Democratic Peace Theory, is it real?

Satisfactory Essays
This topic has provoked scholars of different kinds to write in its favor and against it. It is therefore a topic of huge controversy going by the support and criticism it has been given. Developed in the 18th century by Immanuel Kant, the democratic peace theory argues that democratic nations are hard to engage in wars with other democracies. The purpose of this article is to describe, evaluate and conclude the theory of democratic peace.
The theory of democratic peace is a classical idea that has been cited repeatedly by scholars. While Kant was not a darling of democracy, he wrote about perpetual peace, which he describes would only happen if states achieve a form of civil constitution. To him, perpetual peace exists when a regime honors property owned by citizens and when citizens live equally being the subjects based on a representative government that is built on the premise of separation of powers. The theory of democratic peace is therefore built on the proposition that some negative elements of government can be disabled to make a nation thrive in an international arena. This majorly entails elements of war. This idea is strengthened by the fact that relations between states in an international setting are not provoked by benefits of one nation being a burden to another. Instead, these relations are based on a mutual benefit and togetherness. If that proposition is anything to go by, it loses it meaning when states behave contrary to what they suggest on an international platform. The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained...

... middle of paper ...

... the recent past, the idea of global security has been used as a reason for war. For example, the USA engagement in war against Afghanistan and Iraq was based on the argument of promoting peace in the name of democracy. This is a perfect example of how the interpretation of democracy can lead to hostility among nations.
In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism. It lacks uniformity in defining the key principles of democracy and liberalism despite being in line with the modern world where countries want inclusion in efforts to become globalized. To end my argument, the theory can be said to be a double-edged sword whereby it can lead to peace or justify war. With more succinct and clear definitions, the theory is okay in a modern world.
Get Access