Session 23: Are democracies a reason for increase in proxy wars?

            Kant's 'Democratic Peace Theory' revolves around the idea that democracies don't normally go to war. According to him, republics and democracies generally tend to solve issues through negotiations as public have important contribution in decision making process. Since power in these states is in the hands of public who are generally less inclined towards war, thus occurrences of war is far less.

             Although it is quite an optimistic theory which presents a far better model of world but I observe some drawbacks of this theory. My these views are based on the two considerations: firstly, liberal institutions only apparently seems to effect foreign policy and second is that states, regardless of there structure, are in ever ongoing struggle for acquiring power.

             Now, the drawbacks I want to discuss is increase in proxy wars and use of non-state actors by a state. After second world war, we have seen this phenomenon on the rise. Proxy wars were common in cold war as both super powers (America and USSR) do not wish to face each other directly as it would have lead to a nuclear war. Both states, apparently equal in capabilities, followed this path. More contemporary examples include Pakistan's involvement in disputed territory of Kashmir and a chain of proxy wars in Middle East by between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

               Leaders and institutions in democracies can be held accountable for their actions. So, they tend to pursue their goals through non-state actors. Involvement in proxy wars also depends on the capabilities of a state, for instance, Iran, a less powerful state would refrain to involve in another state's matters directly. On the other hand, an authoritarian regime will be less likely to ask people's opinion before waging a war, as in Saudi Arab's involvement in Yemen but a democracy will have to face internal resistance on this issue. So, democracies opt for non-state actors.