Misplaced Pages

Democratic peace theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:33, 7 November 2005 editUltramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 edits Restored the correct and referenced version, added clarification.← Previous edit Revision as of 19:02, 7 November 2005 edit undoPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits definitions of monadic and dyadicNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{npov}} {{npov}}
The '''democratic peace theory''' or simply '''democratic peace''' (often '''DPT''' and sometimes '''democratic pacifism''') is a ] in ] and ] which holds that ]—specifically, ]—never or almost never go to ] with one another. A more general version is that all kinds of systematic violence is rare in and by democracies. Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among ] and has become influential in the policy world.
]]]


]
==History of the theory==
]
The idea came relatively late in political theory, one contributing factor being that democracies were very rare before the late nineteenth century. No ancient author seems to have thought so. Early authors referred to republics rather than democracies, since the word democracy had acquired a bad name until early modern times. ] believed that republics were by nature excellent war-makers and empire-builders, citing Rome as the prime example. It was ] who first foreshadowed the theory in his essay ''Perpetual Peace'' written in ],{{ref|Kant}} although he thought that democracy was only one of several necessary conditions for a perpetual peace. US President ] advocated the idea in politics during and after ].


In ], ] was the first to claim that statistical evidence supported the theory. Thereafter, an increasing amount of research has been done on the theory and related subjects. More than one hundred researchers have contributed to the literature according to an incomplete bibliography.{{ref|Bibliography}} Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among political scientists and has become influential in the policy world. Scholar ] made an oft-quoted assertion that the theory is "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations"{{ref|Quote}} The '''democratic peace theory''' or simply '''democratic peace''' (often '''DPT''' and sometimes '''democratic pacifism''') is a ] in ] and ] which holds that ]—specifically, ]—never or almost never go to ] with one another. A more general version is that all kinds of systematic violence is rare in and by democracies. Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among ] and has become influential in the policy world.


Personal political interests and differing interpretations of concepts such as 'war' and 'deomcracy' have lead to many similar but distinct theories. Nevertheless, these are all grouped together as 'Democratic Peace Theory', which is often shortened to 'DPT'.
]s of both ] parties have expressed support for the theory. ]: "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other."{{ref|Clinton}} ]: "And the reason why I'm so strong on democracy is democracies don't go to war with each other. And the reason why is the people of most societies don't like war, and they understand what war means.... I've got great faith in democracies to promote peace. And that's why I'm such a strong believer that the way forward in the Middle East, the broader Middle East, is to promote democracy."{{ref|Bush}}


==Statistical studies supporting the DPT== ==History of the Theory==
===Pre-]===
''War'' and ''liberal democracy'' can be defined in different ways. The studies supporting the DPT have often defined war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. This is the definition used in the ] which has also supplied the data regarding the wars and the militarized disputes for many of the studies. The early researcher ] required liberal democracies to have voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males and that the democracy should be older than 3 years at the start of the war. He also had some implicit criteria; for example, the chief officer of the democracy must have had a contested election. Another example is requiring that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election. Many researchers have used the ] which scores states for democracy on a continuous scale for every year from ] to ]. There are also many other data sets used in conflict research.{{ref|Data1}}{{ref|Data2}}
The idea came relatively late in political theory, one contributing factor being that democracies were very rare before the late nineteenth century. No ancient author seems to have thought so. Early authors referred to republics rather than democracies, since the word democracy had acquired a bad name until early modern times. ] believed that republics were by nature excellent war-makers and empire-builders, citing Rome as the prime example. It was ] who first foreshadowed the theory in his essay ''Perpetual Peace'' written in ],{{ref|Kant}} although he thought that democracy was only one of several necessary conditions for a ]. US President ] advocated the idea in politics during and after ].


===Modern Development of the Theory===
Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. They have concluded that no wars have been fought between liberal democracies and that this is statistically significant when compared with the wars fought with and between nondemocracies during the last two centuries. There is also much research showing that all kinds of systematic violence is rare in and by democracies.{{ref|Overview}}{{ref|Bibliography2}} Most statistical work has focused on the 19th and 20th centuries, but there is also some research on the applicability of the theory outside this period.{{ref|NeverWar}}
In ], ] was the first to claim that statistical evidence supported the theory. He published a paper asserting explicitly that no two democracies had ever been at war with each other. This was also claimed at greater length in ] by ], professor of ] at the ].


] was the first democratic peace theorist to observe the similarity to Kant, and published a largely accurate summary of Kant's essay. He, working with ], distinguished between the '''strong''' (or ''monadic'') form of the theory (that democracies tend to be peaceful in general) and the '''weak''' or ''dyadic'' form (that they tend to be peaceful with each other). He also studied the even weaker proposition that liberal regimes have less purely internal conflict.
''Militarized interstate disputes'' (MIDs) include the disputes that later will become wars but also the disputes causing less than 1000 or even no battle deaths but including for example a military display of force. There have been more than 2000 MIDs since 1816, allowing more detailed statistical analyses than when looking at wars. Research using a continuous measure of democracy shows that the most democratic nations have the least MIDs. There is an ongoing debate regarding whether it is the most authoritarian or the intermediate regimes that have the most MIDs. When examining these MIDs in more detail, the inter-liberal disputes have on the average more hostility, but are less likely to involve third parties, hostility is less likely to be reciprocated, when reciprocated the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life.{{ref|CharacMids}}{{ref|Three}}{{ref|NeuralMids}} Enduring militarized competition between democratic states is rare. After both states have become democratic, there is a decreasing probability for MIDs within a year and this decreases almost to zero within five years.{{ref|Rivalry}}


]s representing both ] parties have expressed support for the theory. ]: "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other."{{ref|Clinton}} Similar comments have come from ]{{ref|Bush}}.
In international crises that include the threat or use of military force, if the parties are democracies, then relative military strength has no effect on who wins. This is different from when nondemocracies are involved. This pattern is the same for both allied and nonallied parties.{{ref|WinLoss}}


==Political Use of the Theory==
Research also shows that wars involving democracies are less violent and that democracies have much less ].{{ref|Democide}} The most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few ]s, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of ].{{ref|CivilWar}} The fall of ] and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ] wars, ] wars, and the number of ] and ]s.{{ref|PostWWII}}
Most of that controversy surrounding DPT has arisen from the misuse of the theory, especially dyadic versions, to suggest that democracies are ''objectively better'' than non-democracies. This is a questionable claim: ] and ] never went to war with each other, but that is not an argument for a world of fascist dictatorships. Democratic peace theories are, in practice, used as an argument for ] and (somewhat hypocritically) for military intervention. For example, ] quoted it to justify the ].


