Democracies don’t attack each other. Discuss.
The scholar Steve Chan argued, “democracy is the best antidote for war” (Chan, 1997, p.
59). This statement offers a glimpse into the democratic peace theory, also referred to as the dyadic
peace. This theory defends that democratic states do not go to war with each other and they solve
international conflicts peacefully rather than violently. An extension of this democratic peace theory
is the monadic hypothesis, which argues that democracies are, not only more peaceful with other
democracies, but also more peaceful than any other regime type. There are also two debating
perspectives of the dyadic peace found in liberalism and realism. The former supports that liberal
ideas make democracies war-averse, whereas the latter declares the priority of any state is power,
which is what ultimately determines war or peace, and not an innate characteristic of this regime
type. In this essay, I will evaluate the significance of the democratic peace theory through the lenses
of the structural and normative hypothesis, and the monadic peace. Moreover, I will incorporate the
debate between liberalists and realists to my analysis to further assess the validity of the democratic
peace theory in international relations.
Democratic Peace Theory (DPT)
Democracies are said to be peaceful and to choose non-violent means to solve their
international conflicts. No wars have been fought between independent nations with elective
governments between 1789 and 1941 (Babst, 1972). Although the independence of a state and its
elective government do not necessarily make the state democratic, these two characteristics are
crucial to democracy, and for many experts, democracy on its own is a near-perfect sufficient
condition for peace (Gleditsch and Hegre, 1997). On the other hand, sceptic scholars argued that
this absence of wars is because very few stable democracies existed during that period, which is
why the dyadic peace theory has received more support post World War II, especially between 1989
Page 1! of 10
!
, and 1994 (Rousseau, 1996). Immanuel Kant first suggested the dyadic peace in his work “Perpetual
Peace”. He suggested three main factors which contribute to the peacefulness of democracies:
public opinion, international trade and the pacific union (Kant, 1795). The first factor claims that
the usual response of citizens, when and if their view is taken into account, is to reject war. Several
counterarguments argue it depends on how inclusive the government of a democracy is with public
opinion in matters of international conflict, which varies across democracies and is not constant. In
other words, this factor explains the dyadic peace only in instances where the government follows
the public’s preference. The validity of this factor also depends on what the public opinion is in a
specific country - even if all democracies were war-averse, the public opinion on particular conflicts
would vary across democracies. In fact, several Eastern European democracies have shown traces
of hyper-nationalism when facing a conflict with other democracies. Hyper-nationalism can isolate
the state, and it can make it approach conflicts and war recklessly due to the overconfidence it
provides to the state. Furthermore, even if the public opinion is generally peaceful regarding
democracies, it does not imply peacefulness with non-democracies. Nevertheless, democratic
leaders are sensitive to public attitudes; hence if the public is war-averse, they can expect little
support if force is used (Mintz and Geva, 1993). Thus, the public opinion factor supports the dyadic
peace but undermines the monadic hypothesis.
The second factor argued by Kant is the spirit of commerce. The economic advancement and
international involvement, which result from foreign trade, are supposed to discourage democracies
from conflict due to the probable economic losses. Nevertheless, wars have occurred between
countries that were part of trading agreements, which suggests that trade does not ensure peace. It is
also unclear the way in which this factor explains peace. Are states peaceful due to their trading
interests, or do states trade because they are on peaceful terms? If the answer is the latter and peace
the cause of trade, the spirit of commerce factor is undermined. However, peace is likely to be the
consequence of trade instead of the cause given that the interdependent relations generated through
Page 2! of 10
!
The scholar Steve Chan argued, “democracy is the best antidote for war” (Chan, 1997, p.
59). This statement offers a glimpse into the democratic peace theory, also referred to as the dyadic
peace. This theory defends that democratic states do not go to war with each other and they solve
international conflicts peacefully rather than violently. An extension of this democratic peace theory
is the monadic hypothesis, which argues that democracies are, not only more peaceful with other
democracies, but also more peaceful than any other regime type. There are also two debating
perspectives of the dyadic peace found in liberalism and realism. The former supports that liberal
ideas make democracies war-averse, whereas the latter declares the priority of any state is power,
which is what ultimately determines war or peace, and not an innate characteristic of this regime
type. In this essay, I will evaluate the significance of the democratic peace theory through the lenses
of the structural and normative hypothesis, and the monadic peace. Moreover, I will incorporate the
debate between liberalists and realists to my analysis to further assess the validity of the democratic
peace theory in international relations.
Democratic Peace Theory (DPT)
Democracies are said to be peaceful and to choose non-violent means to solve their
international conflicts. No wars have been fought between independent nations with elective
governments between 1789 and 1941 (Babst, 1972). Although the independence of a state and its
elective government do not necessarily make the state democratic, these two characteristics are
crucial to democracy, and for many experts, democracy on its own is a near-perfect sufficient
condition for peace (Gleditsch and Hegre, 1997). On the other hand, sceptic scholars argued that
this absence of wars is because very few stable democracies existed during that period, which is
why the dyadic peace theory has received more support post World War II, especially between 1989
Page 1! of 10
!
, and 1994 (Rousseau, 1996). Immanuel Kant first suggested the dyadic peace in his work “Perpetual
Peace”. He suggested three main factors which contribute to the peacefulness of democracies:
public opinion, international trade and the pacific union (Kant, 1795). The first factor claims that
the usual response of citizens, when and if their view is taken into account, is to reject war. Several
counterarguments argue it depends on how inclusive the government of a democracy is with public
opinion in matters of international conflict, which varies across democracies and is not constant. In
other words, this factor explains the dyadic peace only in instances where the government follows
the public’s preference. The validity of this factor also depends on what the public opinion is in a
specific country - even if all democracies were war-averse, the public opinion on particular conflicts
would vary across democracies. In fact, several Eastern European democracies have shown traces
of hyper-nationalism when facing a conflict with other democracies. Hyper-nationalism can isolate
the state, and it can make it approach conflicts and war recklessly due to the overconfidence it
provides to the state. Furthermore, even if the public opinion is generally peaceful regarding
democracies, it does not imply peacefulness with non-democracies. Nevertheless, democratic
leaders are sensitive to public attitudes; hence if the public is war-averse, they can expect little
support if force is used (Mintz and Geva, 1993). Thus, the public opinion factor supports the dyadic
peace but undermines the monadic hypothesis.
The second factor argued by Kant is the spirit of commerce. The economic advancement and
international involvement, which result from foreign trade, are supposed to discourage democracies
from conflict due to the probable economic losses. Nevertheless, wars have occurred between
countries that were part of trading agreements, which suggests that trade does not ensure peace. It is
also unclear the way in which this factor explains peace. Are states peaceful due to their trading
interests, or do states trade because they are on peaceful terms? If the answer is the latter and peace
the cause of trade, the spirit of commerce factor is undermined. However, peace is likely to be the
consequence of trade instead of the cause given that the interdependent relations generated through
Page 2! of 10
!
