1. Are the Current Policies for Methods and Levels of Democracy Promotion
Appropriate Given the Legitimacy and Practical Application of the
Democratic Peace Theory?
By: Hannah Al-Ghareeb
Research Question
The research objective is to test the congruence of the Democratic Peace Theory. As to whether
it deserves its high credit, popularity, and warrant in being the designated governmental system
to be spread ideally, among other nation states. The inspiration for this investigation was incited
by the current state of turmoil within international politics, which has reached radical extremes
as a result of increased tensions for power. Modern history is drowned with ideological warfare
currently led by the reincarnated East vs. West struggle. Current nationalistic threats to the U.S.
have sprouted from Pan-Arabinism, and have become the new opponents upon the United States
and Western Europe’s chess board. Power tensions have increased through movements of the
21st century, as waves of political and cultural domination have spurred through rises in
nationalism that has in turn exasperated the fearful competition of diversity and variation; rather
than the potential contributions of such.
This project carries grave importance because current international foreign policies operate out
of notions of democratic ideals. About 90% of the western hemisphere (U.S and western
Europe) is democratic and highly influenced by the U.S. Since these ideals are instilled in the
foundation of diplomatic culture, they are used to evaluate the governance of nations as well as
their behavior with outsiders. It seems intuitively ethical to spread a system famous for being the
most equitable yet seen throughout history, as the foundational values and desires are assumed to
be universal of all global citizens. However, it is difficult to evaluate what rights are being

2. granted or given, because they are defined and valued differently according to culture and
context. Furthermore, sociological practices that provide more advantages than disadvantages
may work in one region while not in others. This consequence of diversity complicates
endeavurs of the spread of an ideology. Democracy is the current preference of the western
world and its preference in associating with governments who share this fashion. The main
reason for this is because the popular notion that the Democratic Peace Theory creates and
maintains peace between democracies period. However, this theory does not seem to be as full
proof as widely believed. In fact, the theory carries holes that illude whether there is a direct
causal relationship between the two variables of democracy and peace. These overlooked flaws
could have and may have already spurred catastrophic cycles of violent conflict as a side effect
of the overzealous promotion of this system. In these current harsh times conflict is
exponentially increasing with building angst towards the United States assumed to arise from a
clash of civilizations, religions, or ideologies. It is difficult to tell what is real with the
promotion of false truth claims, being today’s fad. What if the angst is occurring in response to
the Middle East’s history and ever growing intolerance to occupying imperialist
neoconservatives? The same people who have interests in their resources and security potential,
whilst supporting Israel (a common confrontational neighbor to many Arab countries) as it
continues international violations of human rights? These are further questions which need in
depth analysis; however the point is is what if the Democratic Peace Theory is a coincidental
accident? If there are other causal mechanisms which transform conflict into peace building
underneath this overarching theory, then why should the promotion of Democracy be as invested
in as it is today? For then it would only serve to reward western nations with dealing with non-
democratic nations more easily. If foreign policy and ethical evaluation of international relations

3. is layered upon layers of theories and inherent truths, what good is any of it if the foundation is
not valid?
Furthermore, failures to collectively tackle humanitarian threats such as global climate change
and the disintegration of finite resources, has exasperated the sense of entitlement to leaders of
nation states. As a result, the advantageous end of resource disparity is prioritizing competition
and using this advantage to weaponize technology as well as weaponize cultural diversity. This
is exhibited through stereotypes used against cultures that are defined by wrongful or lack of
education, perpetuated by the media of the masses, and legitimized more than ever to rationalize
the dehumanization of marginalized parties. Restructuring of theories, policies, cultural values,
and most importantly infrastructure, must be kept current to accommodate to today’s evolved
social habitat. It is for these reasons that this investigation required in depth analysis of this
theory and case studies to which its potential flaws are able to surface.
Whether people exhibit internal or external differences, diversity to western and eastern
governments incites threat to one another’s stability. Unconventional lifestyles means individuals
are not following the popular hegemonic ideals which unify social thought, values, and choices;
which are usually shared by a national identity. Small numbers of individuals critically
thinking, choosing, and acting within their own definitions of reality, eventually becomes its own
hegemonic pattern. Inevitably this number will grow, leaving the maintenance of local and
supranational order unmanageable; and perhaps allowing civil anarchy to be manifested,
ironically the greatest common fear of all nations.