For these reasons, democratic peace theory was until recently seen as a pro-western and pro-imperalist theory, reflecting ] ideas about the inevitable global triumph of western values. However, disappointment about the results of some post-Soviet democratisations and increasing scepticism about forced democratisation have eroded support for the assumption of inherent superiority of democracy. More recent dyadic theories also seek theoretical explanations for wars by democracies against non-democracies, including the'militant democracy' thesis, mentioned later in this article.
Democracies do sometimes attack nondemocracies. Many earlier papers found that democracies in general are as warlike as nondemocracies, but according to several recent papers democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions.{{ref|Monadic}} A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking other democracies, "militant" democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships. Most MIDs by democracies since ] have involved only four nations: the ], the ], ], and ].{{ref|MilPac1}}{{ref|MilPac2}} Research has examined the effect of different democratic institutions. One finding is that ] is associated with less external and internal systematic violence.{{ref|Prop1}}{{ref|Prop2}}


==Contents of the Theories==
==Causes==
One idea is that democracies have a common ] and that this creates good relations. However, there have been many wars between non-democracies that share a common culture. Democracies are however characterized by ], and therefore the inhabitants may be used to resolve disputes through ] rather than by force. This may reduce the use of force between democracies.


''Monadic'' theories claim that democracies tned to conduct their affairs more peaceably, whether with other democracies or not. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that two democracies are ''less likely'' to make war on each other than other pairs of states. This reflects most modern theories.
]]]
Another idea is that democracy gives influence to those most likely to be killed or wounded in wars, and their relatives and friends. However, democracies sometimes attack non-democratic states. One explanation is that these democracies were threatened or otherwise were provoked by the non-democratic states. This idea also suggests that the relationship in the DPT became stronger when graphic movies and television made wars less romantic.


''Dyadic'' theories claim that democracies are more peaceable with each other; but make various assertions about their relations to other states (The ''separate peace'' and ''militant democracy'' theories claim that democracies are ''more'' likely to go to war with non-democracies). Some dyadic theories, such as those forwarded by Babst, Singer, Rummel and Doyle claim that democracies, properly defined, have ''never'' made war on each other. They argue that there are special reasons why wars between democracies do not occur.
Studies show that democratic states are more likely than autocratic states to win the wars. One explanation is that democracies, for internal political and economic reasons, have greater resources. This might mean that democratic leaders are unlikely to select other democratic states as targets because they perceive them to be particularly formidable opponents. One study finds that interstate wars have important impacts on the fate of political regimes, and that the probability that a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war is particularly high in democratic states.{{ref|WarWinners}}


A democratic peace theory has to define what it means by "democracy" and what it means by "peace" (or, more often, "war"), and what it claims as the link between the two.
A ] explanation is that the participation of the public and the open debate send clear and reliable information regarding the intentions of democracies to other states. In contrast, it is difficult to know the intentions of nondemocratic leaders, what effect concessions will have, and if promises will be kept. Thus there will be mistrust and unwillingness to make concessions if at least one of the parties in a dispute is a nondemocracy.{{ref|Game}}


===Democracy===
The book '']'' explains the democratic and also a related ] peace by the human tendency to classify other humans into ] and ].
Democratic peace theorists have used different terms for the class of states they consider peaceable; Babst called them ], Rummell ], Doyle ]s. In general, these require not only that the government and legislature be chosen by free and genuinely contested elections, but more besides. Many researchers have used the ] which scores states for democracy on a continuous scale for every year from ] to ]. There are also many other data sets used in conflict research.{{ref|Data1}}{{ref|Data2}}


==Criticisms== ===War===
Many theorists have used the convenient list at the ] at the ], which compiled the wars from 1816 to 1991 with at least a thousand battlefield deaths. This data is particularly convenient for statistical analysis, and the large-scale statistical studies cited below have generally used this definition. This also includes the ], although it killed only 910 (or 936, or 960) soldiers. It satisfied most other criteria to be a war, and a few dozen deaths should not exclude it.
There are at least four logically distinguishable classes of criticism. One that the criteria has not been applied accurately to the historical record. For example, critics have argued that ] was a democracy at the time of ]. Another that the criteria are not appropriate. For example, critics may prefer that liberal democracy should exclude or include both of Germany and England at the time of WWI, rather than separate them into democratic and non-democratic. A third that the theory may not actually mean very much. For example, there were very few liberal democracies before the twentieth century. Democracies have fought many offensive ] and ] wars. A fourth that it is not democracy itself but some other external factor(s) associated with democratic states that explain the peace.


===Statistical Studies Supporting DPT===
These tend to overlap, being in fact complementary criticisms, and many critics make more than one of them. It is particularly hard to tell the first two classes apart on for example 1914 Germany and England, since they cannot be separated into democracy and nondemocracy using numerical factors like the percentage of the population having the right to vote, but must be separated by qualitative factors. These criticisms are discussed in the remaining sections.
Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. They have concluded that no wars have been fought between liberal democracies. ] has also been proved for these claims, when compared with the wars fought with and between nondemocracies during the last two centuries. However, democratic peace theories are highly controversial, and the findings of individual studies are often vigorously disputed.


''Militarized interstate disputes'' (MIDs) include the disputes that later will become wars but also the disputes causing less than 1000 or even no battle deaths but including for example a military display of force. When examining these MIDs in more detail, the inter-liberal disputes have on the average more hostility, but are less likely to involve third parties, hostility is less likely to be reciprocated, when reciprocated the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life.{{ref|CharacMids}}{{ref|Three}}{{ref|NeuralMids}}
==Specific historic examples==
{| {{prettytable}} ALIGN="left"
|+ '''Number of wars 1816-1991{{ref|NumberWars}}'''
|-
| Democracies vs. Democracies || 0
|-
| Democracies vs. Nondemocracies || 155
|-
| Nondemocracies vs. Nondemocracies || 198
|-
|Other studies show similar results.{{ref|NumberWars2}}
|}
Note that the following concerns the claim of no wars between liberal democracies and not other claims like fewer MIDs. More examples are discussed in the article about the book '']'' which also discuss the role of oligarchies. These and other possible counter-examples have been discussed in great detail in the literature.{{ref|Counter}}


