Posted by: mensab | February 6, 2008

Democracy and War: Mutual or Oppositional or Neutral?

            Today, more states are embracing democracy than three decades ago.[1] In 2006, there were 77 democratic states compared to 49 anocracies[2] and 34 autocracies (Hewitt et. al., 2008, p.13). What does it mean to the peace and security of the world? Is the world getting more peaceful as more democracies are emerging? Indeed, there is “a distinct downward trend” of the number of both internal and interstate active armed conflicts (Ibid, 2008, p.12). However, the downward trend is attributed not to the rise of democratic states, but to the end of Cold War period.

According to Thomas Hobbes[3]  and Immanuel Kant (cited in Behler, 1986, p.276), the state of nature or natural state is a condition of war. Both philosophers treated peace as something to be established and endeavored by man/woman. Thus, how do we get out of this state of nature (condition of war)? Or how do we achieve peace?

To achieve peace, Kant proposed a league of nations, a federation of republican states under the law of nations which both secures and constrains freedom of states. In Kant’s idea, the expansion of this league would bring perpetual peace.

Is democracy a way out of this state of nature? Or does democratization (democracy has to start somewhere and sometime) reinforce this state of nature? The democratic peace proposition answers the first question positively. Ray (1998) believes that democracy causes peace. On the other hand, Mansfield and Snyder (2005) favor the second question. I shall attempt in this short essay to find out which of the two questions stands in scrutiny and analysis as more convincing and compelling to believe.

The ambivalence of the relationship between democracy and war could be highlighted in the global war on terror launched by the United States and its allies in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attack. The US-led alliance against terrorism has come to believe that preventive wars might be necessary to “build the ‘infrastructure of democracy’ abroad” (Mansfield and Snyder, 2005, p.1). This belief led to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which at the time of the invasion were under despotic regimes. Wars were waged in the name of introducing democracy to these two countries. The premise of those wars was that democracy would bring freedom, security and peace to the two countries and to the world. After the invasion, democratic processes started to roll with elections leading the way. The expectations and hopes of these processes did not materialize as the conditions of Afghanistan and Iraq have been implicitly that of civil war which is a picture of Hobbesian and Kantian state of nature.


What is war? 

            The standard definition of war has come from the Correlates of War (CoW) project which helps further research on the topic. [4] It puts definitive measure to war as a case where at least 1,000 battle deaths are recorded in a given year (Mansfield and Snyder, 2005, p.91; Ray, 1998, p.31). This definition includes interstate, extra-systemic, and intrastate wars. For this essay, I make no distinction between interstate, extra-systemic, and intrastate wars. All of them are covered in the essay.

            In the class though, we studied interstate wars and their relationship to democratization. Mansfield and Snyder (2005) argue that “countries undergoing incomplete democratization with weak institutions are more likely than other states to become involved in war” (p.67). I will not limit my definition of war to interstate wars.

What is democracy? 

            As a system of government, democracy has four key elements; free elections to choose or replace a government, peoples’ participation in politics and civic life, human rights protection, and rule of law applicable and equal to all.[5] A state that possesses these four key elements is said to be a democratic state.

To measure democracy, Mansfield and Snyder (2005) consider states as democratic when there is competitive competition of political parties or groupings in the election, when the head of the government is popularly voted into office, and when “constraints on the executive are more than ‘substantial,’ based on Polity scale” (p.77).

 Democracy and peace  

            There is a general consensus that no democracies have ever been at war against each other. The basic idea and reason is that “democracy is an important cause of peace” (Ray, 1998, p.27). Even Mansfield and Snyder (2005) agree with this when they argue that “a root cause of the democratic peace is that democratic institutions make government authorities accountable to the average voter” (p.51). So the leaders of democratic states would not risk their position or office by going to war because they could always be voted out of their offices by own citizens who would carry the brunt of war.

            However, one question that begs to be asked on democratic peace is, does democracy stop war from happening? Obviously it does not. Democratic states have initiated and engaged in wars. Just count the number of wars that the US and United Kingdom (UK), two known champions of democracy, have been involved in whether as initiators or participants. I remember two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, and among other wars. Thus, democracy does not stop wars. It does not lead us a way out of the Hobbesian state of nature.

Democracy and war 

            If democracy does not stop war, then does it go to war? I would say, yes! Even though democracies do not fight each other, “they fight and initiate wars about as often as non-democracies” (Mansfield and Snyder, 2005, p.49).

