This essay is a critique of the democratic peace hypothesis. It describes the theory and evaluates it with reference to the realistic theory and works of two realist theorists, Kenneth Waltz and Thomas Hobbes. Democratic peace theory is not likely to bring the desired results, because of human Selfishness and greed for more power. The democratic peace theory states that nations which have adopted democracy as a form of governance, are less likely to wage war against each other, because democracy is closer to peace than any other form of governance. The theory of realism, states that the existence of states is motivated by desire for power, and security. These two theories are opposed to each other and the substance of democratic peace theory can be challenged in many ways. There is nothing new in what the democratic peace theory has to state. It is a common human and moral lesson that war is senseless and useless, and does not serve any purpose. A close analysis of the wars during the past few centuries reveals that in most of the wars, America and Britain were the chief players. The paradox lies in the fact that these are the two most prominent democracies of this world !!! Where is the root of any war? Undoubtedly, the infinite greed of human being for power, his selfishness and drive to dominate over others, and his belief in right for self defense form the roots of almost all the wars. Will states ever stop becoming selfish or greedy? Will they ever be ready to give up their rights
for self defense?