4. For this reason, powerful governments strive to achieve a prestigious international status;
through victorious wars, possessing an admirable economy, and even exhibiting an envied
culture, so that its ethnocentrism is understood and cultural hegemony is spread as consent.
Consensual Hegemony is always favored. Governments would use less expensive resources in
propelling coercive forces to gain compliance; where force usually entails resistance and
conflict. When people willingly grant consent to accept or deny ideas, they actively surrender
certain rights to distrust, confront or question authorities.
Consequently, the most efficient means to gain consent is through trust. Inherently, humans trust
others based on a basic idea that someone who has more in common with them, whether it be
ethnicity, country of origin, culture, physical characteristics, or other aspects, signifies similar
mentality, moral values, and therefore similar goals. This is called social logic. For example, an
Italian man who requests a mechanic somewhere new will prefer an Italian mechanic for he will
trust that they are more likely than others to share similar cultural backgrounds, aspects that they
identify with, and therefore mutual definitions and therefore clearly defined expectations.
As threats to national security increase, so does the perpetuated fear of foreigners (and their
misunderstood foreign habits). The monopolized umbrella of the mass media employ spin
doctors with the tasks of exaggerating cherry picked stories capable of legitimizing stereotypes
and fear tactics. This is an example of Gramcian methods. Gramcian methods explains how
these methods demonstrate that consent can be achieved by the social construction of realities
painted by the wealthy power holders whom have the means to do so. When the availability of

5. information is controlled by elites ensuring complying individuals, these individuals begin to
rationalize with harmful impractical decisions of their leaders. From this current apparatus of
internal processes, external ones are affected and transcended across cultures and inserted into
the culture within international diplomacy and within supranational bodies like the UN. It is for
these reasons that advocating the spread of the world’s greatest power’s system of governance
would create endless benefits. Therefore, the leaders of the United States believe that by
increasing its cultural hegemony of social logic and extended social contracts, its security issues
would dissipate through consent. However, when armed military intervention enters a state
without properly processing justification among the UN, wishful ambitions to insert democratic
rational everywhere transcends under occupation into forceful imposition. This is seen in the
case of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Methodology
Mainstream Qualitative Case Methods are the main methodology used for this study. The reason
for this is because Quantitative methods look for correlations between two variables, not
necessarily causal analysis. It does search for a conditional probability where one may say if the
independent variable exists then there is such high probability that the dependent will arise or co-
exist that it can be predicted. Although this may suggest a cause and effect relationship,
positivism shows that even within a natural science like chemistry, it is difficult to isolate all
other interacting variables away from the control and experimental ones. As in it is tricky to find
the direct root causal variable of a phenomena, especially when numerical analysis of machine
readable social data rarely shows deep rooted triggers of phenomena beneath the surface, which

6. may change. Inherently, this is because of its large sample population and extreme nomothetic
applicability to other areas. As when using parsimonious conclusions to apply fungibility across
populations, the explanations sometimes encompass too much reductionalism and other ways of
taking certain factors for granteed. For example when coding for political terror or democracy,
these definitions are so subjective that quantification is only able to encompass a small portion of
reality; and who’s reality? In relation to this research question in the democratic peace theory,
quantification has attempted to analyze and even test its congruence, however it leaves out cases
where the CIA influenced the outcome; which leaves out a lot.
Mainstream qualitative methods attempt to solve this problem of equifinality by ferreting out the
complex chains of variables, offering rich insight and closer examinations into smaller sample
populations. Within this methodology, are methods to conduct social research carrying the
attached ontological position that there exists a reality which lies in between positivism and
interpretivism. There are certain realities which can be observed in natural light, or by being on
the ground witnessing and absorbing direct, immediate information. Biases exist however can be
so minimized by systematically collecting data in a variety of sampling methods to ensure cross-
examination. They are also decreased to a high degree via in depth case studies and
ethnomethodology, which both customize questions and analysis to properly interpret cultural or
contextual factors that may change the implications of the data. This ontological position
recognizes that the reality which can be discovered lies deeper under layers of societies.
Phenomena in sociology do not arise or dicipate the same as the scientific world, and therefore
procedures such as comparative historical analysis, path dependency, and phemenology are
necessary to discover or disarm real truths. At the same time, these qualitative methods of data
extraction can be generalizable and fungible to other phenomena. These characteristics make

