Political Science

    The question of whether democracies wage war against each other has continued to spark a lot of interest among different scholars from different sectors and countries. While some are strongly convinced that democracies wage war against each other, others feel that it is highly unlikely for democracies to fight against other democratic states. Democracies do not go to war with each other theory has been debated for the past two decades and still continues to raise various arguments today. Authors and theorists supporting this theory argue that since democracies have policies that are open to criticism and that are transparent, they are more open to negotiations and rarely result in war as a means of solving their conflicts. It is argued that free people rarely fight against each other but instead look for ways to resolve their differences through dialogue. However, there are some schools of thought that feel that democracies just as the socialist countries are engaged in war with each other and there are various evidences of wars to support this. Since the 1960s, theorists and scholars have observed that there has been peaceful coexistence between various types of regimes. This trend has been peculiar in most well established democracies leading to the question of whether democracies really engage in war with each other.

Do democracies wage war against each other
    The debate on whether democracies engage in wars against each other is an interesting topic today having to do to international relations. The idea that democracies do not fight with other ones was first introduced by Immanuel Kant, a philosopher in his essay dubbed perpetual peace in the year 1875. Historically, there has been no clear evidence on whether democratic countries engage or do not engage in war with other democratic countries. Liberal democracies of post Second World War comprising of North America and Europe have not engaged with each other in war. Various socio-political reasons have been formulated to explain the reason for regional peacefulness that has been observed between democracies. Most analysts have come to a conclusion that democracies have never engaged in or waged war against other democracies. It has also been argued that the only way to reduce wars and poverty around the world is by ensuring that all countries become democratic. Analysts argue that the interpretation of democracy and war are the foundation of determining whether democracies engage in or fight against other democracies.

Definitions and arguments of democracy
    The term democracy has become a major source of difference when it comes to the evaluation of the debate of war between democracies. An understanding of such definitions is vital in evaluation of the peace theory or the foundations of the concept that democracies do not fight against each other. Different theorists have come up with different definitions of democracy. One of the oldest definitions was forwarded by Immanuel Kant in the year 1875. Kant was opposed to the idea of direct democracy arguing that this kind of democracy leads to the establishment of and executive powers that is contrary to the will of the general public. Kant advocated for constitutional republic characterized by individuals liberties that are protected or guarded against the will of all or the majority. Another theorists who defined democracy during this period were Singer and Small (1976) who defined democracy as being made up of nations that allow for periodic elections whereby opposition parties were allowed and free to become government parties, a country that allows over ten percent of its adult population to participate in the elections and lastly a government or a country with a parliament that is charged with the role of controlling the governments executive branch. Other definitions have been formulated by different theorists with the most recent by Rummel in 1997 that defined democracy in terms of liberalism. Rummel argued that democracy is depicted when government officials are only allowed to hold power via a competitive election following a secret ballot, where individuals are granted freedom of religion, speech and organization and where a constitution governing a country allows and guarantees equal rights for all citizens. Rummel is one of the theorists who have highly supported the argument that democracies do not war against other democracies.

    The changing definition of democracy has contributed largely to the debate as to why democracies do not wage war on each other. Unlike in the past, many of the republics though they may have a voting system or the elections, they do not qualify to be termed as democracies. Changes in the definition of the term have made many researchers and scientists come to consensus that no genuine democracy has in the past engaged in any war with another genuine democracy. The question of mutual peace has come up in most of the debates regarding lack of war between democratic countries. In the past, it was argued that genuine democracies seek mutual peace, a reason that has restrained war between them. Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to bring out the idea of peace and democracy. Kant argued that human beings are inherently peaceful and as such, they cannot wage war unless they are provoked by tyranny. However, this explanation of lack of wars between democrats has so far been refuted due to the existence of democratic belligerence problem that democracies experience.  

    Democracies naturally tend to ensure mutual peace despite the fact that they may have many differences and may even be enemies. Dubrovnik is a good example of democracies that have not resulted in war for a long time. This republic built great walls to enable it survive amidst chaos and wars. It wanted to become an independent republic going by the name of Ragusa. Citizens of this country used to elect their officials and to vote for their councils for a long time. The country also had a well crafted constitution. Venice was another very stable republic but a great enemy to Ragusa at this time. They were bitter competitors in the Adriatic trade. The two cities were the merchants in this trade, although they used to regard each other as enemies. In most cases, these two rival independent countries, on legal pretext used to seize goods belonging to each other (as they were great rivals). Despite the fact that this region was tormented by many wars, there was no single time that Ragusa and Venice engaged in war. Individually, these two cities did not engage in war with other independent regions in the region or elsewhere. Despite the fact that Ragusa and Venice were great enemies and bitter trade competitors stealing or seizing goods from each other, they never even once engaged in any war. This is a clear indication that true democracies never engage other true democracies in war despite the fact that there are factors that may prompt war. However, this is not because they have no conflict or because they are friends, rather it is because they seek mutual peace which restraints them from engaging in war.

