The argument that democracies do not fight one another is a relatively easy

Authors Avatar

        Democratic peace is presently a theory that has come under fire from many individuals due to the complex nature in which it is applied to nations and their handling of foreign affairs. There are currently two accepted arguments: (1) Democracies do not fight one another because they are self-organizing systems and are therefore fundamentally distinct from other states, and (2) they are as prone to conflict with no democracies or quasi-democracies as no democracies are with one another. These views on democratic peace are one of a “… dyadic effect, which implies that democracies are only more peaceful with one another, and not a monadic effect, which would mean that democracies are more peaceful in their relations with all countries” (Rousseau 512).

        The argument that democracies do not fight one another is a relatively easy, while at the same time complex concept to argue. Many researchers try to argue that democratic peace is reliable based solely on liberal and democratic norms. It is not that norms are not unimportant; it is just that they are alone unable to explain why peace continues between democratic nations. The concept behind the statement democracies do not fight one another is supported by the fact that when two democracies confront one another in conflicts of interest, they are able to effectively apply democratic bargaining in their interaction, which then prevents most conflicts from escalating to a military conflict.  “In a conflict between democracies, by the time the two states are militarily ready for war, diplomats have had the opportunity to find a nonmilitary solution to the conflict” (Gartzke 2). It is also feasible to say that democracies do not fight one another due to trade interaction. Democracies are generally involved in the practice of liberal economic policy, meaning that to an extent international trade between many nations is undertaken. If one democratic nation is heavily involved in trade relations with another democratic nation then it is in neither of these nations best interest to get involved in a conflict that requires military intervention. “The possibility of a spurious correlation between domestic and international politics has been explored by an increasing number of researchers with results that seem to indicate that liberalism is at least partially responsible for the democratic peace” (Gartzke 3).  

Join now!

        Another explanation for democracies remaining at peace with one another is because they are self-organizing systems. “As systems, liberal democracies have more in common with science and the market than with undemocratic governments.  These similarities explain their peaceful relationships with one another” (diZerega 280). Because democracies are not hierarchically structured, they do not suffer from the problems hierarchical institutions do. A hierarchical government faces the problems of setting specific goals, and once these goals are set the system either achieves its goals or fails and disintegrates. With constitutional rules in place, a democratic system has no specific goals. Instead democracies ...

This is a preview of the whole essay