7. this method instrumentally unique and important. If international and domestic decisions are
being made based off of social research findings, then it is pertinent that the information
collected is as close to reality as possible. For individuals make short and long term decisions
which are based and/or influenced by the actions, patterns, and outcomes of the choices of
others’. To imagine decisions based off of poor data lacking validity and statistical notions
which do not represent a population, carries detrimental consequences. Now imagine this on a
larger level; sub-group, nation state, region, globe, and the implications can be catastrophic while
the effects lasting.
It is for these reasons that the primary mode of research for this question utilized the extended
case method. This method is a type of qualitative research utilizing analytical methods like case
studies, ethnography, and field research to evaluate and suggest modification to pre-existing
social theories via congruence testing. It serves to illuminate flaws within existing social
paradigms, thus refining and accommodating them to the changing realms of social interactions
as well as advances in research. In reference to this method, Michael Burawoy states that
theories and case methods exhibit a unique relationship. In extended case methods, one must be
well versed in a particular theory in order to analytically determine holes in the theory’s logic
which is not complementary to observations seen among varied cases. It contrasts with inductive
grounded theory where the aim is to investigate without allowing pre-existing presumptions and
truth claims into a researcher’s conscious mind; reducing bias in data collection. Burawoy has
outlined the extended case method in such a way where it retains its positivist ground for
statistical analysis and yet is reflexive; relationships between the cause (independent variable)
and effect (dependent variable) are circular. Both variables effect one another and makes it

8. difficult to distinguish the real causal factor. For this reason it may seem like a mixture of
Positivism and Interpretism, however as Burawoy explains the interpretivist ontology is taken
into consideration only to ensure validity by using its methods. In a sense by encorporating such
a reflexive science, he shows a need to accommodate for the marginalized areas in positivism.
Positivism remains the core foundation for its structured way of collecting data and the benefits
from such. However, allowing what he calls space into the investigation scope, one can
creatively use deductive and inductive research to achieve the whole point of qualitative
methods; and its necessary distinction from quantitative analysis.
It is for these reasons why these methods carried the ontological positions and methodologies to
fit the parameters in satisfying validity and reliability, in testing the democratic peace theory and
its application.
Why Promote Democracy?
Modern times have been flooded with ideological warfare; even prior to the Cold War, in which
the winners must engage in longitudinal balancing acts between hard and soft power. Powerful
elites must compete amongst threatening internal powers as well as external ones. There lies
tensions between realist elicitations that states whom behave within the rational actor model are
validated in seeking to hoard securable resources and to do so in a ways which do not exempt
their status upon the international arena. One strategy in managing this diplomatic tactic is by
establishing this cultural hegemony through consent of citizens as well as diplomats. By the
United States holding dominant power and political influence since World War Two; especially

9. among the western hemisphere, their democratic system of politics has become not only a
political hegemony, but a cultural one as well.
The emergence and maintenance of Democracies have lasted centuries for structural and
ideological reasons. It has also been sought after by many areas and populations of the globe,
who seek its promises of equality, power to change one’s own government, and lessen conflict.
It is for this reason that since the Cold War, many countries have transformed autocracies into
democracies; improving relationships and creating absence of wars with other democracies. To
add to this, since 9/11 the U.S. has taken up democracy promoting projects in the Middle East to
instill threatening failing states with more stable governments, that are in turn more suitable for
U.S. interests.
The U.S.’s campaign of the necessary spread of Democracy surfaced for many reasons, idealistic
as well as instrumental. Therefore as for a definition of democracy, “a minimalist sense of
democracy is limited to holding multiparty elections in which the losing party voluntarily
transfers power”(pg 488). More defined versions include “…a one vote, one-person equality”
(pg 488) in which candidates must offer transparency into their ideological positions and goals.
In contract to this, an autocracy is a form of government which delegates dominant political
power to one person; as their decisions are not subjected to external or internal scrutiny.
President George W. Bush’s reign began with the focus on nation-building before it transformed
post 9/11 into an expansion of foreign policy and national security. Attempting to achieve these
ideal outcomes via democracy not only has it not taken hold within the two countries chosen by
Bush, however on the contrary may have incited more harm than national peace-building. The

