Since 1945, scholars and pundits have said that democracy enhances peace. But is that true?
This article was produced and published by swissinfo.ch Photo by Jason Wilson, via Flickr and Wikimedia, CC BY 2.0
Switzerland is not only a peaceful, democratic country, it is also – as stated in its constitution – committed to democracy and the peaceful “coexistence of peoples” worldwide. The extent to which democracy and peace are linked from a Swiss perspective is demonstrated by the fact that the promotion of democracy is the responsibility of the “Peace and Human Rights” department in the foreign ministry.
The perspective that democratisation brings peace has also had an impact internationally since 1945. Since the Second World War, the number of interstate wars has decreased and the number of democratic states has increased.
In 2024, there were once again more autocratic states than democratic ones. And liberal democracies, which respect the rights and freedoms of the individual, have even become a rare form of government. Only 900 million people live in a liberal democracy. In contrast, 72% of the world’s population live in a dictatorship. This is the highest number since 1978. At the same time, Western countries, above all the US, are scaling back their promotion of democracy abroad.
Are these developments linked to the many conflicts that exist around the world?
In addition to peace, prosperity in particular has long been a promise of democratisation, political scientist Karina Mross told Swissinfo. “But the example of China has undermined this argument. Especially since China is trying to define its own form of democracy,” she said.
A few years ago, China presented an argument as to why dictatorship is “a democracy that works”External link. Authoritarian states are trying – also in international organisations – to counter the liberal order with their own alternative model of values and prosperity.
If the economic argument is dropped, the question arises as to whether democratisation is at least a guarantee for peace.
Democracies more peaceful to other democracies
The idea behind the “democratic peace” was developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Today, political scientists are using field research and quantitative methods to investigate this.
As the population bears the costs of a war, it is usually critical of wars according to the theory of democratic peace, explained Hannah Smidt, political scientist and assistant professor at the University of St Gallen, in her presentation at the “Aarau Democracy Days 2025”. Decision-makers in democracies are dependent on popular preference through elections, she said. Because they cannot therefore afford to act against their own population, democracies are more peaceful, she added.
There is a scientific consensusExternal link that democratic states behave more peacefully towards other democratic states – in comparison to states with non-democratic systems. However, the theory of democratic peace is only one possible explanation for this. Others attribute the peaceful coexistence of democracies more to trade relations or joint membership of international organisations. “Is democracy really that important for peace? This dispute is still ongoing,” says Smidt.
This dispute is also virulent because only the number of interstate wars has fallen since the Second World War. The number of civil wars, on the other hand, has increased, despite the growing number of democracies at the time.
‘Regimes in the centre have greater instability’
“Recent research shows that democracies tend to be more peaceful than autocracies,” says Karina Mross, a researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability. For a long time, it was said that “both are similarly stable and that regimes in the centre are more unstable”. However, the long-term perspective also paints a different picture for autocratic states. “We saw this in Syria, for example, when a civil war broke out after decades under the Assads. The likelihood of violent opposition breaking out at some point is much higher in autocracies,” says Mross.
There is “some empirical evidence” that “violent conflicts have an increased risk in the opening phases of an autocracy”, she says. “Against this background, the question has long been asked: if the risk of civil war increases during democratisation processes, should we promote democracy at all?”
Field research in Nepal, Burundi and Liberia
Mross analysed this in her dissertation and came to a clear conclusion. “It tended to show that international support for democracy contributed to sustainable peace when it started with those local actors who were already promoting democratisation internally,” she explains.
She compared the development in countries that democratised after a civil war and conducted field research in Nepal, Burundi and Liberia. Although not all of these countries are democratic today, it is clear that external support for democracy can mitigate destabilising effects. “External support helps democratisation to proceed peacefully even after a civil war,” she says.
However, Mross denies that democracy promotion is good per se. “You need local actors who demand democracy. It is very difficult to impose democracy from the outside.” There must be a “domestic drive”, a drive within the country itself. Then international support could “make an important contribution and make the difference”.
US: mixing the promotion of democracy with geopolitical interests
State support for democracy abroad is often criticised because of its connection with foreign policy interests and diplomacy. “The US has closely linked democracy promotion with geopolitical interests, particularly in certain regions,” says Mross. This has undermined legitimacy and neutrality.
However, in many places, US involvement has had a lasting positive effect – thanks to large resources and the ability to exert diplomatic pressure. “For Liberia, I was able to show that sometimes external pressure can make a difference if the country’s own institutions are not yet strong enough to prevent authoritarian tendencies,” explains Mross.
The decisive question for her is: in case of doubt, does the primacy of democracy promotion apply – or that of economic or other interests? If democracy then takes second place, this is a major problem “for the credibility and effectiveness of democracy promotion”.
However, if “diplomacy is really focused on the cause of democracy”, Mross sees it as positive when diplomacy and democracy promotion are closely interlinked. She has been able to observe this with regard to Switzerland in Nepal. Since the end of the civil war in 2006, Switzerland has been supporting the peace process and the establishment of stable, democratic institutions there.
Does autocratisation bring more conflict?
Looking at the current global trend towards autocratisationExternal link, the picture that emerges is one of many states in hybrid situations or with hybrid regimes.
These “regimes in the middle”, as Mross calls them, were originally authoritarian states in the past 80 years that have opened up to society to varying degrees. Today, there are new regimes in the middle: states that have undergone a dismantling of democracy. And now, as competitive autocracies or illiberal democracies, they are caught between autocracy and democracy.
Whether this wave of autocratisation increases the risk of civil war in the countries concerned is still unknown. Mross and her team are looking into the question. “On the one hand, we can see that the number of conflicts is currently at an extreme high. And on the other hand: many autocratic countries and countries that are becoming autocratic. There may be a connection, but there doesn’t have to be,” says Mross.
That’s why they want to investigate this properly. “Various arguments suggest that there is a higher number of conflicts,” she says. The decisive factor is probably how quickly the repressive apparatus of a “regime that is becoming autocratic” is able to “suppress destabilising tendencies”.
It remains to be seen what effect the fact that states that once promoted democracy are currently experiencing a reduction in democracy themselves will have. At the same time, international organisations are also undergoing a slow, fundamental change. For example, UN peacekeeping missions are now less often mandated to support democratisation than they were a decade ago, despite Smidt’s research showing that such democracy promotion mandates have a positive effectExternal link.
It is possible that the missions are without democracy mandates because the balance of power in international organisations is shifting towards autocracies.