Democracies do sometimes attack nondemocracies. Many earlier papers found that democracies in general are as warlike as nondemocracies, but according to several recent papers democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions.{{ref|Monadic}} A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking other democracies, "militant" democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships. Most MIDs by democracies since ] have involved only four nations: the ], the ], ], and ].{{ref|MilPac1}}{{ref|MilPac2}} Research has examined the effect of different democratic institutions. One finding is that ] is associated with less external and internal systematic violence.{{ref|Prop1}}{{ref|Prop2}}
===Liberal democracy?===
For the ] critics have argued that the ] was a democracy, (the ] was elected by universal male suffrage and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war), or that Britain was not a democracy (only three-fifths of British males could vote, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all). Supporters respond that the German ] had the executive power. He appointed and dismissed the ], the Imperial officials, and the officers. He could and did declare war together with the not democratically elected ], 30% of which was appointed by the Emperor, and most of the rest by the German princes. The Reichstag had little control over the executive power and its legislative power was greatly limited by the Bundesrat. The Emperor's appointees in the Bundesrat could themselves veto amendments to the ]. In 1913 the Chancellor ignored a ] and there were often threats of a military ] if the Reichstag should ignore the Emperor on important issues. In effect, therefore, especially in foreign and military affairs, there was little democratic control. The Emperor was also the King of ] which had 3/5 of the German population and the Prussian constitution gave him even greater power there. The landed ] of the ]s formed the officer corps of the army, dominated Prussia, and had strong influence on national politics as well.{{ref|WW2-1}}{{ref|WW2-2}}{{ref|WW2-3}}{{ref|WW2-4}}{{ref|1913}} If Britain was not a liberal democracy, then this is another reason why WWI was not a war between democracies. The last argument may however weaken the statistical support for the DPT, because fewer democracies mean fewer possible wars.


==Explanations==
There can be similar responses to other objections. During the ], only a small minority had the right to vote in the ], many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in ] were appointed or openly bought from the owners of ]s, and the ] could ] all laws. The defenders of DPT exclude the ] because, in addition to it being an internal conflict, in the ] less than 2/3 of the adult male population could vote, ] were censored and imprisoned, and there was never a competitive presidential election.{{ref|AmerCivWar}} Only a minority had the right to vote in the ]s before the ].{{ref|Boer}} ], the president of ] at the time of the ], used terror tactics to silence critical press and the previously independent judiciary, for example storming the ] in order to force the Chief Justice out of office. ], the president of the ] at the start of the latest conflicts with ], and ], the president of the ] during the ], can be criticized on similar grounds.{{ref|Arafat}} {{ref|Milosevic}} There was never a democratic election in the ] before the ]. All the ] presidents at the time of the conflicts with the U.S., like ], took their power in coup d'etats. At the time of the ], only one man in fifty could vote in ] and ].{{ref|Pacific}} ] had the ] system and the monarchy retained important powers at the time of ].{{ref|SAW}}
Various explanations behind why deomcracies appear to be more peacful have been attempted.


One idea is that democracies have a common ] and that this creates good relations. However, there have been many wars between non-democracies that share a common culture. Democracies are however characterized by ], and therefore the inhabitants may be used to resolve disputes through ] rather than by force. This may reduce the use of force between democracies.
Some ] may have a form of democracy in the extended kinship group but no effective control of personal raids against non-kin groups. These often gradually involves friends and relatives and escalate to ] and wars. Examples include the ] who frequently raided and eventually destroyed most of the ]. Such tribes and liberal democracies have fought one another.


Studies show that democratic states are more likely than autocratic states to win the wars. One explanation is that democracies, for internal political and economic reasons, have greater resources. Alternatively, it might be suggested that democracies are more likely to target 'easy victories', given the high probability in deomcratic statesthat a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war.{{ref|WarWinners}}
===Liberal democracies before the nineteenth century?===


==Criticisms==
In ], ]s with limited democracy fought wars with one another. Most noted is the ] by the ] against ]. These states had large numbers of non-voting ]s and ]s. It is estimated that only 30-50% of adult males in Athens had the right to vote. The ] and ] had limited democracy and fought the three ]. There were persistent wars among ], ], ], and other ] city-states with limited democracy.
===Ward that Some Claim Involved Two or More Democracies===
Two classic cases of critcisms concern the ] of ], in which many see both the ] and ] as democracies in ]; and the First World War, in which some scholars have claimed that both Germany and the United Kingdom, on opposing sides, were democracies.


===Deaths in battle=== ===General Critcisms===
There are at least four logically distinguishable classes of criticism. Firstly, it is claimed that the criteria has not been applied accurately to the historical record. For example, some critics have argued that ] was a democracy at the time of ], whilst most studies claim it was not.
The rule of at least 1000 killed in battle excludes attacks by one democracy on another in such overwhelming force that there is no effective resistance, and thus few deaths in battle. Some ] and small scale foreign interventions by the United States may be examples. One example is the non-battle deaths of 4000 ] indians during the ] in ]. The Cherokees had created a republican constitution in ] that in theory had many democratic rights. However, the nation allowed slaveholding and become increasingly authoritarian, in the end beating, censoring and even murdering those advocating a voluntary removal. The state of ] decreed that the government was dissolved in ] which was before three years had passed since the creation of the constitution.{{ref|Cherokee}}


Secondly, many believe that the criteria for democracies are not historically appropriate. For example, critics may prefer that liberal democracy should exclude or include both of Germany and England at the time of WWI, rather than separate them into democratic and non-democratic.
Democracies have engaged in covert conflict resulting in a change of regime on the losing side. The British- and American-supported ] coup d'etat in ] against ] and the ] U.S.-backed coup in ], led by ] are examples of such events, also excluded.


Thirdly, it is claimed that the theory may not actually mean very much. This is because there very few liberal democracies before the twentieth century, which itself was dominated by the ] - an idelogical struggle between democratic and non-democratic states.
Five months after the start of the ], the United Kingdom reluctantly issued a formal ] on ] due to pressure from ]. However, the United Kingdom's only significant act of war happened prior to the declaration (a ] raid on German-run mining operations in ]), Finland spent the ] fighting a totalitarian opponent who had previously attacked the nation, the United Kingdom and Finland for almost the whole of WWII carefully avoided attacking one another, and the casualties were too few to be classified as a war statistically.{{ref|Finland}} There have been very few formal declarations of war since WWII and using this as the definition of war would mean that for example the US has fought no wars since WWII. The lavish material support the United Kingdom and the United States provided to Soviet Union raises the question if democracies can make war against other democracies through ].


