Democratic Peace Theory

Prepared by: Maruf Hasan

Introduction:

Democratic peace theory in international relations suggests that democracies are less
likely to go to war with each other than non-democracies. The theory proposes that
democratic governments are more likely to settle disputes peacefully through
diplomatic means and negotiations rather than military force.

The democratic peace theory has several key assumptions. First, it assumes that
democracies are more likely to respect human rights, uphold the rule of law, and support
civil liberties. Second, it assumes that democratic governments are more accountable
to their citizens and that citizens have more say in decisions about war and peace.
Third, it assumes that democratic governments are more transparent and open, making
it more difficult for leaders to engage in secretive or aggressive actions without public
scrutiny.

The theory suggests that because democratic governments are more likely to share
common values and interests, they are more likely to cooperate and form alliances with
each other, reducing the likelihood of war. Additionally, democratic governments may be
more likely to engage in trade and economic cooperation, which can also reduce the
likelihood of conflict.

Critics of the democratic peace theory argue that it overlooks the role of economic,
cultural, and historical factors in shaping international relations. They also argue that
some democracies have engaged in aggressive actions, and some non-democracies
have been peaceful. Nonetheless, the theory has influenced debates about the
relationship between democracy and international peace.

Criticism:

This theory has gained widespread acceptance among scholars and policymakers, it is
not without its criticisms and limitations.
One of the main criticisms of democratic peace theory is that it focuses exclusively on
the behavior of states rather than on the underlying factors that contribute to conflict.
Critics argue that many other factors, such as economic interdependence, cultural
differences, and geopolitical rivalries, can contribute to conflict between states,
regardless of their political system.

Another limitation of democratic peace theory is that it may not be applicable in all
cases. For example, some scholars have argued that the theory may not apply to newly
established democracies or to democracies that are experiencing political instability or
social unrest. In such cases, the incentives for conflict may differ, and the democratic
peace hypothesis may not hold.

Moreover, critics also point out that the definition of "democracy" is not always clear-cut
and that there may be variations in the degree of democracy within a country, which can
affect the likelihood of conflict. Additionally, some scholars argue that the democratic
peace theory may be biased towards Western liberal democracies and may not apply to
other cultural or political contexts.

Finally, some critics argue that the democratic peace theory may be more of a statistical
correlation than a causal relationship. While it is true that democratic states are less
likely to go to war with one another, it is difficult to establish whether this is due to their
political system or to other underlying factors.

Overall, while the democratic peace theory has been a useful framework for
understanding the behavior of democratic states, it is not without its limitations and
criticisms. Scholars and policymakers must remain critical of the theory and consider
other factors contributing to the conflict between states.

How applicable is democratic peace theory to avoiding war in the

contemporary world?

The theory is based on the idea that democracies are more likely to resolve conflicts
peacefully through diplomacy and that democratic institutions check the power of
leaders who might be tempted to use military force.

In the contemporary world, democratic peace theory still holds some relevance. While
there have been some instances of democratic countries going to war with one another,
such as the Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina, overall,
democratic countries have been less likely to engage in war with each other than
non-democratic countries.

However, it is important to note that the theory has its limitations. Firstly, it only applies
to democracies and does not consider other factors contributing to the likelihood of
war, such as economic interests or historical grievances. Additionally, the definition of
what constitutes a democracy can be contested, and not all countries with democratic
systems necessarily subscribe to the same values or principles.

Furthermore, the rise of populist leaders and movements in democratic countries in

recent years has raised concerns about the stability of democratic institutions and the
potential for leaders to act against the interests of their citizens. This could potentially
undermine the effectiveness of democratic peace theory to avoid war.

While democratic peace theory remains relevant in contemporary international relations,

it should be considered with other factors contributing to the likelihood of war.

Is democratic peace theory rational in the 21st century?

Democratic peace theory is the idea that democracies are less likely to go to war with
each other than non-democratic countries. The theory suggests that democracies tend
to be more peaceful and cooperative with one another due to their shared values,
institutions, and norms. However, whether democratic peace theory is still rational in the
21st century is debatable.

On the one hand, proponents of democratic peace theory argue that the theory still
holds in the 21st century. They point to the fact that there have been no major wars
between democratic countries since the end of World War II and that democratic
countries tend to resolve their disputes peacefully through negotiations and diplomacy.
Proponents argue that democratic institutions promote transparency, accountability,
and participation, fostering cooperation and trust between countries.

On the other hand, critics of democratic peace theory argue that it is not as relevant in
the 21st century as it once was. They point to the fact that there have been conflicts
between democracies in recent years, such as the 2003 Iraq War, which was led by the
United States and involved other democratic countries. Critics argue that democratic
countries are not immune to conflict and that other factors, such as economic
competition and geopolitical interests, can lead to war.
Moreover, critics argue that the concept of democracy itself has become more complex
and contested in the 21st century. With the rise of authoritarian regimes and the erosion
of democratic norms and institutions in some countries, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to define what constitutes a true democracy. This makes it harder to apply the
theory in practice and raises questions about its relevance in a world that is becoming
more polarized and fragmented.

In conclusion, while democratic peace theory may have some validity in the 21st
century, its application may be more complicated than in the past due to the changing
nature of democracy and the increasing complexity of international relations. Therefore,
it is important to approach the theory cautiously and consider other factors that can
contribute to peace or conflict between countries.

Conclusion:

The democratic peace theory is a longstanding idea in international relations that

democratic countries are less likely to go to war with each other than non-democratic
countries. While there is an ongoing debate about the extent to which this theory holds
in the contemporary world, there is evidence to suggest that democracies are still less
likely to go to war with one another.

One potential challenge to the democratic peace theory is the rise of populist leaders
and movements in some democracies, which may be more prone to conflict and
aggression toward other countries. Additionally, the increasing polarization and division
within democracies may lead to a breakdown in peaceful relations between them.

However, despite these challenges, there are still many examples of democracies
peacefully resolving conflicts with one another, such as through diplomacy and
negotiation. Furthermore, the growth of international institutions and cooperation
among democracies, such as the European Union and NATO, may also contribute to
maintaining peace among democratic countries.

While the democratic peace theory may face some challenges in the contemporary
world, evidence still suggests that it holds significantly.