    Peace among democracies is one of the highly investigated areas today by scholars with an aim of identifying why there have been no wars between them, especially throughout the 20th century. Scholars have been trying to discover whether democracies are highly peaceful as compared to autocrat of communist countries. It was largely believed that the economic condition or position of a country, its ideology or its domestic situation have contributed to the lack of war between democracies. However, scholars have refuted this claim due to lack of evidence. Well established democracies have had a unique regularity for the past one century with no wars between them. Political scientists have been looking at the possible cause of such mutual peace between these nations, although no concrete explanations have so far been deduced. Critics argue that only a few democracies are full fledged around the world and such democratic states have not been in existence for such a long time. Others argue that there have been no conducive or provocative situations that could have necessitated the democracies to engage in war. Others argue that the level of economic development as well as international trade could have been the reason for lack of war between democracies. Meanwhile, scholars have come up with a list of conflicts that have occurred for the last two centuries to enable them assess the level of electoral freedom and other determinants of democracy thus determining whether democracies have engaged in war among themselves. Studies however show that no democracies have so far engaged in any war with another one, leading to the question of what them not to take such actions. Various theories and explanations have been brought forth to explain this scenario, although most of them still lack empirical evidence.

    Some scholars have argued that lack of such wars has been as a result of geographic differences and locations of these countries making it hard for them to engage in conflicts. However, this has been refuted on the basis that Europe, for example, has the largest number of democracies that are closely located and have not had wars. Economic development has also been advanced as a possibility of lack of wars among the democracies. Most of them today are well endowed with resources and have the largest shares in the international market or the global economy. It is thus argued that since these countries are economically stable, they are able to relate well given that they do not engage in high competition but rather form trade agreement aimed at increasing their wealth. However, this argument has been refuted on the ground that developed countries have had as many wars as the developing and poor countries and as such, endowment with economic resource or lack of it thereof is not a reason or a conclusive explanation for lack of wars between them. While it is true that trade alliances may be a hindrance or an influencing factor on a nations engagement in war, it is not sufficient evidence for absence of war among democracies.

Reasons why democracies do not engage wars against each other
    In the year 1977, Tullock extended the economic analysis domain of revolution and war as the underlying reasons as to why democracies have in the past not engaged and may not in the future engage in wars amongst themselves. Tullock focused his attention on individual choice of a country in the non market setting. He argued that democracy was about public choice rather than the governments choice. He came up with a hypothesis that stated that individuals and governments would only engage in war if they expect to benefit from it with the benefits being more than the costs for engaging in war. Tullock evaluated the government on two dimensions the autocratic type where people do not contribute to the composition of a government and the second dimension as democratic where individuals vote to determine the leadership or government of a country. While deciding on whether to engage in war or not, individuals look at the cost-benefit analysis. War can either be offensive or defensive. The main motivation for offensive war according to Tullock is rent-seeking while external threats act as motivating factor for defensive wary. Countries pursue or initiate offensive and wars with an aim of gaining economically, or other forms of benefits. Democracies are not likely to engage in any of these types of wars for a number of reasons.

    In considering the democratic and autocratic governments, Tullock did not evaluate or consider private wars as both these forms of regimes involve them. Autocratic regimes do not consider the opinions of the people and citizens to do as they are told by the government officials. As such, while making a decision for war, autocrats allocate a bigger share of all the benefits to themselves while the costs are passed on the citizens. An autocrat would also engage in war even when it is not beneficial to him since such costs are born by the citizens who have no right to questions the leaders decision. In democratic administration, this is different. Like in autocratic governments, war costs are also born by the citizens. However, the citizens have power to remove a government from power following an election. People naturally do not like wars and gaining a consensus to engage in war in democracies is difficult. This makes democracies keep off from wars, especially the offensive conflicts. This has been evident in the United States since the 1970s. The country has been engaged in various terrorist attacks from Arab and Muslim countries. In the 1960s, airliner was a major target by terrorists including PELP hijackings, bombings of marine barracks and the United States embassy in 1983 among others. The United States did not engage in defensive war although it could have done so. It was only after the 911 terrorist attack that the country reached a consensus to engage in offensive war. Prior to this period, economic analysts argue that benefits of engaging in a defensive war were very low for the country.