Fourthly, it is claimed that it is not democracy itself but some other external factor(s) associated with democratic states that explain the peace. Alternative explanations include:
Many of the above cases are MIDS, not wars, and as noted earlier the DPT only claims fewer MIDs between democracies, not that they do not exist.
*The comparitavely high affluence of democratic nations
*The low proportion of democratic nations in the world means their geographic isolation; wars with neighbours have thus been with non-democratic states
*The ] peace was maintained not through the shared democratic values of the 'First World', but by the antagonism between two conflciitng ideologies


===Rummel's time limit=== ===Correlation is not causation===
Rummel's version of the DPT has a requirement that the democracies must be stable and therefore must be older than three years. This excludes the war between the ] and the ], the ]-] war between ] and the ], and the ]-] war between ] and ]. The ] is excluded if one considers the Ottoman Empire to have become democratic after the first election in November ] or when the constitution was amended so that the parliament could control the cabinet in April ]. The war started in October ], which would be before four years had passed. Critics instead argue that democracy occurred in July 1908 when a constitution was introduced. It is also doubtful if the opposing Christian states fulfill the democratic criteria since the Kings continued to have extensive powers in all of them. Studies using the Polity data set have required a score of least 7 out of 10, which excludes the French Second Republic (6), the Ottoman Empire (3), Croatia (3), and Yugoslavia (0) at the time of the wars.{{ref|Polity}}

The time limit and other requirements like democratic institutions and elections on both sides also exclude ]s within democracies over legitimacy or secession, such as the American Civil War, the ] War, the ] and the ] which followed, and the ] civil wars in ], ], ] and ].

==Colonial wars and imperialism==
One criticism against a general peacefulness for democracies is that they were involved in more colonial and imperialistic wars than other states during the 1816-1945 period. On the other hand, this relation disappears if controlling for factors like power and number of colonies. Democracies have less of these wars than other states after 1945. This might be related to changes in the perception of non-European peoples, as embodied in the ].{{ref|Colonial}}

Related to this is the human rights violations committed against ], sometimes by liberal democracies. One response is that many of the worst crimes were committed by nondemocracies, like in the European colonies before the nineteenth century, in King ]'s privately owned ], and in ]'s ]. England abolished and fought ] throughout the world when the nation become more democratic.

==Correlation is not causation==
A statistical ] does not establish ]. Critics have thus argued that the absence of wars and the few MIDs may be explained by other factors in democratic states that are not related to democracy. Supporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability.{{ref|DoesDemoPeace}}{{ref|ConMulAna}}{{ref|RuleOfThree}} Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy.{{ref|RevCausa1}}{{ref|RevCausa2}}{{ref|RevCausa3}} A statistical ] does not establish ]. Critics have thus argued that the absence of wars and the few MIDs may be explained by other factors in democratic states that are not related to democracy. Supporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability.{{ref|DoesDemoPeace}}{{ref|ConMulAna}}{{ref|RuleOfThree}} Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy.{{ref|RevCausa1}}{{ref|RevCausa2}}{{ref|RevCausa3}}

===The Kantian peace theory===
]
], one intergovernmental organization]]
Several studies find that more ] causing greater economic ] and membership in more ] reduce the risk of war. Democracy, interdependence, and intergovernmental organizations are positively related to each other but each has an independent pacifying effect. This is often called the Kantian peace theory since it is similar to Kant's earlier theory about a perpetual peace.{{ref|Kantian1}}{{ref|Kantian2}} However, other studies find an effect from more democracy but no effect from more trade.{{ref|TradeDubious}}

===Economic development===
One study indicates that independently of trade, democracy is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. This level is quite low and 91% of all the democratic pairs passed this criteria during the 1885–1992 period and all in 1992. Still, higher economic development than this makes the effect of democracy stronger. Low economic development may hinder development of liberal institutions and values.{{ref|Gdp}}

===Geographic isolation===
Critics have argued that few democracies mean that they are geographically isolated and thus unable to make war with one another. As described above, several of the studies finding evidence for the DPT have controlled for this. One study has demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more geographically separated than non-democratic pairs.{{ref|Geography}} Today more than 50% of all nations are democratic.{{ref|DemoCent}}

===The Cold War peace===
] has argued that the ] was responsible for creating the illusion of a democratic peace. The United States and the Soviet Union "assumed dominance of what became essentially a bipolar world". The democratic states had a common interest due to the threat from the Communist states and allied with each other. She present statistical research that before 1914 inter-democratic MIDs were as likely as MIDs involving at least one nondemocracy. Looking at the time before the ], 1816-1904, she finds that the democratic states were less likely to ally and more likely to engage in MIDs with one another.{{ref|Gowa}} At least one other study has shows similar results.{{ref|GowaSupp}}

While not statistical evidence, one intuitive counter-argument is that external threat did not prevent wars between the Communist states and did not prevent wars beteen democracies and nondemocracies in the Western bloc.{{ref|ComWars}}

Such wars include the ], the ], and the ]. There were also minor conflicts, not meeting the threshold of deaths, particularly the ] and the ]. In the Western bloc such wars include ] invasion of ] in ], at a time when Cyprus had British military bases and close ties to Turkey's NATO partner ]. Another is the ]. However, the US put pressure on the combatants to stop the Football War which fits the bloc peace theory. A third is the ] US invasion of the ]. The ] and the ] may also be wars within the Western bloc, because Iraq belonged to ], the US and the UK were also member, and the UK had nuclear weapons deployed on Cyprus for the defense of CENTO until 1975.{{ref|Atomic}} Israel received extensive aid during the Yom Kippur War from the US. Bloc peace theory supporters note that the Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1972. All of these wars had more than 1000 military casualties. The ] almost qualify.{{ref|Deaths}}

More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.{{ref|Kantian1b}}{{ref|Neural2}} Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies.{{ref|WinLoss2}} Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like ] show support for the DPT.{{ref|Alliance}}

