Q4)

Democratic Peace Theory is based on the assumption that real democracies that follow

through on the principles of a liberal democracy and hence it concludes that the inherent

requirement of following a democracy causes the people of these states to be hesitant to engage

in war with other democracies. However, the principle only holds true when there is a conflict

between two states that are known democracies and none other than that. For the purpose of this

there has to be a definition for both war or peace and democracy. There are multiple authors and

theorists who have put forth different definitions of the aforementioned terms so as to make

sense of the Democratic Peace Theory. The following paper will focus on the definitions that

were put forth by the political theorist Doyle who gave a four-point checklist for defining a

democracy. Firstly, there should be a presence of a free market or private property economics in

a state which is defined as liberal regimes. Secondly, the policies that are passed should contain

the characteristic of being internally sovereign. Thirdly, the citizens of the state should have the

ability to access a fair and just judicial system to keep peace amongst the population. And

finally, the government should be representative one, with the minimum requirement being that

thirty percent of the males in a state should be able to vote, to be called a democratic state

(Macmillan, 1995). On the other hand, the act of war is described as “intense armed conflict

between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents,

and militias” (Macmillan, 1995).

Given the above definitions describing the democratic peace theory the following

discussion will look towards Kant’s theory of perpetual peace and republicanism (1991) with the

democratic focus of modern thinkers, Doyle (1995) and Russet (1998), to show the for and

against arguments for the theory under consideration.

 Post the Second World War multiple theorists got to work to understand how they would

be able to maintain a peaceful connection amongst the nations of the world so as to forgo such a

gruesome set of events such as those that happened in the first half of the 20th century. One of the

foremost and influential theories that was produced in this era was by Emanuel Kant and his

theory of perpetual peace which propagated the concept of republicanism. The core concept of

his idea was that “the idea of peace is a regulative ideal toward which we must strive. It is built

and cannot be decreed” (Kant, 1991). There were three basic principles that Kant put forth in his

theory which are the following: firstly, civic constitution of each state will be republican;

secondly, the right people must be based on a federalism of free states; finally, the law of world

citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality (Kant, 1991).

Given the above review of Kant about the way to achieve absolute peace in the realm of

international relations Doyle and Russet came forth with their own theories which were

centralized around the concept of democracy. The definition and summary of the theory put forth

by Doyle has been gone through in depth within the introduction of this response. On the other

hand, Russet also gives his take on the democratic peace theory to explain his procedure of

attaining peace within international relations. Within his research he organized a data set and

through quantitative analysis found an undeniable correlation between having democratic states

and peace. Hence his undying support in favor of having democratic states rather than those

going in favor of republicanism.

To provide a contrasting viewpoint there can be seen that there are similarities between

the theories that are put forth for republics and democracies. However, there are significant

differences between the two as well one of the foremost being that while one propagates the

concept of republics and within this it is also not limited to the fact that there can be a peaceful
relationship between the two similar systems as was given in the democratic peace theory.

Moreover, Kant does not discuss universal suffrage within his narrative while the other two

theorists do. Finally, within the theory that was given by Kant where the legislature is separated

from the executive body which is not a necessary requirement for democracies.

In conclusion, there are some substantial changes between the two opposing theories that

have been given. Although both of these have their own pro and cons the theory given by Kant

although more limited in terms of inclusivity of the population and strict organizational structure

allows for greater amount of cooperation in the international realm as it does not rest on the

assumption of following a single system of government.