10. popularity of such crusades have gained more public support than it has shown actual success,
surveys have shown that the majority of countries’ public opinion supports democracy.
Therefore democracy has become not only a political hegemonic system, but a cultural one as
well. Therefore it holds a position within U.S. interests to promote the spread of democracy and
“…any U.S. involvement in sustaining autocracy is immoral”(494); although it continues to
presently for security purposes. The argument behind pro democracy holds many inherent and
applicable truths. The widespread acceptance shows that it may not just be a civilization’s social
preferences, but that it seems to suffice universal needs.
The Democratic Peace Hypothesis, “…posits that democracies are more peaceful at least in their
relations to other democracies-than are other political systems, because it is harder to mobilize a
society to fight when citizens have a direct say over government policy” (1). There are attributes
within this type of regime which attract individuals, states, and supranational factions such as the
UN which also prefer it. As are there reasons for the United States’ current upheaval in
promoting the spread of such a system portrayed in power distribution. However, historical and
recent attempts to spread democracy have been met with resistant obstacles in non-western
regions of the world.
Hypothesis
I hypothesize that the Democratic Peace Theory is flawed in ways that should be modernized to
today’s current political climate, if its intended use aims to be applicable to non-western regions.

11. The foundational reservations it carries eliciting individual rights from and in relation to one’s
government is universally desired by most people and holds ethical rational. However, it carries
issues in it unclear cause and effect relationship, as well as to what specific premises play a
functional role in the process of peace. Furthermore, issues in implementing democracy
throughout non-western regions carry unique obstacles rooted in ideology, structure, and in
response to current regional and international conflict; hindering progressive intentions and
backfiring by yielding unstable, resentful, war stricken nations. The degree to which democracy
promotion has be evaluated as superior, advised to foreign nations, and imposed by coercive and
consensual means, should be warranted by much more substantial evidence than what is
available.
In order to construct the base definition of democracy, in its most basic form it is where the
opponent has a chance of losing and if so happens will be removed from power. To add, if fair
voting procedures are to be produced, it requires the trust of citizens to be protected from
political, ethnic, or cultural pressures and attacks during this type of power shift that needs the
compliance and voices of citizens. Furthermore, the existence of infrastructure to ensure
protection of human rights abuses, a police force, and allows “…independent judiciary [and]
impartial elections” ( 1, pg 488).
The Democratic Peace Theory has carried a proud reputation among popular culture,
international politics, and foreign policy; all while being supported by quantitative statistics. The
Democratic Peace Theory is one of the most popular paradigms of political science presently,
and for practical instrumental reasons, however it remains unclear as to what elements within it

12. yield the desired outcome of which it promotes. The strongest supporting premise for the
success of this theory, is that historical analysis observes no evidence of democracies going to
war with one another. Democracies are less likely to fight when the citizens have some say to
what the government does with their tax money. In cases like Afghanistan where George W.
Bush bypassed congress this would obviously not apply, although citizens may apply scrutiny
and withdrawal from voting him back in office, after the fact. The idea is is that officials of a
democracy have to worry about actions and reputations which would incite voters to desire their
demotion from office. Citizens under democratic regime are attracted to fellow correspondents
in other democracies, decreasing conflict and respecting boundaries of sovereignty with more
ease. Economies among democracies have also shown to be more sustainable given vigorous
reward for technological advancement as a tendency, and competition between leaders yield an
overall increase of concern, accompanied with promises to be either delivered or at least
considered; in order to avoid demotion of position. Additionally, Foreign Policy and public
opinion polls reflect the notion that people will follow similar norms found under democratic
societies, conflict resolution tactics used within their own democracy, and are less likely to
support attacks upon another nation if it is a democracy. When a state shares the same system of
governance, familiarity, trust, and relations grow. The fact that a democratic society supports the
attack of a democracy substantially less than one of an autocracy does not necessarily pinpoint
the reasons peace is created from nations sharing this particular system. However, when people
are told that the country of concern is of a democratic regime, there is a sense of security which
decreases fear; as well as the security dilemma. Constituents believe that the other carries
similar values of morale, attached to the political obligations of a democracy. This suggests that
similar social logic invokes an unspoken social contract to which the volatile nation would be

