As we have discussed, democratic peace theory posits that democracies do not fight other democracies. Although democratic states go to war with non-democratic states and non-democratic states will go to war with other non-democratic states, domestic pressures and shared norms of behavior prevent democracies from going to war with other democracies.
Democratic peace theorists believe that the chance of war is less in a democracy because decision makers are restrained by the multiplicity of political structures and voices in policy making. In addition, the electoral chances of a democratic leader may be jeopardized if a conflict does not have popular support. Some scholars argue that democracies are likely to become allies with other democracies because they share similar values. As a result, democratic states tend to share benign perceptions of each other. Other democratic peace theory scholars assert that democratic leaders and societies are socialized by democratic norms to settle domestic discrepancies peacefully, and are predisposed to settle international differences in the same manner. In short, those arguing for the validity of the democratic peace believe that the spread of democracy will lead to less bellicosity. If all states become democratic, the international system would be more peaceful.
But still others argue that the findings about the democratic peace are coincidental and not the result of democracy causing peace. Some commentators, for instance, have even pointed out that no two states who have had McDonald's restaurants established within their borders have ever gone to war. So maybe, we should begin to talk about the Big Mac theory of peace? But more seriously, to get you thinking about what helps to produce more peaceful relations among states in the international system, and to understand what your peers think as well, we ask that you answer the following questions which will be tabulated for all the students using this book.