Asking AI about democracy and the future (9/18): Gemini’s answer (5/7)

The Contested Horizon: Navigating Humanity's Near Future Amidst Geopolitical Shifts, Democratic Erosion, and Technological Transformation (5/7)

Table of subtitles

IV. The Shifting Landscape of Democracy (cont’d)

 

B. Critiques and Challenges to Democratic Peace Theory[10]

 

Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) posits that democratic nations are less likely to engage in armed conflict with each other, a concept rooted in Immanuel Kant's philosophy[9] and supported by empirical observations of peaceful relations between democratic states.[5, 6] This theory attributes the peaceful relations to shared democratic norms, such as respect for individual rights, the rule of law, and peaceful conflict resolution, as well as institutional constraints like the separation of powers and the need for public approval to initiate wars.[5, 6]

 

However, DPT faces several significant critiques and challenges, particularly when applied to the complexities of the 21st century. One central argument is that the observed peace between democracies might be a spurious correlation, attributable to other factors like shared economic wealth, alliance structures, or geographical proximity, rather than democracy itself.[5, 6] Some critics suggest that DPT may be a historical artifact of the Cold War era or applicable only to a narrow subset of powerful, Western democracies.[5]

 

A notable limitation of the theory is its perceived failure to adequately account for the role of trade interdependence as a more compelling reason for peace. For instance, despite billions of dollars in annual commerce, China (an autocratic state) and the United States (a democratic state) have not engaged in armed conflict, suggesting that strong economic ties might be a more potent factor in preventing war than shared democratic principles.[3] Furthermore, the theory is criticized for its assumption that democratic state actors are always accountable to "peace-loving publics" and for underestimating the capacity of leaders to make abrupt decisions in the name of national interest, even defying democratic values.[3] The concept of "norm externalization," where democracies are expected to apply their internal conflict resolution norms externally, is also questioned, as empirical evidence suggests democratic countries often decide for war by disregarding these values.[3] The 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, involving two constitutionally declared democratic countries, is frequently cited as a significant challenge to DPT, demonstrating the failure of negotiation among democratic state leaders.[3][12]

 

The idea that democracy is "transplantable" is another point of contention. Democracies have sometimes used this notion to justify military engagement in authoritarian states, aiming to spread and establish democratic systems in turbulent regions. However, this has often resulted in extreme miscalculations of military, economic, and humanitarian costs, leading to turmoil during transitions.[3] The influence of great powers, such as Russia and China, in supporting non-democratic ideologies and influencing neighboring countries' politics to establish regional dominance, also challenges DPT's premise by making international relations more contentious and anarchic.[3] Finally, DPT is criticized for failing to explain crucial factors that shape the behavior of people and states, including religious belief, culture, the possession of nuclear arsenals, border disputes, and the pursuit of regional or global supremacy—all of which are creating new equations in international politics.[3]

 

C. Is Democracy Still a Viable Hope for the World?

 

Despite the significant challenges and critiques, democracy retains a substantial, albeit complex, role as a viable hope for the world. Public opinion polling data consistently indicates that democracy as a political system still holds considerable appeal globally compared to non-democratic alternatives.[4] Elections, even amidst their declining credibility, remain the "single best opportunity to end democratic backsliding and turn the tide in democracy's favor".[2] Recent examples from diverse contexts like Brazil, France, India, Poland, and Zambia demonstrate that elections can still surprise experts and, in some cases, strengthen democracy in the face of adversity.[2]

 

However, a critical observation is the "perception gap" in democratic legitimacy. International IDEA highlights that public perceptions of elections are as crucial as their substantive integrity for democracy to succeed.[2] The pervasive rise of disinformation and the increasing frequency of contested electoral outcomes directly impact this public perception, even when the underlying electoral mechanics might be sound.[2] Simultaneously, research indicates that information about U.S. democratic backsliding does decrease favorability towards the U.S. among foreign citizens. Yet, surprisingly, this diminished image does not significantly decrease support for cooperating with the U.S. on critical policies.[7] This suggests a disconnect between how democracy is perceived as an ideal or a system, and its practical utility or functional benefits in international relations. The implication is that the viability of democracy might depend less on its universal appeal as an unblemished ideal and more on its pragmatic ability to deliver tangible benefits, maintain functional partnerships, and manage its public image in an era of radical uncertainty and information manipulation.

 

Further complicating democracy's viability is the "charismatic leader vulnerability." Academic research indicates that charismatic leaders can pose a significant threat to democratic stability, particularly in polarized and less stable democracies.[8] Their popular support can weaken institutional checks and balances, as political parties become reliant on their electoral appeal and unwilling to constrain their behavior.[8] This phenomenon is exemplified by the observed reluctance of politicians to break with powerful figures due to the perceived high political costs.[8] This dynamic is deeply intertwined with the broader global trend of populism and the widespread rejection of incumbent political establishments.[1] The implication is that the enduring viability of democracy is increasingly vulnerable to the rise of charismatic figures who can exploit existing polarization and distrust to undermine democratic norms and institutions from within. This suggests that strengthening democracy requires not only institutional reforms but also fostering a political culture that prioritizes democratic norms and institutional checks over individual loyalty. It also necessitates addressing the underlying societal dynamics that make anti-democratic narratives so compelling to certain groups.[8]

 

Footnotes

1. https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-conflicts-watch-2025
2. https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/sites/default/files/2024-09/the-global-state-of-democracy-2024-strengthening-legitimacy-elections.pdf
3. https://freedomhouse.org/policy-recommendations/strengthening-democracy-abroad
4. https://un-futureslab.org/
5. https://council.science/events/launch-un-futures-lab-isc-report/
6. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/10/future-predictions-what-if-get-things-right-visions-for-2030/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Council
8. https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2025/03/understanding-democratic-backsliding-insights-from-leading-researchers

9. Kant foreshadowed the theory in his essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch written in 1795, although he thought that a world with only constitutional republics was only one of several necessary conditions for a perpetual peace. Wikipedia, Democratic peace theory, viewed on June 8, 2025.
10. [Blogger's Note] I can agree with all the criticisms of DPT mentioned here and accept them. However, if you say that DPT is wrong, I cannot agree with that. There are two reasons. First, the problems pointed out are all challenges that must be overcome to achieve peace, and they do not fundamentally deny DPT itself. For example, if there are several paths from point A to point B and the fastest path is path 1, there will be many factors that prevent you from going that path quickly. Just as there are other variables such as weather, construction, robbery, traffic, and others, I see the DPT and the variables pointed out here as having such a relationship. Another problem is that the issue of defining and evaluating democracy must come first, and among these criticisms, it is difficult to agree with evaluating Russia as a democracy. In conclusion, I think the criticism of DPT here is a task that complements DPT and a task that must be overcome in itself.
11. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) is an intergovernmental organization that works to support and strengthen democratic institutions and processes around the world, to develop sustainable, effective and legitimate democracies. Wikipedia, International IDEA, viewed on June 8, 2025.
12. [Blogger’s note] While the Russian constitution declares Russia a democratic federal state with a republican form of government, and it has a president elected by citizens, international assessments and expert analysis indicate that Russia functions as an authoritarian regime rather than a true democracy, exhibiting significant declines in democratic indicators, restrictions on freedoms, and concentration of power. Google AI Overview, viewed on July 1, 2025.