DPT supporters also argue that there has been continued peace between democracies after the end of the Cold War. Critics disagree and even if true they note that the ] and NATO still exist and that they contain some of the democracies capable of maintaining a war. However, there are many democracies outside Europe.{{ref|GlobalFreedom}} The threat from the Communist states which Gowa thought explained both the peace and the existence of alliances between democracies such as NATO has largely disappeared. Contrary to what could be expected from Gowa's theory, the fall of Communism was accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in interstate warfare and other armed conflicts{{ref|PostWWIIWars}}. Some researchers argue that the increase in democracy associated with the end of the Cold War is the main cause for this decline in armed conflicts while others note that there has also been an increase in intermediate regimes and as noted earlier such states may be particularly prone to civil war. Other explanations for the decline in armed conflicts is the end of ] and the Cold War itself. {{ref|Security}}{{ref|Clock}}

==See also==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


== References == == References ==
Most of the following are from Rummel's extensive :
#{{note|Kant}} {{Citepaper | Author=Kant, Immanuel | Title=Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch | PublishYear=1795 | URL=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm }}
#{{note|Bibliography}} {{Web reference_author | Author=Rummel, R.J | Title=Democratic Peace Bibliography Version 3.0 | Work=Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War | URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/BIBLIO.HTML | Date=October 2 | Year=2005}}
#{{note|Quote}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Ray, Jamee Lee | Title= Does Democracy Cause Peace?| Journal=Annual Review of Political Science | Year=1998 | Volume=1 | Pages=27–46 | URL=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm}}
#{{note|Clinton}} {{Citepaper | Author=Clinton, Bill | Title=1994 State Of The Union Address | PublishYear=1994 | URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou94.htm }}
#{{note|Bush}} {{Web reference_simple | title=President and Prime Minister Blair Discussed Iraq, Middle East | URL=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041112-5.html| date=October 3| year=2005}}
#{{note|Data1}} {{Web reference | title=Conflict Data Set | work=Stockholm International Peace Research Institute | URL=http://www.sipri.org/contents/conflict/conflictdatasets.html| date=October 3 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Data2}} {{Web reference | title=Data| work=Peter D. Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation| URL=http://www.watson.rochester.edu/resources/data.html| date=October 3 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Overview}} Ray, 1998.
#{{note|Bibliography2}} {{Web reference_author | Author=Rummel, R.J | Title=Democratic Peace Bibliography Version 3.0 | Work=Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War | URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/BIBLIO.HTML | Date=October 2 | Year=2005}}
#{{note|NeverWar}} {{Book reference | Author=Weart, Spencer R | Title=Never at War | Publisher =Yale University Press | Year=1998 | ID=ISBN 0300070179 }}
#{{note|CharacMids}} {{Citepaper_version | Author=Wayman, Frank| Title=Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992| PublishYear=2002 | Version=Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002 | URL=http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/wayman.html}}
#{{note|Three}} {{Citepaper_version | Author=Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russet | Title=Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Really Is Better | PublishYear=2004 | Version=Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society| URL=http://www.saramitchell.org/russettoneal04.pdf}}
#{{note|NeuralMids}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Beck, Nathaniel, Gary King, and Langche Zend | Title=Theory and Evidence in International Conflict: A Response to de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski | Journal=American Political Science Review | Year=2004 | Volume=98(2) | Pages= 379–389 | URL=http://www.nyu.edu/classes/nbeck/q2/toe-resp.pdf }}
#{{note|Rivalry}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Hensel, Paul R., Gary Goertz, and Paul F. Diehl | Title=The Democratice Peace and Rivalries | Journal=Journal of Politics | Year=2000 | Volume=64 | Pages= 1173–88 | URL=http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~phensel/Research/jop00.pdf }}
#{{note|WinLoss}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Gelpi, Christopher F., and Michael Griesdorf | Title=Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94 | Journal=American Political Science Review | Year=2001 | Volume=95(3) | Pages= 633–647 | URL=http://www.duke.edu/~gelpi/democratic.winners.pdf }}
#{{note|Democide}} {{Web reference_author | Author=Rummel, R.J | Title=The Democratic Peace | Work=Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War | URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM | Date=October 2 | Year=2005}}
#{{note|CivilWar}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Hegre, Håvard, Tanja Ellington, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gleditsch | Title=Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992 | Journal=American Political Science Review | Year=2001 | Volume=95 | Pages=33–48| URL=http://www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/peace.htm }}
#{{note|PostWWII}} {{Web reference | title=Global Conflict Trends | work=Center for Systematic Peace | URL=http://members.aol.com/CSPmgm/conflict.htm| date=October 1| year=2005}}
#{{note|Monadic}} {{Citepaper_version | Author=Müller, Harald, and Jonas Wolff | Title=Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back| PublishYear=2004a | Version=Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9-11, 2004| URL=http://www.sgir.org/conference2004/papers/Mueller%20Wolff%20-%20Dyadic%20Democratic%20Peace%20Strikes%20Back.pdf}}
#{{note|MilPac1}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Müller, Harald | Title=The Antimony of Democratic Peace | Journal=International Politics | Year=2004b | Volume=41(4) | Pages= 494–520 | URL=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/ip/2004/00000041/00000004/art00003 }}
#{{note|MilPac2}} Müller, 2004a
#{{note|Prop1}} {{Journal reference url | Author=David Leblang and Steve Chan | Title=Explaining Wars Fought by Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints Matter? | Journal= Political Research Quarterly | Year=2003 | Volume=56 | Pages= 385–400 | URL=http://www.prq.uncc.edu/December_2003abs.htm }}
#{{note|Prop2}} {{Citepaper_version | Author=Binningsbø, Helga Malmin| Title=Consociational Democracy and Postconflict Peace. Will Power-Sharing Institutions Increase the Probability of Lasting Peace after Civil War? | PublishYear=2005 | Version=Paper prepared for presentation at the 13th Annual National Political Science Conference, Hurdalsjøen, Norway, 5–7 January, 2005.| URL=http://www.statsvitenskap.uio.no/konferanser/nfkis/cr/Binningsbo.pdf}}
#{{note|WarWinners}} Ray, 1998.
#{{note|Game}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Levy, Gilat, and Ronny Razin | Title=It Takes Two: An Explanation for the Democratic Peace | Journal=Journal of the European Economic Association | Year=2004 | Volume=2(1) | Pages= 1–29 | URL=https://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/jeea_2_1_1_0.pdf }}
#{{note|NumberWars}} {{Book reference | Author=Rummel, R.J | Title=Death by Government | Publisher = Transaction Publishers | Year=1994 | ID=ISBN 1560009276 | URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM }}
#{{note|NumberWars2}} Ray, 1998.
#{{note|Counter}} {{Web reference | title=Annotated Bibliography | work=The Miracle That Is Freedom: The Solution to War, Violence, Genocide, and Poverty| URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MTF.ANNOTBIBLIO.HTM| date=October 3 | year=1995}}
