The Democratic Peace

Question: "The spread of democracy will have a dramatic effect on states’ foreign policies and in turn on the character of international relations. Assess the main arguments behind this position and the evidence that supports and contradicts it."

Answer: Democratic peace theory is a main tenet of the foreign policies of many modern nations. Democratic states and institutions act on the belief that democracy promotion is the most effective, certain way to ensure stability in the world order. Rather than subduing and controlling another state through imperialism, if a state can implement a coup or otherwise force regime change, the world will be safer for all democracies.

Empirically, it has been demonstrated that democracies do not go to war with other democracies, although they do go to war with non-democracies. Scholars do not agree about the mechanism or logic of this relationship, and it is questionable as to whether democracy qua democracy is the relevant variable in this relationship. Rather than pursuing a blanket policy of democracy promotion, states must be careful to determine what comprises “democracy” and what type of war (outbreak of war, smaller scale violence, insurgency) they wish to avert. Espousing a policy of promoting democratic institutions without democratic socialization could be inadvertently leading to a system of stable illiberal democracies that look nothing like what today’s democratic states and idealists wish to propagate. Foreign policymakers must be careful in acting upon the simplified definitions and quick fixes to systemic conflict.

Explanations for this observed trend exist from institutional to normative perspectives.

-       institutional explanations cite domestic level variables such as public opinion and separation of powers as constraints on conflict and violence.

o   Fearon’s audience costs and signaling

o   Lack of incentive to fight (Mintz and Geva and Diversionary Theory of War)

o   Other means through institutions, multilateral participation to solve problems

o   Lake: autocracies are more aggressive and have a greater imperial bias than democracies who have a lesser imperial bias (Microeconomic theory of the state)

-       Normative explanations cite social identity theory’s “us v them” categorization as well as the fact that liberal domestic norms are externalized to the systemic level.

o   Kant- norms externalized to international system

o   Shared sense of identity and mutual commitment to peace (Doyle)

o   Risse, Hemmer and Katzenstein, Tajfel, Social Identity Theory (us v them)

However, states that pursue democracy promotion as their “war insurance” could be causing less stability and more violence.

-       Partial or transitioning democracies are more conflict prone than full, completely democratized states. (Mansfield and Snyder)

-       There is a rise in illiberal democracy, which has institutional democracy but not liberal constitutional democracy (Zakaria).

A prescription for peace is to look further into the mechanism of the democratic peace that keeps democracies from fighting.

-       is there a spurious correlation? Is it economic liberalism, social liberalism, political stability, institutional liberalism? Is it common interests? (Realists, rationalists)

-       Or is it the liberal lifeworld (Habermas) or worldview that contributes to peaceful behavior? (constructivists)

-       If the latter, than institutional change won’t be as necessary as human and ideological liberalization.

The tools of foreign policy must change as well. States must promote liberal norms of peace, increase common interests (rationalist, realist), and pay close attention to helping new and transitional democracies find their footing and emerge as fully vested democratic nations.