In other words, in a democratic state when the issue of war is at hand, the decision-makers are going to be a lot more considerate to how going to war would affect the citizenry than would a dictator, because the people are the ones that may have to fight, or pay the cost of the war, or rebuild from the destruction the war may cause. A dictator or a monarch is not as likely to make these considerations, because they bear none of the aforementioned consequences of war – they simply make the decisions.
Liberals believe democracies don’t fight each other because of their belief in the “democratic peace theory”, first formulated by Kant (1795) in “Perpetual Peace”. Kant's (1795) theory stated that a majority of the people would never vote to go to war, unless in self-defense. Therefore, if all nations were republics, it would end war, because there would be no aggressors. (as cited in Doyle, 1983, p. 84) Alternate explanations have been proposed since, but the modern theory is principally the empirical claim that democracies rarely or never fight. Although there are few minor exceptions to the theory, such as the Spanish-American War in the late 19th century or the Kargil War between India and Pakistan in the late 20th century, history shows the theory to be very accurate. As in the case of WWII, the countries with democratic governments, which were the Allied Powers, collectively fought against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperialist Japan. As Nye (2008) has argued, “The nature of society, democratic or capitalist or communist, is not a sufficient predictor of how likely it is to go to war.” (p. 37) Indeed, many different states of many different types of government have waged war throughout history. In today’s war on terror, the spread of democracy is widely thought to be a way of quelling the threat of terrorism. According to author F. Gregory Gause III (2005), “The United States is engaged in what President George W. Bush has called a “generational challenge” to instill democracy in the Arab world.” (p. 411) B Gause (2005) subsequently argued that there is not necessarily a causal relationship between regime type and terrorism. A regime may be opposed to the terrorist activities happening within its state’s borders, and simply does not have the resources to fight the terrorist activities. However, there may be certain states that are pro-terrorist and that any war on terror must be a war against those states as well. The Bush administration has singled out states like Iran and Libya as example of such pro-terrorist states.
Economic interdependence is another significant reason as to why democracies don’t go to war with each other. Since democratic states are strong states economically, they acknowledge that to maintain their wealth, they need the trade they interact with other nations – especially other democratic strong states. They cannot do so in a state of hostility or outright war. In the words of 19th century French economist Frederik Bastiat, ‘“If goods cannot cross borders, armies will.”’(As cited in Jervis, 2008, p. 385) Countries prefer to bolster their economic and political wealth through peaceful means, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t resort to violent means to achieve those ends. This is how the democratic peace theory postulated by liberal theorists is limited: Democracies would fight each other if it is absolutely necessary. Even though democracies waging war against each other has been a rare occurrence throughout history and is always unlikely, there’s always the possibility that two democratic states could have some lesser military conflict, if not full-out war.
References
Doyle, M. W. (1983). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Blackwell Publishing. (9th ed.), International Politics (p. 83-95). New York: Pearson-Longman.
Gause, G. F. (2005). Can Democracy Stop Terrorism? (9th ed.), International Politics (p. 411-418). New York: Pearson-Longman.
Jervis, R. (1978). Offense, Defense, and the Security Dilemma. John Hopkins University Press. (9th ed.), International Politics (p. 153-173). New York: Pearson-Longman.
Nye, J. S. (2008). Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History (7th ed.). New York: Pearson-Longman.
