DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
in authoritarian foreign policies and this prompts democracies to act with more aggressive policies to protect their liberal democratic policies from being exploited. 14 The repressive policies of authoritarian states can create instability through producing violent extremism and refugees attempting to flee. 15 Authoritarian states have higher frequency internal systematic violence such as terrorism, genocide, politicide and democide. 16 Whilst the amount of internal violence has not been proven to correlate with having a predisposition to intensify militarised interstate disputes, authoritarian states do not face the same institutionalised constraints that impede involvement in conflict. 17 Therefore, the democratic peace theory can be understood through an analysis of the mechanics of democratic systems that promote peace.
Causes of war can be attributed to a multitude of factors, the lack of constitutional constraints in authoritarian regimes being one of them, however instability and regime changes also play a significant role. Whilst evidence shows democracies do not fight each other, there is not widespread support for monadic democratic peace, which claims democracies are less belligerent in general.18 No pair of personalist dictators or military regimes have been at war with each other since WWII either, alluding to the possibility of an illiberal peace. 19 Studies of both the democratic peace and illiberal peace phenomenon have found evidence that both mature democracies and mature authoritarian states are non-belligerent, whilst states in transition are more likely to be involved in military conflict. 20 This indicates that stability and length of a regime may be as important as democracy for contributing to regional and world peace. Political change, towards both democracy or authoritarianism, increases the likelihood of civil war. Thus, the current rise of authoritarianism may lead to conflict due to the political instability caused by the changing of regimes. Interestingly, transitions to democracy have been
Christopher Gelpi and Michael Griesdorf, ‘Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94’ (2001) 95(3) American Political Science Review 633. 14
Jacob Carozza 2017, ‘Democracy is Retreating, Authoritarianism is Rising’, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (Article, Fall/Winter 2017/8) <https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/democracyretreating-authoritarianism-rising>. 15
Alberto Abadie, ‘Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism’ (2004) NBER Working Paper Series 1; Barbara Harff, ‘No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955’ (2003) 97(1) American Political Science Review 57; Rudolph Rummel, Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence (Transaction Publishers, 1997). 16
Anais Marin, ‘Dictorial peace? Comparing the conflict-proneness of authoritarian regimes in post-Soviet Eurasia: a research agenda’ (2015) 59 Research Gate 1, 21; Bruce Russett and John Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (W.W Norton & Company, 2001). 17
Harald Müller and Jonas Wolff, ‘Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back’, Academia (Conference Paper, 9 August 2004) <https://www.academia.edu/2486355/Dyadic_Democratic_Peace_Strikes_Back_Reconstructing_the_Social_Co nstructivist_Approach_After_the_Monadic_Renaissance>. 18
Mark Peceny, Caroline Beer and Shannon Sanchez-Terry, ‘Dictatorial Peace?’ (2002) 96(1) American Political Science Review 15. 19
Anais Marin, ‘Dictorial peace? Comparing the conflict-proneness of authoritarian regimes in post-Soviet Eurasia: a research agenda’ (2015) 59 Research Gate 1, 18; Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, ‘Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War’ (2002) 56(2) International Organization 297. 20
- 70 -
