Democratic Peace Theory and a Peaceful World Order: An Analysis

This essay explores the democratic peace theory, which posits that democracies are less likely to engage in armed conflict with each other. The essay delves into the factors that proponents believe contribute to this phenomenon, including the accountability of democratic leaders to their electorate, the establishment of diplomatic institutions, and the shared values and norms among democracies. It examines the theory's roots in Immanuel Kant's work on perpetual peace and the concept of liberal peace theory. The essay also addresses the critiques of the democratic peace theory, particularly from a realist perspective, and discusses the role of common interests, strategic considerations, and the international political system structure. The essay concludes by highlighting the potential benefits of the global expansion of democracy in reducing the likelihood of war and promoting a more peaceful world order.

Running head: DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
Democratic Peace Theory and a Peaceful World Order
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author note

1DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
Democratic Peace Thesis talks about the fact that states that do not want engaging
themselves in that of armed conflict with that of other identified democracies. This theory
highlights on the element of peace and outlines the motives that dissuade the state from any
kind of sponsored violence. There are some theorists who refer to it as “mutual democratic
pacifism” or that of “inter-democracy nonaggression hypothesis” which specifies that the
state of peace is not singular between democracies and it can easily be sustained between that
of democratic nations (Rasler and Thompson 2016). This essay talks about the democratic
peace thesis and discusses the significance of this theory for the nations.
The proponents of the democratic peace thesis believe that there are several factors
that help in motivating peace among the democratic states. The leaders who are democratic
are compelled to accept blame on account of the war losses to that of a voting public
(Poznansky 2015). The statespeople who are publicly accountable have to establish the
diplomatic institutions in order to resolve the international tensions. The democracies do not
view the countries that have adjacent policy as hostile. The democracies have greater public
wealth as compared to other states and they want to stay away from war so that they can
preserve their infrastructure along with resources (Inglehart, Puranen and Welzel 2015).
This theory highlights the idea that the democracies do not go into war with each
other and this idea has immensely helped in guaranteeing peace between the democratic
states. Democratic peace thesis attacks the traditional hegemony of realism within the
American International Relations Theory. There is the prevalence of a spirited debate
between that of the proponents of democratic peace theory and that of the critics who have
made a number of counterattacks (Kolstad and Wiig 2016). The democratic peace thesis has
been rooted in the written material of Immanuel Kant specially in his work “Perpetual
Peace”. According to Kant’s writing, peace is the reasonable outcome that occurs on account
of the interaction taking place between states that has a republican form of the government.

2DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
He holds the notion that republican constitution creates the favourable prospect for attaining
perpetual peace. It occurs owing to the fact that the citizens are very cautious about the
disastrous effects that war has on their life and they do not easily want to wage a war. The
constitution which is not republican finds it a lot easier to declare a war because it demands
the least sacrifice of the ruler. The logical implication of the paradigm of Kant is that liberal
republicanism should be diffused and should be made universal that can help in achieving
perpetual peace between the states (Poznansky 2015).
The states should share a common liberal perspective that can help in preventing war
to a great extent. Sharing a liberal perspective is important otherwise war will become
necessary for preventing the despotic governments of oppressing their own people. The semi-
evangelical view of the liberalism helps to strengthen the democratic peace theory. The
regimes that are authoritarian conceive of the liberal states to be threatening because their
ideology of valuing diffusion would threaten the authoritarian power of the ruler (Rasler and
Thompson 2016). The liberal states are not threatened by the universal outlook of the liberal
republics because they share the same kind of government.
The term “democratic peace” is a bit ambiguous and misleading because it blends
democracy with that of other terms. There are some scholar who like to refer to it as “liberal
peace theory”. According to Kant, democracy that is a form of sovereignty is often confused
with that of republicanism which is a form of government. A republican constitution proves
to be a compelling factor that can help in attaining perpetual peace. He feels that the mode of
the government is more important than that of the form of sovereignty for the people. The
liberal states in the words of Kant have some characteristics that sets them apart from that of
the authoritarian and other kind of nondemocratic form of government (Dieterich, Hummel
and Marschall 2015). The republican government is based on the rule of law and lays stress

3DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
on separation of powers and respect in relation to the human rights. There also exists an
interdependent social along with economic relations and this helps in creating stable peace.
The liberal, democratic states have a normative dedication to that of the liberal ideals
and they make use of liberal justifications in relation to going to the war. Michael Doyel has
argued by saying that violent intervention of the liberal states are justified on the public front
as important for preserving the way of life: defending freedom (Inglehart, Puranen and
Welzel 2015). In the event of the adversary sharing commitment of protection of basis rights
then it becomes much more difficult for that of the democratic governments to justify the
incidence of war on their citizens.
Politics within that of a democracy can be conceived of to be a nonzero-sum
enterprise. By the act of co-operation everyone will be entitled to gain something though they
may not gain equally. The winners will be restrained from crushing those people who are
losers. The winners in the present times can ally with that of the losers and this can give rise
to conflicts. On the occasion of the conflicts degenerating into that of physical violence
everyone can lose. It is the “realists” who remind people about the powerful norms in relation
to self-defense and acceptability of the factor of military deterrence (Cuhadar and Druckman
2015). These norms are more extensive in the international arena as compared to that of
democratic states. The politics among that of the nations bears a more zero-sum hue and the
sovereignty of the existence of the state comes at risk. The principle of anarchy within that of
nonzero-sum enterprise can be found to be more acute in case of “structuralist realist” theory
pertaining to the international relations. The internal system of government becomes almost
irrelevant and the entire behaviour is determined on the basis of the structure of international
system and their respective position within that structure (Barkawi 2015). Peace becomes a
fleeting condition that becomes dependent on deterrence along with that of eternal vigilance.
By this kind of structure, stable peace cannot last and eventually the democracies would be

4DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
forced to enter into a state of war. Realism does not have any kind of expectation that the
democracies would not fight each other (Beyer 2017).
The possibility of war between that of the democratic states is quite low however the
lack of war between that of liberal democracies suggests that there is a great inclination
against the using of violence between that of the democratic states (Inglehart, Puranen and
Welzel 2015). The democratic peace theory counters the validity of other political system like
fascism and communism. It also challenges the current realist account of the international
relations that emphasizes on that of balance-of-power calculation.
The institutions in relation to representative government make war an unattractive
option for that of the government and that of the the citizens. The cost along with the risk of
war affect a large segment of population and it can be expected the average voter will be able
to get rid of the leader out of the office on the account of the initiation of an unnecessary war.
It will thus provide an institutional incentive for that of the democratic leaders and they
would anticipate about the electoral response before venturing to war (Conconi, Sahuguet and
Zanardi 2014). The democratic structure gives the citizens leverage over that of the
government decisions and it will make difficult for the democratic leader to start a war with
that of another liberal democracy.
Proponents of the normative perspective argue by saying that the liberal values can
help in explaining the peace between that of democratic states. The democratic political
culture encourages peaceful ways for resolving the conflicts. This is extended beyond that of
the domestic process to the other democratic states as the leaders of both the countries have
an expectation that they would be able to resolve the differences in a peaceful manner.
Political ideology can help in determining how the democracies can distinguish the allies
from that of the adversaries (Hayes and James 2016). The democracies that act in the interest

5DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
of the citizens are treated with a lot of respect along with consideration. The non-democracies
on the other hand that make use of violence against that of their own people are viewed with
mistrust. Perception is another important matter because if a particular state has liberal
democratic institutions and the other states should be able to view it as a liberal democracy so
that the peace proposition can last. Some researchers view the institutional along with
normative explanations to be mutually exclusive to be mutually exclusive (Beyer 2017). A
persuasive defence in relation to the democratic peace theory arises after the combination of
these two viewpoints. The democratic practices that wages war with that of other liberal
democracy- fair election, rule of law and free press can be said to be driven by both the
converging expectations regarding conventional behaviour (institutions) and the standard
regarding how behaviour should be (norms) (Knutsen 2016). These explanations can be said
to be complimentary because the cultural norm influence the evolution of the political
institutions. The institutions can help in the process of generating a peaceful moral culture.
The realists have argued by saying that the common interests can help in explaining
low incidence of war between that of the democracies. From the cold war period, it can be
said that the democratic states have less chances of aligning themselves with that of other
democracies as compared to the previous century which suggests that the common strategic
interest pose to be more significant than that of domestic political process. The international
political system structure can help in determining the way in which the states will act. Realist
critique has been refuted by that of studies that have found that democracy can help in the
prevention of war (Jørgensen 2017). The non-aligned democracy has less chances of fighting
each other as compared to aligned non-democracies. Two nondemocratic states having
common interests have greater chances of fighting each other as compared to that of two
democracies that do not have a common interest.

6DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
The democratic states have less chances of using force irrespective of the kind of
regime of that of the opposing state .The reason for this is that the democratic states function
within ‘incompletely Kantian world’ in which the democracies have undergone transition
from that of minority to that of slight majority within that of post- Cold War period (Franke
2014). The advantage of democracy in restoring peace arises because of the fact that they
will like to enter into low-level conflict as compared to that of full-scale war. They will try to
stay away from escalating the disputes into that of an actual war and they do not want to use
violence against that of another state.
The democracies that initiate war have more chances of winning as compared to that
of non-democratic states. Public support for the war within a democracy will decrease with
the passage of time and a strong incentive exists between that of democratic leaders to choose
wars in which they would be able to win quickly. The global expansion of democracy can
help in bringing additional benefits that can reduce the possibility of war in relation to the
democratic states (Knutsen 2016). It will create low level conflict as compared to that of full-
scale war. The democratic peace thesis can help in increasing the number of states that do not
want to wage a war. It can help in increasing the number of short and successful war as
contrasted to that of protracted war. The coalitions of the democratic states can help in
maintaining mutual commitment because the constraint of that of liberal democracy will
make it difficult to reverse any kind of mutual commitment that has been made with the help
of autonomous political institution. This kind of predictability is absent in relation to the non
democracies owing to lack of transparency. It negatively has an effect on the ability of
winning wars (Luard 2016).
The spurt in the number of democratic states can help to a great extent in
reconstructing the norms that underpin the international system. It can help in accurately
reflecting on the peaceful interaction between that of the democracies. The two aspects in

7DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
relation to the Kantian system- international organisation along with that of economic
interdependence should be strengthened for creating a peaceful world order. The democratic
peace theory symbolizes the instance of uncoerced peace without any kind of central
authority. The liberal order can best be served in the case of a liberal state that can sustain the
political foundation of that of the wider liberal society (Jackson and Sørensen 2016).
Strengthening of the network of inter-governmental organisations (IGO’s) that extends
responsibility to other democratic states can help in encouraging greater co-operation and
provides a strong foundation that can extend perpetual peace. Inter-governmental
organisation like that of World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and World
Bank can serve useful purpose in this regard. Proactively including the largest democracy like
that of China within the liberal international order and strengthening elements of the
constitutional liberalism that lack in illiberal democracy ( Bangladesh, Romania and
Malaysia) can help in the process of consolidation of peace in the most effective manner.
Economic co-operation along with interdependence can help in the process of creation
of a peaceful world order. The incidence of conflict among two states that have high level of
bilateral trade will effectively be 33 % less as compared to those states that have average
level of the economic interdependence. It highlights that the democratic states will be able to
benefit by having an economic system that is liberal (Jahn 2016). Maintaining open trade
depends on the assumption that the market-based forces can help in determining the future
economic transaction. Mutual dependence is thus a reason that will restrain the use of
military force and thus prevent war. Interstate communication will make it a lot easier for
democracies to comprehend the intention of the non-democracies and their willingness to
abide by the mutual agreement.
The institutional along with normative aspect clearly highlight why the spread of
democracy can produce greater international peace. The political institutions that are

8DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
democratic makes it difficult for the governments to wage war without that of the consent of
the electorate. Cultural norms of democracies can make sure that the means in relation to
conflict resolution will be peaceful. Democracies have less chances of initiating wars and
escalate the nonviolent disputes into that of full-scale war. Strengthening of the international
organisations embodying liberal values and encouraging the economic interdependence can
help in the process of mediation of the strategic uncertainty and give rise to a peaceful world
order.

9DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
References:
Barkawi, T., 2015. Scientific decay. International Studies Quarterly, 59(4), pp.827-829.
Beyer, A.C., 2017. Introduction. In International Political Psychology (pp. 1-4). Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
Conconi, P., Sahuguet, N. and Zanardi, M., 2014. Democratic peace and electoral
accountability. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(4), pp.997-1028.
Cuhadar, E. and Druckman, D., 2015. Representative decision-making: challenges to
democratic peace theory. In Handbook of International Negotiation (pp. 3-14). Springer
International Publishing.
Dieterich, S., Hummel, H. and Marschall, S., 2015. Bringing democracy back in: The
democratic peace, parliamentary war powers and European participation in the 2003 Iraq
War. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), pp.87-106.
Franke, M.F., 2014. Global limits: Immanuel Kant, international relations, and critique of
world politics. SUNY Press.
Hayes, J. and James, P., 2016. 6 Systemism, analytic eclecticism, and the democratic
peace. Evaluating Progress in International Relations: How Do You Know?, p.109.
Inglehart, R.F., Puranen, B. and Welzel, C., 2015. Declining willingness to fight for one’s
country: The individual-level basis of the long peace. Journal of Peace Research, 52(4),
pp.418-434.
Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G., 2016. Introduction to international relations: theories and
approaches. Oxford university press.

10DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY AND A PEACEFUL WORLD ORDER
Jahn, B., 2016. The cultural construction of international relations: the invention of the state
of nature. Springer.
Jørgensen, K.E., 2017. International relations theory: A new introduction. Springer.
Knutsen, T.L., 2016. A history of international relations theory. Oxford University Press.
Kolstad, I. and Wiig, A., 2016. Does democracy reduce corruption?. Democratization, 23(7),
pp.1198-1215.
Luard, E., 2016. Basic texts in international relations: the evolution of ideas about
international society. Springer.
Poznansky, M., 2015. Stasis or decay? Reconciling covert war and the democratic
peace. International Studies Quarterly, 59(4), pp.815-826.
Poznansky, M., 2015. Stasis or decay? Reconciling covert war and the democratic
peace. International Studies Quarterly, 59(4), pp.815-826.
Rasler, K. and Thompson, W., 2016. Puzzles of the democratic peace: theory, geopolitics and
the transformation of world politics. Springer.