According to this theory, democracy plays an important role in maintaining peace and security. The concept further claims that democratic nations are generally peaceful and comparably less war-oriented. Consequently, the larger number of democratic nations in the global political system will lead to a smaller possibility of war and greater assurance of security and peace in the world. However, the evidence presented by various experts and researchers, including Siverson (1996), Huth (1997), Rummel (1997), Herman and Chomsky (1988), and the failure of democratization in third world countries, the presence of democratic deficit in transnational democratic organizations like, the European Union (EU), and the growing number of flawed democracies in the world have casted serious doubts on the validity of the democratic peace theory (DPT) (Ray 27-30; Herman and Chomsky1-11). On the basis of a scholarly research and available data, the present paper highlights the major flaws of democratic system and attempts to confute the assumptions of the democratic peace theory (DPT). The paper argues that only the potential spread of democracy won’t lead to more secure world, rather flawed and unmethodical promotion of democracy can lead to more instability and insecurity in the world.
First of all, democratic peace theory has given overemphasis on democracy for maintaining global peace. The democratic peace theory and proponents of democratization have excessively promoted the reduced number of interstate wars in recent years, however, they intentionally ignore the growing number of intrastate wars, civil riots and ethnic conflicts in newly democratized or flawed democratic states. The primary estimation of the ethnic security dilemma is the feeling of insecurity that the opposite party may try to take over the state at one’s loss.