Democratisation and Inter-State War: Why Reform does not Encourage Conflict1
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2004.00221.x |
| Author | David J. Galbreath |
| Published date | 01 September 2004 |
| Date | 01 September 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
© Political Studies Association, 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Democratisation and Inter-State War:
Why Reform does not Encourage
Conflict1
David J. Galbreath
University of Leeds
The ‘democratic peace theory’ argues that democratic states do not initiate war against one another
and that democratic institutions discourage that initiation of international conflict. In general, this
theory has mostly been applied to existing liberal democracies. However, the peaceful nature of
the process of democratisation is far less evident. Some scholars argue that the instability of demo-
cratic transitions increases the likelihood that democratising states will initiate international con-
flict, making the democratic peace theory less valuable in its explanatory power. This article,
however, argues that democratising states, as opposed to authoritarian states exhibiting a brief
period of liberalisation, are inherently less prone to periods of international conflict.
Introduction
A great body of research has focused on the democratic peace theory (for example
Doyle, 1983; Russett, 1993; Mansfield and Snyder, 1996) and the transition to
democracy (see especially O’Donnell, 1996; Diamandouros, Gunther and Puhle,
1996a; Karl, 1990; Linz and Stepan, 1996). However, a relative paucity of research
deals with the relationship between these two phenomena. Such work has gener-
ally portrayed this transitional period as a volatile time during which a backslide
to autocracy, or the events which may accompany the transition to democracy,
may encourage conflict. Within a democratising state, there are many uncertain-
ties that could push the state back to authoritarian governance (see Anderson et
al., 2001). More specifically, elite actors are vying for survival, while both political
institutions and the economy are being reformed. Given this chaotic situation,
there is a great possibility of conflict between competing factions. A logical area of
inquiry is the external impact of such domestic strife. Specifically, I maintain that
democratic transitions do not typically establish circumstances under which an inter-state con-
flict is likely to occur. I argue that this moment of liberalisation is, for the state, a posi-
tion of introspection. Thus, political attentions are focused inwards rather than to
neighbouring states. Although the international community does also affect the
nature of democratic transitions, this article will specifically discuss the endoge-
nous factors in argument for peaceful democratic transitions.
An opposing argument is proposed by Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder (1996,
p. 301), who argue that ‘[i]n this transitional phase of democratisation, countries
become more aggressive and war-prone, not less, and they do fight wars with other
democratic states’. Thus, there is a possibility of backsliding away from liberal
POLITICS: 2004 VOL 24(3), 206–214
To continue reading
Request your trial