Territorial peace theory
Threats against the territorial borders of a country are observed to provoke a rallying effect in support of the leader and to foster a range of attitudes and behaviors that are antithetical to key democratic values, such as nationalism, authoritarianism, intolerance, and decreased political trust.
[11] Another factor during the Cold War was the dominance of the US that fostered peace between democracies in the so-called Pax Americana.
[11][12] Another possibility is a circular causation so that peace, economic interdependence, democracy, and international organization all mutually reinforce each other in a positive feedback loop.
It has been observed that the citizens in this situation often pay lip service to the ideology of democracy while in fact they support an authoritarian leader.
Several psychological studies show that territorial conflicts lead to increased nationalism and intolerance of outgroups, while other kinds of threats have little or no such effect.
[15][7] This intolerance is connected with a less democratic attitude, less support for negotiated compromise with the enemy, less concern about government corruption, and also less tolerance towards other outgroups unrelated to the conflict.
The opposite tendencies are seen in case of peace and collective security where people desire an egalitarian, democratic, and tolerant society.
While the population still supported democracy in principle, they actually desired a more powerful leader and voted for an authoritarian populist.
This observation fits with the theories, explained above, that territorial threats lead to increased authoritarianism and decreased support for democracy.
[14][16] The threat that makes the population accept a centralization of power and a less democratic system is sometimes deliberately fabricated.
There are many historical examples of political leaders who engage in psychological manipulation of their own population through fearmongering, exaggeration of dangers, or even creation of false flag attacks in order to augment their own power.
In other cases, the threats are fabricated by foreign powers who engage in psychological warfare and a strategy of tension in order to facilitate an authoritarian coup.
Studies show that the popularity of the government is decreasing if war casualties are high, as the democratic peace theory predicts.
[11] Another study found that the risk of violent conflicts is decreasing when the degree of accountability of a government is increasing.
[23] Time series analyses show that rivalizing states which are both democratic are less likely to escalate a rivalry to violent conflict.
Democratic countries are more likely to engage in peaceful negotiations and less likely to use threats or force against each other because of shared norms and because voters will often replace warmaking politicians.
Joint democracy for countries that are already at peace with each other decreases the likelihood of new conflicts, and reduces the severity of militarized disputes and crises if they occur.
The peaceful effect of democracy is to some extent offset by the observation that democratic leaders are less likely to retreat in case of military crisis because their popularity will decrease when they lose face.
[25] There have been many attempts to impose democracy on troubled countries with explicit reference to the democratic peace theory.
In fact, it has been argued that early elections after civil wars are increasing the likelihood of future conflict because they may lead to suppression of the interests of minority groups.
