Do states align themselves as social bodies of moral government, or do they really represent economic forces with an aim for capital growth? In the decades following the second World War, lack of war has radiated through international politics. Specifically, the lack of war between democracies. This phenomenon has been attributed to two different explanations of peace: Democratic Peace and Capitalist Peace. Through measuring the merits and quality of the arguments, Democratic Peace has shown to be more convincing justification. Being that democratic peace is the more sophisticated and historically tried and true theory, capitalist peace seems to resemble an extended aspect of the hypothesis. Thus, democratic peace is the more convincing of the two because capitalist peace is simply an adaptation and branch of the same theory.
Democratic peace, despite its acceptance in international politics (especially liberalism), does not have a completely set definition. The most universal definition of democratic peace is that democracies do not go to war with other democracies1. Another accepted definition is that democracies will scarcely ever go to war with each other2. This however, does not mean that democracies do not go to war at all. They are commonly at war with non-democracies3. It is important here to define the term democracy, being a system of elective government with fair, consistent elections in which the qualifying population votes4. It is also understood that democracies are generally liberal, in that they value individual rights and liberty5. Now that definitions are established, what are the reasons that democracies do not go to war? It is argued that democracies, compared to other systems, can better predict the intentions of other democracies, and that those intentions are more likely to be benign6. This allows for the need to vie for power and expect war to be unnecessary7. The argument of accountability also holds great standing in why democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. War is more expensive for democratic leaders as if it is unwanted by the general population or problems ensue beyond what is expected and accepted by the constituents, the leader will likely be voted out of office. Thus, leaders of non-democratic nations have less barriers to withhold them from going to war. Within democratic peace, there are largely accepted aspects of the theory. The work of Immanuel Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace’ is said to be the first outline of the theory, and in it he outlined three facets that attribute to democratic peace. These factors, as identified by Kant are public opinion, pacific union, and the spirit of commerce8. Another supporting argument is that democracies do not go to war with each other because they have comparably similar interests. The opportunity of conflict is diminished and both sides have enticement to resolve any conflict that may proceed9.
The alternative claim of capitalist peace is defined as states with open markets, economic prowess, and globalization of capital do not go to war with each other. It is argued that ‘economic development, globalization of capital, and similar state policy interests’ all make the likelihood to experience disputes, let alone to go war, decrease10. It is also said that countries open capital markets have less militarized conflicts11. It is also argued that because more economically active and developed nations stand to benefit from international commerce and are internally averted from war because of the possible losses that could amount from it12. Similar to democratic peace, there are majorly accepted aspects of the theory. The benefits of trade being a factor, as already shown. Another is that economic interdependence of nations is a pacifier. Such that the more economically interdependent they are, the more determined they would be to not suffer a military conflict13. Another argument of capitalist peace is that the development of economy has made the historical issues between nations regarding resource and territory trival, since commerce allows for easier acquirement of resources14. Further, another claim for peace on the side of capitalist peace is that third party actors are involved. Large companies and the capital they bring to nations are factors in avoiding conflict. Which, combined with the other factors presented, makes up the outline of the capitalist peace argument.
The tested claim of democratic peace is arguably one of the sturdiest affirmations of liberal international politics. The generalization it forms is widely supported and is not a new concept. As previously mentioned, the first compilation of these ideas was done by Kant in the late 1700s. Kant tied the aspects of the theory and the observations made to three facets: public opinion, spirit of commerce, and pacific union15. The second of the facets is eerily resemblant to a simplified thesis of capitalist peace. Kant saw the cooperative business among states created peace between even the most contradicting of states16. The trade and traffic between countries was seen to establish an understanding of others conventions, increasing the likelihood and presence of peace. The ‘spirit’ here described correlates much to ideas of capitalist peace. The three aspects Kant puts forward are overarching theses. This supports the argument that capitalist peace is a branch on the tree of democratic peace. The spirit of commerce as described by Kant also accounts for the further understanding of other nations, this additional exposure leads not only to acceptance of morals and interests, but to the intertwining of them. The common interests of democratic states is seen as evidence to support their pacifism to each other17. It is not uncommon to see democratic peace as undoubtedly supported by centuries of arguments and evidence18.