            What about those democratizing states or incomplete democracies? Are they prone to war? Mansfield and Snyder (2005) argue that they are more prone to war than democratic and autocratic states. There are key features that make these democratizing states more likely to go to war. These are weak institutions and strong nationalistic sentiments. An example cited in the book, Electing to Fight, is the Falklands war between Argentina and Britain. The authors consider Argentina as “an incompletely democratizing initiator of the war” (p. 219). At the time when the war was launched, Argentina was not democratizing, although it was expecting an election. The war was an effort by the Argentina’s junta to hold on to power, than the result of any democratizing processes.

            Carothers (2007) and McFaul (2007) are critical of the assertion of Mansfield and Snyder. Carothers cites Francis Fukuyama’s comment that many wars in Europe for the last 500 years have had something to do more with state-building than democracy. McFaul, on the other hand, does not simply buy the arguments made by Mansfield and Snyder. He points convincingly to theoretical, methodological and empirical flaws of the thesis on democratization leading to war. One of the flaws McFaul cites is the mislabeling of those cases that are supposed to be “regime collapse or a return to autocracy” as democratizing states (p.164). He reviews the examples used in the book, such as the France case under Napoleon III and Prussia case. McFaul hardly considers these cases as democratizing states. I agree with McFaul on this point. France was hardly a democratizing state when Napoleon III took power through a coup.

            The evidences to support the argument that democratization causes states to be more war-prone have been undermined by Carothers and McFaul. Thus, there is no direct relationship between democracy and war. War can be arbitrarily attributed to democratization as what Mansfield and Snyder do in their book.


            As an international peace student, there is a value though in the assertion of Mansfield and Snyder in spite of the valid criticisms the book has received. There is value in shedding light to war. For Mansfield and Snyder, it is democratization that has something to do with war. For realists, it is about geopolitics and self-interest. For pragmatists, it is greed that moves people to wage war. For freedom fighters, it is oppression and marginalization. For me, wars have peculiarities that make it difficult to categorize them grandly. Personally, I have special interest in understanding wars. That is the worst enemy of peace. However, it also makes peace possible and desirable.

            I am not an avid believer of democracy. I have seen democracy being used by the elites to retain status quo and their power. In the Philippines, elections are always bloody and chaotic. I always think that there must be some ways of selecting leaders other than elections. What about sortition or democracy without election? It makes me want sortition when I see on TV the mess and unnecessary violence of post-election in Kenya. I have come to believe that democracy is not the world needs. What has democracy done to the world? It does not stop wars; it does not address poverty; it does not confront climate change. In our first day of class, I asked about the economic dimension of democracy. If I got it right, you mentioned that it has no economic dimension but has economic consequences or outcomes like private property. Frankly, I was disappointed not to your response but to democracy because you were right. I was disappointed because I always wanted a system of government that deals with poverty regardless of who is on power. I guess I am dreaming, but it does not hurt to dream something good. If democracy does not deal with poverty, it will continue to fail us.

            I think the relationship between democracy and war is neutral and indeterminate. Neither democracy leads us out of a war condition nor does it reinforce the condition of war. What happens between and to the two is brought about by other forces rather than from each one. Therefore, I would like to see a system of government that stops and prevents war. I have seen enough of democracy. And I am disappointed.


Carothers, T. (2007). Misunderstanding Gradualism, Journal of Democracy, 18(3), 18-


Hewitt, J. et. al. (2008). Peace and Conflict 2008: Executive Summary. Maryland: Center

for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland.

 Kant, I. (1986) [1795]. Perpetual Peace. In E. Behler (Ed.). Immanuel Kant:

Philosophical Writings. New York: Continuum, pp.270-311.

McFaul, M. (2007). Are New Democracies War-Prone? Book review of Mansfield and

Snyder (2005), Journal of Democracy 18(2), 160-167.

 Mansfield, E and J. Snyder. (2005). Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to

War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ray, J. (1998). Does Democracy Cause Peace? Annual Review of Political Science 1, 27-



[1] From 1973-2004, “there were 179 instances of democratization, defined as countries moving from either Not Free to Free (25 cases) or Not Free to Partly Free (154 cases), as determined by Freedom House rankings” (McFaul, 2007, p.161).

[2] Anocracy is a “middle category of regimes having a mix of authoritarian and democratic institutional features” (Hewitt, et. al, 2008, p.13).

[3] See for an elaboration on Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy.

[4] See for the project history of CoW.

[5] See for the whole lecture on what is democracy?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: