Christopher Hormazabal PSCI 2223-100 Midterm 1 The question as to whether democracy causes peace can be a tricky question to answer, as correlation does not always equal causation. However, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that democratic nations tend to not engage in war with each other, and they tend to maintain peace within themselves. This occurs for a number of reasons, such as an increased sense of accountability for their leaders, the ability to overcome information problems and send credible signals and threats, and bargaining norms of mutual respect and non-violence (Friedan et al., 2019). All of these factors combined lead many to the conclusion that war amongst other mature d emocractic states, is not only rare, but extremely unlikely. The first argument of democratic peace is accountability. In terms of going to war, it is important to discuss the aspect of the costs of war, and how this relates to accountability for the leader’s decision making. Largely speaking, the main costs of war are paid by society, and the people’s whose lives are lost within wars. The leaders who make the decision to go to war largely do not face the brunt of the cost. “The interests of the ruler and the ruled were not aligned: the ruler enjoyed the benefit of war, while the people paid its costs.” (Friedan et al., 2019). The concept of accountability helps solve this issue. Democratic nations have a much greater sense of accountability for their rulers, making the decision to go to war much more costly for democratic rulers. “...political institutions that foster broad representation would serve to align the interests of the ruler and the ruled, making those with the power to decide on war sensitive to the costs that their decisions impose on others.” (Friedan et al., 2019). This argument, summed up, states that citizens within a democratic nation have a much broader influence over their government and the policy decisions, as well as the ability to “punish” their rulers politically for unpopular policy decisions such as war. “a democratic leader values war less than the nondemocratic leader because the political implications of losing are worse.” (Friedan et al., 2019). Another argument for democratic peace is the ability to overcome information problems and send credible threat signals. This argument begins with the idea that democracies can influence bargaining interactions between other states so that the outcome of such interactions is peaceful, because they can overcome these information problems much easier than non democratic nations (Friedan et al., 2019). “democratic political systems are much more transparent than nondemocratic systems because democratic processes are more open and observable.” (Friedan et al., 2019). Many democratic nations have freely observable processes that are open for debate throughout a legislative process. Disagreements within government are also publicly broadcasted in a way which even foreign nations can get a glimpse of the favorability of certain policies, such as those relating to war (Friedan et al., 2019). The free press also allows for the public to access information about decision making that otherwise would not be available within an autocracy. Because of these listed examples, when democratic nations are bargaining with each other, there is not a lack of information. Lack of information can lead to mistrust and less of an incentive to conceal information, which can be a cause of conflict and war (Friedan et al., 2019). This also leads to democracies making much more credible threats when bargaining. Public threats are much more costly to make for democratic nations when compared to non-democratic nations. Democratic leaders are held much more accountable politically. “public threats made by democratic leaders are more informative because they are costlier to make.” (Friedan et al., 2019). Therefore, democratic nations can communicate and bargain without escalating towards conflict. (Friedan et al., 2019). These arguments lead to a strong case suggesting that democratic nations fosture peace within themselves, but they are not without limitations. These arguments can explain why democratic nations do not go to war with each other, but it does not properly address the fact that democracies are equally as prone to war with non democratic nations (Friedan et al., 2019). Overall, this argument can be explained with a simple counter example that goes as follows. Democracies can be made a target for exploitation by autocracies who undermine their willingness to engage in conflict, leading to an adverse effect of which brings them peace with other democratic nations. (Friedan et al., 2019). Works Cited Frieden, J. A., Lake, D. A., & Schultz, K. A. (2019). World politics interests, interactions, institutions. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
