of the 66 being of imperialistic nature[11]. While the democracies are not actually going to war with other democratic states, they are not upholding to their democratic values in these wars offering critics of the theory proof that democracies are not as peaceful as they seem. The argument that democracies have a mutual respect for one another can also be countered by Cold War interventions executed by the United States in which the concern of the spreading communism overwhelmed the desire to respect weaker democracies. They intervened and instituted other leaders who were anticommunism, but not the elected leaders of the countries[12]. The arguments against the theory support that while democracies have not fought each other in history it is not necessarily for the noblest reasons; it is when it is most convenient for them.
Despite the arguments against the Democratic Peace Theory, history does not lie, the absence of war between democracies in history thus far can not be disputed which proves that to some extent democracies do not fight each other. There are exceptions to the rule, which are the arguments brought from those who disagree with the theory, but they do not span history and are relatively isolated events.The lack of war between democracies provides fuel to the argument that democracy should be expanded. It is a form of government that does its best to protect the best interest of its citizens as well as provides for respect among other democratic states, the similarities inherent to democracy are extremely important to the way that international relations play out in the future. Democracy may not be perfect, but with a still not disproven theory to bolster it, democracy should be spread to as many countries as possible to promote a greater culture of peace and rights in the long run.
[1] Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of the Democratic Peace Theory." The American Political Science Review 97.4 (2003): 585-602. Print.
[2] "The Democratic Peace Theory." World Peace. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <
[3] "The Democratic Peace Theory." World Peace. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <
[4] Ibid.
[5] Owen, John M. "Iraq and the Democratic Peace." Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, Nov.-Dec. 2005. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.
[6] Lane, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace." International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Print.
[7] Ibid.
[8]Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of the Democratic Peace Theory." The American Political Science Review 97.4 (2003): 585-602. Print.
[9]Lane, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace." International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Print.
[10] Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of the Democratic Peace Theory." The American Political Science Review 97.4 (2003): 585-602. Print.
[11] Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of the Democratic Peace Theory." The American Political Science Review 97.4 (2003): 585-602. Print.
[12]Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of the Democratic Peace Theory." The American Political Science Review 97.4 (2003): 585-602. Print.