#{{note|WW2-1}} {{Web reference | title=Imperial Germany| work=Country Studies, Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress| URL=http://countrystudies.us/germany/28.htm| date=October 3 | year=1995}}
#{{note|WW2-2}} {{Citeencyclopedia | ency=The Columbia Encyclopedia | edition=6 | year=2001 | article=Prussia}}
#{{note|WW2-3}} {{Web reference | title=The Second Empire until 1914| work=Lecture Notes, Germany and Europe, 1871-1945| URL=http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyB1.html| date=October 3 | year=2005}}
#{{note|WW2-4}} {{Citepaper_publisher | Author=Quick, John| Title=A Digest of Federal Constitutions| Publisher=The University of Sidney| PublishYear=1896 | URL=http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/setis/id/fed0030}}
#{{note|1913}} {{Web reference_author | Author=Gerard, James W | Title=Chapter 1 My first year in Germany | Work=My Four Years in Germany| URL=http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/memoir/Gerard/4yrs1.htm| Date=October 3 | Year=2005}}
#{{note|AmerCivWar}} {{Book reference | Author=Ray, James Lee | Title=Democracy and International Conflict | Publisher=University of South Carolina Press | Year=1995 | ID=ISBN 1570030413 }} p. 110-111. Weart, 1998, p. 114-119, 311.
#{{note|Boer}} {{Citeencyclopedia | ency=Encyclopedia Britannica| edition=11 | year=1911 | article=Orange Free State and Transvaal}}
#{{note|Arafat}} {{Web reference | title=World Report 2001: Israel, the Occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories | work=Human Rights Watch| URL=http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/israel.html| date=October 26 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Milosevic}} {{Citepaper_version | Author=Nedovic, Slobodanka, et al.| Title=Guide Through Electoral Controverseries in Serbia| PublishYear=2000 | Version=Centar Za Slobodne Izobre I Demoratiju| URL=http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN017176.pdf}}
#{{note|SAW}} Ray, 1995, p. 111-115. Weart, 1998, p. 141-2, 204-205, 311.
#{{note|Pacific}} Weart, 1998, p. 67.
#{{note|Cherokee}} Weart, 1998, p. 225-226, 306-7.
#{{note|Finland}} Weart, 1998, p. 313.
#{{note|Polity}} {{Web reference_simple | title=Polity IV Project | URL=http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/| date=October 26 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Colonial}} {{Citepaper_version | Author=Ravlo, Hilde, and Nils Peter Glieditsch | Title=Colonial War and Globalization of Democratic Values| PublishYear=2000 | Version=Paper Presented to the Workshop on ‘Globalization and Armed Conflict’ at the Joint Session of Workshops, European Consortium for Political Research Copenhagen, 15–19 April 2000| URL=http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/copenhagen/ws18/ngleditsch_p.pdf }}
#{{note|DoesDemoPeace}} Ray, 1998.
#{{note|ConMulAna}} {{Citepaper_version | Author=Ray, James Lee | Title=Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of dangerous dyads) | PublishYear=2003 | Version=Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society| URL=http://www.saramitchell.org/ray05.pdf}}
#{{note|RuleOfThree}} Oneal, 2004
#{{note|RevCausa1}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Mousseau, Michael, and Yuhand Shi | Title=A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic Peace Relationship | Journal=Journal for Peace Research | Year=1999 | Volume=36(6) | Pages= 639–663 | URL=http://home.ku.edu.tr/~mmousseau/Mous_Shi_JPR_Nov99.pdf }}
#{{note|RevCausa2}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Reiter, D| Title=Does Peace Nature Democracy? | Journal=Journal of Politics| Year=2001 | Volume=63(3) | Pages= 935–948 | URL=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jopo/2001/00000063/00000003/art00095 }}
#{{note|RevCausa3}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Reuveny, Rafael, and Quan Li | Title=The Joint Democracy–Dyadic Conflict Nexus: A Simultaneous Equations Model| Journal=Journal of Politics| Year=2003 | Volume=47 | Pages= 325–346 | URL=http://polisci.la.psu.edu/faculty/li/research_papers/paper_files/jointdem_isq_2003.pdf}}
#{{note|Kantian1}}{{Journal reference url | Author=Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russet | Title=The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations| Journal=World Politics | Year=1999 | Volume=52(1) | Pages= 1–37 | URL=http://www.yale.edu/unsy/brussett/KantianPeaceWP.pdf }}
#{{note|Kantian2}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Russet, B., and J.R. Oneal, and D. R. David | Title=The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950–85 | Journal=International Organization| Year=1998 | Volume=52(3) | Pages= 441–467 | URL=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mitpress/io/1998/00000052/00000003/art00001}}
#{{note|TradeDubious}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Goenner, Cullen F| Title=Uncertainty of the Liberal Peace| Journal= Journal of Peace Research| Year=2004 | Volume=41(5) | Pages= 589–605 | URL=http://www.business.und.edu/goenner/research/Papers/LiberalPeaceV4.3.pdf}}
#{{note|Gdp}} {{Journal reference url | Author=Mousseau, Michael, Håvard Hegre, and John R. Oneal | Title=How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace| Journal=European Journal of International Relations | Year=2003 | Volume=9(2) | Pages= 227–314 | URL=http://home.ku.edu.tr/~mmousseau/Mous_Hegre_Oneal_EJIR_Jun03.pdf}}
#{{note|Geography}} Ray, 1998.
#{{note|DemoCent}} {{Web reference | title=Democracy's Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20th Century | work=Freedom House | URL=http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html | date=October 3 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Gowa}}{{Book reference | Author=Gowa, Joanne| Title= Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace| Publisher=Princeton University Press| Year=1999 | ID=ISBN 0691070229}}
#{{note|GowaSupp}} {{Citepaper_publisher | Author=Beck, N., and Tucker R | Title=Democracy and Peace: General Law or Limited Phenomenon?| Publisher= Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association | PublishYear=1998 | URL=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/~rtucker/papers/dempeace/mwpsa98/}}
#{{note|ComWars}} Ray, 1998.
#{{note|Atomic}} {{Web reference | title=Where Her Majesty's weapons were| work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | URL=http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf01moore_050| date=October 3 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Deaths}} {{Web reference | title=Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century| work=Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century| URL=http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm| date=October 3 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Kantian1b}} Oneal, 1999
#{{note|Neural2}} {{Citepaper_publisher | Author=Lagazio, Monica, and Bruce Russet | Title=A Neural Network Analysis of Militarized Disputes, 1885-1992: Temporal Stability and Causal Complexity1| Publisher= in ''Toward a Scientific Understanding of War: Studies in Honor of J. David Singer.'', Diehl, Paul (ed.) | PublishYear=2003 | URL=http://www.yale.edu/unsy/brussett/NeuralNets.pdf}}
#{{note|WinLoss2}} Gelpi, 2001.
#{{note|Alliance}} Ray, 1998.
#{{note|GlobalFreedom}} {{Web reference | title=Freedom in the World 2004: Selected Data from Freedom House's Annual Global Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties | work=Freedom House| URL=http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/survey2004.htm| date=October 3 | year=2005}}
#{{note|PostWWIIWars}} {{Web reference | title=Global Conflict Trends | work=Center for Systematic Peace | URL=http://members.aol.com/CSPmgm/conflict.htm| date=October 1| year=2005}}
#{{note|Security}} {{Web reference | title=The Human Security Report 2005 | work=Human Security Centre | URL=http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1| date=October 18 | year=2005}}
#{{note|Clock}} {{Web reference | title=Democratic peace clock| work=Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War| URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM| date=October 18 | year=2005}}