An example of the increased peace of two democracies in the years following World War II is shown through the interdepence of France and Germany. Through the establishment of unified Germany in 1870, France and Germany fought in three wars until the end of the second World War in 1945. Now, both nations are apart of the European Union and are close allies, it seems implausible to expect a war between them. From this example, the end of the Nazi regime with the end of the war in 1945 is the turning point. In other words, when Germany adopted a democratic constitution, the nations (both being democratic) became peaceful19. Further, it can be argued that Germany was a democracy prior to the Nazi regime. However, in defense of democratic peace, the definitions of the concept often contain the word, ‘mature’. In arguing that only mature democracies do not go to war with each other, the theory is protected from the studies that show that states early in democratization do not fall into the pattern of democratic peace20. Seeing that the conversion to democracy can come with violence and disorganization, as well as, resistance from groups favouring a different system, it is justified to think that only mature democratic states fit the generalization21. Not only that, it can be shown that
17Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions, 163.
18Gartzke, Erik. "The Capitalist Peace.", 167.
19Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions, 154.
20Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions, 156.
21Snyder, Jack, and Edward D. Mansfield. "Prone to Violence: The Paradox of the Democratic Peace." The National Interest, no.
82 (Winter 2005/2006): 45.
Werner 4
democratizing states are even more likely to go to war than other states. The domestic instability that comes with the change of regimes causes both internal and external conflict22.
The argument of accountability in democracies and elective governments is a recurring one of democratic peace. War is undeniably costlier for an elected leader of a democracy. This greatly affects the likelihood of war in democracies in many ways23. The constituents are often opposed to the increased taxes, inscription of their peers and restricted resources that come with war. This makes unwanted war not only difficult to start or join, but causes dissatisfaction of government in the eyes of the people. Being that democracies are elective governments, in widely unwanted wars, leaders will inevitably be voted out of office. In addition to this, the amount of elective governments has increased globally, being 43 in 195024.
Since 1945, there is an added argument for democratic peace: the third wave of democracy25. Modern international relations resembles the first time that the bulk of nations are democracies. Given this, democracy is the governing norm and the prevailing set of morals. Thus, it provides evidence for democratic peace26. Since 1945, there have been little, if any, instances of war between democracies, and democracies now make up the majority of governments. Within this, there seems to be increased incentive for nations to be democracies based on the countries that are. Politicians can argue, especially in countries like the United States and United Kingdom, that the states should not involve themselves in trade or otherwise with non-democracies27. There can only be peace between democracies, so associating with non-democracies does not make sense. Liberalism is the school of thought to which democratic
22Synder, Robert S. "Review: Busying Giddy Minds." University of Notre Dame Review of Politics 69, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 322. 23Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions, 160.
24Small, Melvin, and J. David Singer. "The War-Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816-1965." The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1, no. 4 (Summer 1976): 51.
25Huntington, Samuel P. "Democracy's Third Wave." Journal of Democracy, Spring 1991, 12.
26Chan, Steve. "In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise, 59.
27Chan, Steve. "In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise, 59-60.
Werner 5
peace theory lives, but an aspect of realism can be connected to why there is an incentive to be democratic. The United States is the only regional hegemon ever, and it is a liberal, elective government. Hence, it seems that countries should be enticed to be democratic in order to foster peace and trade with the United States and its allies.
The capitalist peace as a model suffers several measurement errors when you look at the theory statistically. The design of capitalist peace omits some observations, misspecified models, and bias in which samples and examples they choose28. Capitalist peace also suffers in that there are other explanations that seem to represent what it claims. For example, capital openness accounts for higher damage economically of conflict and war29. As capital openness creates a third party and authority, there is more intervention before a conflict arises. Also, from the realist concept of status quo, when a pair of states accept the concept, it will lead to capital openness and peace30. Similarly, countries that wish to encourage peace both regionally and globally will be using the peace-making efforts of free markets31. Capitalist peace also has the issue that states with open capital markets are very exposed to disruption of business, in the way that they are dependent and have connections with commerce that is reliant on peace32. Global market economies within states have external actors, which have their own agendas and intentions in addition to those of the states. Where this may seems like an argument for capitalist peace, it is important to note that in the instance that the commerce and trade reliant falls, violence and war could ensue.Development is also a component in war and the prospect of war. The ability to project power, whether only regionally or globally, is increased with economic development. If conflicting actions of states does arise, greater economic development expands the projection of power33. It is regularly asserted that development is more of a factor in which states fight and what causes the conflicts than the frequency of war. Therefore, economic development conveys the impression of conflict more than that of democracy. In contending another assertion in favour of democratic peace, commerce brings supplemental competition. Capital markets have created an additional system to embark into war or conflict34. Further, as touched upon before, capital growth as ameliorating factor of war can be seen as equivalent to a branch of democratic peace theory. Democracy tends to be closely connected to economic development, consequently the cases that argue for peace as an aftereffect of capital could also support the case for democratic peace35. Additionally, the basis of which the capitalist peace theory stands is a vague symbiotic relationship36. Is it that countries trade because they want peace, or is peace a byproduct of trade? States greatly benefit from their activity in international business and commerce, democracies do especially. This connection is another that backs the understanding that because democracies have better economy and trade, capitalist peace seems to sprout from that of democratic peace. In looking to the definition of capitalist peace theory, the model states that similar state interests are important in the factors that explain why capitalist-focused, strong states do not go to war37. However, in expressing the aspects of democratic peace theory, this is an additionally overlapping facet. Overall, the discussion holding that war is anomalous between states with strong economies and active international trade is simply because democracies uphold strong economic nations.
On the other hand, there are problems with democratic peace that do seem to allow for favouring capitalist peace. For one, democratic peace often carries out some measurement error, not equivalent to the errors of the capitalist model, but still present38. An argument for the capitalist peace model is that it is a much more modernized approach. Democratic peace is a timeworn theory, capitalist peace can be said to better relate to international politics today as it has been complied more recently. The statistical evidence that supports capitalist peace is much more robust and complicated than that of democratic peace. For example, capitalist peace credits CAPOPENL, a basis of capital openness where an unsteady state in a relationship regulated the predictability of conflict, to be a correlate of peace39. It is uncommon to find a similar credit in democratic peace theory, which shows that capitalist peace can be said to be more adapted to modern politics. Further, an increase in global markets and trade is recognized as a modern pacifier40. Capitalist peace claims that these free markets are a competitive outlet for nations, alleviating the need for conflict. This claim also cites global trade to increase communication between states, aiding in nonviolence. In addressing a new form of competition, capitalist peace also alleges that the traditional territorial and resource disputes are now frivolous. This is due to the increased amount of trade and communication that economic development and free markets bring41. Moreover, capitalist peace accounts for the interdependence of states, asserting improved unity. The more intertwined the nations are, the more likely they are to fend off any conflict42. But, at the same time, interdependence can also assert increased conflict if certain parts of the interdependence control the relationship43. The accountability logic that supports democratic peace can also be used to support the capitalist peace model. The leaders of capitalist states are also held accountable by their electors to maintain or better their economic standing.
Furthermore, there are reasons to doubt democratic peace. One of which is democratic backsliding. The theory of democratic backsliding complies evidence that some nations who have democratized backslide into authoritarian regimes. The idea is that a democracy cannot be sure that the other will not one day become a non-democracy, so treating them as such is dangerous.44 In instance, it would only take one nation being non-democratic to keep this question relevant, arguing that democratic theory can always be doubted. In a similar point, democracies can be very vulnerable in democratic peace theory. Democratic states and their leaders are restrained in their use of force and ability in war, making them good targets to non-democratic states45 . It is often contested that the pressure that cause peaceful democracies can flip when democracies have conflicts with non-democratic states who are less constrained46. Democracies are vulnerable to greater demands from their enemies and their threats can be taken as insincere, both of which escalate the chances of war.
Overall, the conclusion that seems to come is that, despite the presence of valid counter-arguments, democratic peace is the more withstanding of the two. Falling on the widely accepted concepts of Kant, behaviours of elective governments and the accountability argument, democratic peace has the more sturdy of foundations. Where the capitalist peace model is one with a more modernized and quantitative approach, it lacks the ability to become more than a branch of the already existing democratic peace theory. In conclusion, the democratic peace theory is the more convincing, since 1945, over the differing capitalist peace model.