13. less likely to react with unprecedented violent force, but civilized conflict resolution. The
institutionalized mutual respect this commonality invites also makes it difficult for politicians to
explain why they would invade or meet another nation with hostility.
Moreover, democracies are expected to follow international law more rigorously on behalf of
their conditioned behavior to abide by national and international standards, for fear of losing
position. e an autocracy is the consolidation of power by one entity, meaning the tolerance and
occurrence of scrutiny is extremely little. The last observation which is seen in support for this
theory is that democracies do not seem to have territorial disputes. It is assumed that they are
satisfied among their liberal peace and economic, political, and military alliances, that there is no
need for imperialistic ambition.
On the other hand, Farber and Gowa prelude that democracies were able to achieve peace
because of shared goals and interests during the cold war that the western democracies had with
allies. Post war emerged alliances. This historical evidence is interesting, for experts in conflict
resolution might describe the outcome as activation and suppression pressures. These occur in
the midst of difficult times where ethnic groups suppress their nationalistic identities to
collaborate towards a shared goal. Activation occurs before or after this process by activating
old hatreds for example.
Other social scientists have suggested that the relationship between the Democratic Peace Theory
and creating peace is simply a spurious correlation. The main problem is there seems to be a
chain of variables which may affect the conditions of which peace may prosper in a region.

14. After 1945, the newly formed democratic regimes had also established economic and political
alliances with the U.S. which is evidence of interdependence; a method used in resolving
intractable conflict. When one or more nations become involved in a transnational organization
which involves the interdependence upon economies, politics, desire for continuous trade, or
other factions which risks large amounts of money and prosperity, those nations are less likely to
engage in conflict. They are even less likely to go to war with one another considering the
expenses, then adding the idea that both or all nations involved will simply lose money. This
was seen when the European Union consolidated their oil and gas industries into a transnational
body interdependent on one another’s political behavior, and has thus been an example of
conflict resolution through interdependency. Gartzke (2007) supports the claim that “joint
capitalism” creates peace through a number of the ways as the ones mentioned plus decreasing
the ambition for territorial expansion by elevating the costs of war including potential profits lost
via trade and opportunities for further development, and that democracies allow for more direct
intentions through open circuits of communication (social logic and contract). Considering these
factors, Gartzke argues that democracies are statistically not less likely to engage in conflict with
one another. Studies where interdependent capitalism and democracies are not correlated was
not found to exist during the time of this research, so it is difficult to presume either way with
confidence.
This leads to the next observation, that democracies are less likely to wage war with a nation
who’s military is equal or better (which is not likely presently), for democracies would not prefer
to lose. This is not surprising for much more of the world would be ruled by autocracies.
Democracies are also found to have more stable economies over time, however autocracies can

15. boom its economy in shorter periods. This notion may offer insight as to why many countries
are reluctant to transcend their existing systems during an instable global economy.
Another theory is suggested by Rosato (2003) who states that the lack of conflict between
democracies is a consequence of the power distribution post World War Two. He assesses that
about 90% of “double democratic dyads” are among Western Europe and American territory.
This notion is supported with the fact that archival data shows the Democratic Peace Theory
taking on its presumptions only after 1945, when the U.S. consolidated dominant international
power. Another social scientist implies the cause and effect relationship occurs in reverse order.
Where peace building and the maintenance of it, contributes to the formation of democracies.
Christopher Layne argues “ states that are, or believe they are, in high-threat environments are
less likely to be democracies because such states are more likely to be involved in wars, and
states that are likely to be in wars tend to adopt autocratic governmental structures to enhance
their strategic posture” (p.45 1994). Thus, there is yet other possible reason autocracies are
hesitant to become democratic.
Countries which are insecure about possible territorial disputes would much prefer autocracies.
The Arab spring has incited many upheavals in civil unrest, revolutions against their regimes,
and demands for basic civil rights provided by the government. When basic amenities are
neglectfully withheld by the government, it creates Protracted Social Conflict (PSC).
In a debate begging the question “Should All Nations Be Encouraged to Promote
Democratization?”, standing on opposite sides Francis Fukuyama of The Center on Democracy,

16. Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University answers yes, while Edward D.
Mansfield from the University of Pennsylvania and Jack Snyder of Columbia University say no.
They outline the cases in which democratic spread was successful and more importantly where it
was not. The failures of Iraq and Afghanistan has damaged the intention for years to come. The
main issue stated by Mansfield is that since democratic formation takes such a violent course, it
is not the time to take upon this crusade in such unstable international times. It leaves an open
vulnerability for the clashing of tribes and increase in corruption.
The history of democratic transformation has been sought with long term unsmooth processes,
and unzips a portal of vulnerability during these transitional democracies. The instability from
uprooting a history of political traditions, processes, and norms rooted in culture and nationalism,
invoke advantage points seen by authoritarian, nationalistic, or rebel groups to establish power.
If democratic practices do not spread and elevate a state’s economic position, certain factions
may attempt to seize control of the nation’s resources, leaving the citizens disgruntled and
unsatisfied with the fruits of the regime change.
This can be seen in recent cases of the Arab Spring, specifically the insertion of the Muslim
Brotherhood into Egypt’s current dictator overthrow. As well as current turmoil in Libya and the
fear of such trendy efforts in Syria. It is for these reasons that the overzealous promotion of
democracy should be reevaluated and treaded with caution. There are many conflicting factors
furthering the hostility and reluctance of the Arab World to join an additional western ideal of
government, especially when the U.S. government’s reputation has fallen from grace in their
recent efforts to occupy parts of the Middle East for political gain; whether mutually beneficial
or not. Such issues include lack of infrastructure and pre-existing conditions to ferret democratic

17. development, consideration of cultural values and norms, and trade-offs of the promotion of
democracy. Whilst considering securing threats of terrorism by the emergence of Islam
fundamentalists, in promoting democracy, there must be consideration of the trade-offs between
it and these other political goals of security, where the U.S. supports undemocratic regimes such
as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, China, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and perhaps Russia. “Promoting
democracy forcefully in such situations could weaken potential allies during a period when the
U.S. needs the full cooperation of states sympathetic to U.S. interests” (p489). For offering
alternative leadership would weaken the regime’s domestic support.
Culturally, many processes in forms of social construction and governmental and civil
organization will work wonderfully in one too many locations, while not in others. Every culture
has developed norms and customs to best suit the environment from which they adapted to, plus
the set of unique circumstances which ignited the path dependent cultural evolutions that people
currently cling to; to remain in previous conditions, retain cultural heritage and meanings, as well
as other reasons which result in attachment of certain nationalistic identities deemed purposeful.
Conclusion
Therefore, to assume that democracy would be the most optimal form of government or easily
maneuvered into the cultural hegemonies within regions is simply a fallacy of international
diplomacy and cultural tolerance.

18. Conflicts are spilling over micro and macro levels of society as a consequence of perpetuated by
the endless and contagious rederick of mass media. If current procedures are to be continued in
the future further studies should be required in order to verify the theory of peace holds validity
and reliability. It would be more practical to evaluate and modernize the series of steps that this
proicess takes. A place needs infrastructure before voting can even take place. It is not
necessarily the regime type; however the regime success depends on regime management. If
collective action is to succeed in de-weaponizing cultural diversity and the practices which
accompany it, re-evaluation and restructuring in the steps of the Democratic Peace Theory need
to be not only planned but implemented into action. Perhaps elites must lower their goals and
even re-name the institutionalizing of such a regime change so that these developing countries
with insecure power structures can better adapt and retain sustainable peace.