*Beck, Nathaniel, and Richard Tucker. Midwest Political Science Association: April 1998.
== Further reading ==
*
*Brown, Michael E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller. ''Debating the Democratic Peace''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. ISBN 0262522136.
*Doyle, Michael W. ''Ways of War and Peace''. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. ISBN 0393969479. *Brown, Michael E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller. ''Debating the Democratic Peace''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
*Doyle, Michael W. ''Ways of War and Peace''. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997.
*Gowa, Joanne. ''Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace''. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. ISBN 0691070229.
*Gowa, Joanne. ''Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace''. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
*Huth, Paul K., et al. ''The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century''. Cambridge University Press: 2003. ISBN 0521805082. *Huth, Paul K., et al. ''The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century''. Cambridge University Press: 2003. ISBN 0521805082.
*Levy, Jack S. “Domestic Politics and War.” ''Journal of Interdisciplinary History'', Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988), pp. 653-673.
*Lipson, Charles. ''Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace''. Princeton University Press: 2003. ISBN 0691113904. *Lipson, Charles. ''Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace''. Princeton University Press: 2003. ISBN 0691113904.
*
*Plourde, Shawn May, 2004
*Ray, James Lee. ''Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition''. University of South Carolina Press: 1998. ISBN 1570032416. *Ray, James Lee. ''Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition''. University of South Carolina Press: 1998. ISBN 1570032416.
*Ray, James Lee. ''Annual Review of Political Science'' 1998:1, 27-46
*Rummel, R.J. ''Power Kills: Democracy As a Method of Nonviolence''. Transaction Publishers: 2003. ISBN 0765805235. *Rummel, R.J. ''Power Kills: Democracy As a Method of Nonviolence''. Transaction Publishers: 2003. ISBN 0765805235.
*Rummel, R.J.
*Russett, Bruce & Oneal, John R. ''Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations''. W. W. Norton & Company: 2001. ISBN 039397684X.
*Weart, Spencer R. ''Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another''. Yale University Press: 2000. ISBN 0300082983. *Russett, Bruce. ''Grasping the Democratic Peace''. Princeton University Press: 1994. ISBN 0691001642.
*Russett, Bruce and John R. O'Neal: ''Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations'' . New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
*Schwartz, Thomas, and Kiron Skinner. ''The Wall Street Journal''. January 7, 1999.


==External links== ==External links==
===Supportive=== ===Supportive===
* *
*
*
*
* a moderated webchat with ] hosted by the ], International Information Program. * a moderated webchat with ] hosted by the ], International Information Program.


Line 213: Line 104:
] ]
] ]

]

Revision as of 19:02, 7 November 2005

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Immanuel Kant

The democratic peace theory or simply democratic peace (often DPT and sometimes democratic pacifism) is a theory in political science and philosophy which holds that democracies—specifically, liberal democracies—never or almost never go to war with one another. A more general version is that all kinds of systematic violence is rare in and by democracies. Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among political scientists and has become influential in the policy world.

Personal political interests and differing interpretations of concepts such as 'war' and 'deomcracy' have lead to many similar but distinct theories. Nevertheless, these are all grouped together as 'Democratic Peace Theory', which is often shortened to 'DPT'.

History of the Theory

Pre-WWII

The idea came relatively late in political theory, one contributing factor being that democracies were very rare before the late nineteenth century. No ancient author seems to have thought so. Early authors referred to republics rather than democracies, since the word democracy had acquired a bad name until early modern times. Nicolo Machiavelli believed that republics were by nature excellent war-makers and empire-builders, citing Rome as the prime example. It was Immanuel Kant who first foreshadowed the theory in his essay Perpetual Peace written in 1795, although he thought that democracy was only one of several necessary conditions for a perpetual peace. US President Woodrow Wilson advocated the idea in politics during and after WWI.

Modern Development of the Theory

In 1964, Dean Babst was the first to claim that statistical evidence supported the theory. He published a paper asserting explicitly that no two democracies had ever been at war with each other. This was also claimed at greater length in 1979 by R.J. Rummel, professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii.

Michael Doyle was the first democratic peace theorist to observe the similarity to Kant, and published a largely accurate summary of Kant's essay. He, working with Bruce Russett, distinguished between the strong (or monadic) form of the theory (that democracies tend to be peaceful in general) and the weak or dyadic form (that they tend to be peaceful with each other). He also studied the even weaker proposition that liberal regimes have less purely internal conflict.

Presidents representing both American parties have expressed support for the theory. Bill Clinton: "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other." Similar comments have come from George W. Bush.

Political Use of the Theory

Most of that controversy surrounding DPT has arisen from the misuse of the theory, especially dyadic versions, to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. This is a questionable claim: Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy never went to war with each other, but that is not an argument for a world of fascist dictatorships. Democratic peace theories are, in practice, used as an argument for democratisation and (somewhat hypocritically) for military intervention. For example, Margaret Thatcher quoted it to justify the Falklands War.