    This argument states that since democracies are less likely to initiate war or even engage in defensive war given their form of government as well as the cost benefit analysis, they are not likely to engage with each other in conflicts hence there are no wars between democracies. Tullock argued that for autocrats the benefits of war are large and are shared among the leadership of a nation while the costs are distributed among the people. Autocrat leadership rarely bears the costs but its people do. In democratic governments, benefits are shared among all individuals making the benefits to be relatively low. Democracies, especially those characterized by free markets, have greater power dispersion among nations and mostly agree with other democracies to eliminate or reduce chances of commencing a war. In most cases, they form alliances that aim at protecting the relationships they make via trade agreements, mostly leading to creation of permanent structures such as constitutional contracts. This leads to formation of another form of democracies within, making it difficult for them to wage war against each other. 

    Another explanation that has been given as to why democracies rarely or never fight against each other is as a result of the politics exercised by these countries. Politics of democracies unlike those of communists and autocrats are unique in that they are open to global scrutiny, thus it leads to formation of long term commitments that make it difficult for them to engage in wars. It is difficult for democracies to deceive, bluff or even plan to launch surprise attacks unlike the case with communists countries. The transparency exercised by democracies in their politics lowers the bargaining position of democrats and this in turn makes their promises to each other more durable and credible as a result of stable democracies. Constitutional rules usually constraint the leaders. Leaders are also constrained by independent officials as well as political costs associated with abandoning commitments entrusted by the public. This paves way for solid bargains to be staged between democracies lowering the likelihood of war. In cases where democracies decide to retaliate on their agreements, they must inform their partners on their intention, giving such partners time to protect themselves and appeal the decision. Agreements between democracies are not risky, unlike in non democratic nations. Via the friendship created, following the various open agreements between democracies, war is avoided and democratic peace is maintained. Democracies also make reliable partners unlike non democrat states and there has been a move to alliances from rivalries characterized by the sealing to bargains that are enduring hence avoiding war. Democracies have led to formation of unipolar kind of government between the democratic countries hence wars are unlikely even in the future among theses countries.

    Citizens influence is another possible reason as to why democracies do not wage war against each other. Some researchers have come up with the explanation that democracies may be forced or compelled to maintain peace among themselves because of the way citizens of these countries believe or think concerning the beliefs and values, general cultural traditions of democracy and norms for behaviour. Usually, in democracies, citizens are able to restrain their leaders from engaging in acts they feel are not in line with their democratic values and norms. Citizens are afraid of war as nothing much seems to come out of war but death of innocent people and destruction of property. As a result, these citizens through such beliefs influence or restrain their leaders from engaging in either defensive or offensive wars. Citizens in democratic countries also believe in equality of all individuals and human rights. People in most democracies believe that all citizens should be protected by the law and not exposed to unnecessary dangers, such as war. Through these commonly held believes of citizens from democratic nations, it is difficult for such nations to engage in war. Citizens in democracies believe in negotiations, in solving whatever disagreements and disputes that may arise between nations. This is true and quite evident in most democracies today. Recently, Britain announced that it would be adding 500 soldiers to Afghanistan while the United States announced it would be adding 30,000 soldiers to this country. This has been met with mixed reactions with over 70 of citizens from these two superpowers calling for immediate withdrawal of those already in this war. Leaders making war decisions in democracies are viewed as being inhumane and this could be a reason as to why no wars have been recorded among the democracies. In non democratic nations, leaders make decisions with little regard or no regard at all of the opinions of their citizens. War is viewed as the normal way of solving issues hence there are many offensive and defensive wars in such countries.

    It is interesting to note that for the last two centuries, there has not been any war between the democracies in Europe and in the United States. Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, was the first man to come up with the argument that wars between democracies were unlikely. Despite the fact that his explanations have been refuted lately, his concept still remains viable and a major source of debate today. Many researchers, authors and political scientists have formulated several explanations as to why democracies do not engage with each other in war. The common arguments include cost-benefit analysis, values, norms, and believes that are common among citizens in democratic nations, formation of strategic alliances that have strengthened the democracies relationships, form of politics that allows for transparency and scrutiny by other democracies, and citizens influence on the leadership of their nations. While these explanations serve to affirm the notion that democracies do not fight other democracies, no single explanation has been widely accepted as the major reason by all researchers.