Exploring the Liberal Democratic Peace Theory

An idea that pervades the contemporary realm of international political thought is the ‘liberal democratic peace’ (LDP) theory. This theory is based upon the major tenet that democratic states do not engage in warfare with one another, and for thus reason generates and sustains a harmonious political environment. The democratic peace theory certainly has its merits – provisioning strong evidence in defense to its many critiques (Kegley & Raymond 1994; Layne 1994; Rosato 2003). However, it is also not a theory without minor flaws that undermine its hypothesis (Dafoe, Oneal & Russett 2013; International Studies Association 2005; Kumar 1994). In spite of these otherwise excusable flaws, the process of democratization should be considered a plausible mechanism for the promotion of peace and security throughout the global order.

One of the main

179; Lynn-Jones 1998). Compelling evidence in support of this weakness is especially demonstrative in the state of Rwanda in 1993, whereby within the year an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 Rwandans were killed as a result of democracy promotions triggering nationalistic violence. In Burma in 1990, the elections sparked ruthless military oppression that was especially aimed towards supporters and members of the National League for Democracy (NLD). In Indonesia, dictatorships deploy militaries and security agencies in an attempt to undermine electoral transitions (Staniland n.d.). Conversely, there have been a slew of states that have avoided major internal and external conflict in their transition to democracy (Lynn-Jones 1998). However, the fact remains that democratic advocacy has the capacity to intensify state turbulence rather than assuage it, giving rise to violent nationalism and ethnic