For these reasons, democratic peace theory was until recently seen as a pro-western and pro-imperalist theory, reflecting historicist ideas about the inevitable global triumph of western values. However, disappointment about the results of some post-Soviet democratisations and increasing scepticism about forced democratisation have eroded support for the assumption of inherent superiority of democracy. More recent dyadic theories also seek theoretical explanations for wars by democracies against non-democracies, including the'militant democracy' thesis, mentioned later in this article.

Contents of the Theories

Monadic theories claim that democracies tned to conduct their affairs more peaceably, whether with other democracies or not. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that two democracies are less likely to make war on each other than other pairs of states. This reflects most modern theories.

Dyadic theories claim that democracies are more peaceable with each other; but make various assertions about their relations to other states (The separate peace and militant democracy theories claim that democracies are more likely to go to war with non-democracies). Some dyadic theories, such as those forwarded by Babst, Singer, Rummel and Doyle claim that democracies, properly defined, have never made war on each other. They argue that there are special reasons why wars between democracies do not occur.

A democratic peace theory has to define what it means by "democracy" and what it means by "peace" (or, more often, "war"), and what it claims as the link between the two.

Democracy

Democratic peace theorists have used different terms for the class of states they consider peaceable; Babst called them elective, Rummell liberal democracies, Doyle liberal regimes. In general, these require not only that the government and legislature be chosen by free and genuinely contested elections, but more besides. Many researchers have used the Polity Data Set which scores states for democracy on a continuous scale for every year from 1800 to 2003. There are also many other data sets used in conflict research.

War

Many theorists have used the convenient list at the Correlates of War Project at the University of Michigan, which compiled the wars from 1816 to 1991 with at least a thousand battlefield deaths. This data is particularly convenient for statistical analysis, and the large-scale statistical studies cited below have generally used this definition. This also includes the Falklands War, although it killed only 910 (or 936, or 960) soldiers. It satisfied most other criteria to be a war, and a few dozen deaths should not exclude it.

Statistical Studies Supporting DPT

Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. They have concluded that no wars have been fought between liberal democracies. Statistical significance has also been proved for these claims, when compared with the wars fought with and between nondemocracies during the last two centuries. However, democratic peace theories are highly controversial, and the findings of individual studies are often vigorously disputed.

Militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) include the disputes that later will become wars but also the disputes causing less than 1000 or even no battle deaths but including for example a military display of force. When examining these MIDs in more detail, the inter-liberal disputes have on the average more hostility, but are less likely to involve third parties, hostility is less likely to be reciprocated, when reciprocated the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life.

Democracies do sometimes attack nondemocracies. Many earlier papers found that democracies in general are as warlike as nondemocracies, but according to several recent papers democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions. A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking other democracies, "militant" democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships. Most MIDs by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and India. Research has examined the effect of different democratic institutions. One finding is that proportional representation is associated with less external and internal systematic violence.

Explanations

Various explanations behind why deomcracies appear to be more peacful have been attempted.

One idea is that democracies have a common culture and that this creates good relations. However, there have been many wars between non-democracies that share a common culture. Democracies are however characterized by rule of law, and therefore the inhabitants may be used to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than by force. This may reduce the use of force between democracies.

Studies show that democratic states are more likely than autocratic states to win the wars. One explanation is that democracies, for internal political and economic reasons, have greater resources. Alternatively, it might be suggested that democracies are more likely to target 'easy victories', given the high probability in deomcratic statesthat a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war.

Criticisms

Ward that Some Claim Involved Two or More Democracies

Two classic cases of critcisms concern the Spanish-American War of 1898, in which many see both the United States and Spain as democracies in 1898; and the First World War, in which some scholars have claimed that both Germany and the United Kingdom, on opposing sides, were democracies.

General Critcisms

There are at least four logically distinguishable classes of criticism. Firstly, it is claimed that the criteria has not been applied accurately to the historical record. For example, some critics have argued that Germany was a democracy at the time of WWI, whilst most studies claim it was not.

Secondly, many believe that the criteria for democracies are not historically appropriate. For example, critics may prefer that liberal democracy should exclude or include both of Germany and England at the time of WWI, rather than separate them into democratic and non-democratic.

Thirdly, it is claimed that the theory may not actually mean very much. This is because there very few liberal democracies before the twentieth century, which itself was dominated by the Cold War - an idelogical struggle between democratic and non-democratic states.

Fourthly, it is claimed that it is not democracy itself but some other external factor(s) associated with democratic states that explain the peace. Alternative explanations include:

  • The comparitavely high affluence of democratic nations
  • The low proportion of democratic nations in the world means their geographic isolation; wars with neighbours have thus been with non-democratic states
  • The Cold War peace was maintained not through the shared democratic values of the 'First World', but by the antagonism between two conflciitng ideologies

Correlation is not causation

A statistical association does not establish causality. Critics have thus argued that the absence of wars and the few MIDs may be explained by other factors in democratic states that are not related to democracy. Supporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability. Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy.

References

Most of the following are from Rummel's extensive bibliography:

  • Beck, Nathaniel, and Richard Tucker. Democracy and Peace: General Law or Limited Phenomenon? Midwest Political Science Association: April 1998.
  • Correlates of War Project
  • Brown, Michael E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller. Debating the Democratic Peace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
  • Doyle, Michael W. Ways of War and Peace. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997.
  • Gowa, Joanne. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
  • Huth, Paul K., et al. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press: 2003. ISBN 0521805082.
  • Levy, Jack S. “Domestic Politics and War.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988), pp. 653-673.
  • Lipson, Charles. Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. Princeton University Press: 2003. ISBN 0691113904.
  • Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2002
  • Plourde, Shawn Democide, Democracy and the Man from Hawaii May, 2004
  • Ray, James Lee. Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition. University of South Carolina Press: 1998. ISBN 1570032416.
  • Ray, James Lee. Does Democracy Cause Peace? Annual Review of Political Science 1998:1, 27-46
  • Rummel, R.J. Power Kills: Democracy As a Method of Nonviolence. Transaction Publishers: 2003. ISBN 0765805235.
  • Rummel, R.J. The Democratic Peace
  • Russett, Bruce. Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton University Press: 1994. ISBN 0691001642.
  • Russett, Bruce and John R. O'Neal: Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations . New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
  • Schwartz, Thomas, and Kiron Skinner. The Myth of Democratic Pacifism. The Wall Street Journal. January 7, 1999.

External links

Supportive

Critical

Categories: