Abstract
            The paper discusses and evaluates the extent to which democracy can serve as an effective instrument against conflict.  It reviews literature on the democratic peace and assesses the evidence on whether democracies are more peaceful and, if so, in what ways.  The definition of democracy is provided and discussed. The paper evaluates the relationship between democracy and human rights and assumes that although democracy is an effective means to secure and promote human rights, it may not always fit into specific cultural and political traditions.  Thus, not all states may be willing to adopt its principles.  The paper begins answering the questions: if democracy prevents conflict, why does democracy work for some countries and fails for others, and should the West continue to persuade other countries to be democratic?

            Challenging a theory that states democracy encourages peaceful interaction among democratic states, coined “democratic peace,” it is essential to question whether a proliferation of democratic states would actually usher in a more peaceful international order, bring domesticpeace and stability, and become less likely to suffer internal strife (Russett, 1993, p.1). Supporting the hypothesis, it is important to discuss, among other things, democracies that are in conflict with each other.  Theorists who agree and disagree with the “democratic peace” theory will be analyzed.   The hypothesis is democracies do not prevent conflict anymore than any other form of government.

            Kant’s essay Perpetual Peace, written in 1795, (as cited in Gartzke, 1998, p.152) claimed that democracies were necessary requirements for a perpetual peace.  Over 200 years has begun to test Kant’s theory.  Rousseau negates this opinion by stating, ‘if there were a nation of Gods, they might be governed by a democracy: but so perfect a government will not agree with men’ (Gartzke, 1998, p.153).   The assumption of democracies creating accountability of the governed to prevent conflicts assumes that the people desire peace.  Kant's (1957) view was that most rational people would never vote to go to war, unless it was for self defense.  Hence, global peace would be inevitable if all nations were republics, because no country would be able to become initiators of conflict.  This may or may not be true.  In the people, the love of peace is strong, but so too is the love of war and victory (Gartzke, 1998). 
Samuel Huntington (1991) called “the third wave of democracy” the buoyant expansion of democracy in most of the world from the 1970s to 1990s (p.23).  This optimistic spreading of democratic ideals and norms is viewed as the ideal cure to conflict and a possible creator of global peace.  Jack Levy (1989) states that democracy is, "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations"(p.270).  In order for any state to prevent conflict, whether democratic or otherwise, it must be able to control the integrity of its territory, uphold legal order, provide humanitarian rights, and deliver public services. 
Contemplating Conflict?
            A conflict may be as a sort of military force from either an internal source (interstate) or external (intrastate or international).  From an intrastate perspective, former U.S. President Bill Clinton asserted that, "democracies rarely wage war on one another," (Owen, 1994, p.87).  The key word “rarely” is essential when looking at democracy as a conflict resolution approach, for not all situations democracy may have the capacity and capability to create peace.  From an interstate perspective, the assertion that democracy prevents human right conflicts is essential to understanding if democracies can indeed prevent conflicts. 
Democratic Definitions
            Democracy is originally derived from demos.  The demos, “as defined in ancient Greece, denotes an inclusive body of citizens within a given territory” (Yiftachel, 1998).  Ethnos denotes “common origin” (Yiftachel, 1998).   The term "democracy" in Israel therefore means the rule of the citizens within the Israeli territory.   The modern application of democracy in Israel points to an ambiguity between permanent residency in the polity and equal political rights as a necessary democratic condition. 
How to define democracy is a topic of serious political concern.  Throughout its history, democracy was widely regarded as the etalon and the highest standard a state or a society can achieve.  In other words, democracy was used to exemplify an ideal balance of public expression and state control.  Leaders and states created and sought to preserve their democratic ideals and democracy often served as an effective element of political self-promotion.  In a Post Cold War Era, many of those considered non-democratic were derived of an opportunity to become equal members of the international political landscape, such as the United Nations, with the exception of China.  However, as conditions and circumstances change, so does the vision and the meaning of democracy.  The “Democratic Peace” theory may require that democracies be pure and completely controlled by the people.  Israel and Palestine are not pure democracies. 
Defining what an ideal democracy is, it is necessary to compare it to failed democracies.
To understand what is distinctive about the characteristics of democratic states, most democracies utilize certain procedural characteristics such as virtually universal suffrage, elections that maybe contested, separations and restrictions on government power, accountability of the political leaders, and last but not least the public expression of views such as speech and press (Dahl, 1971).  
Those who are not familiar with the works of Schumpeter and other political scholars will tend to associate democracy with human rights, freedom of expression, and the dominant power of electorate.  A true democracy implies that dominant political forces are no longer capable of exerting powerful influence on the election results and cannot interfere in the election process in ways which would reverse or distort election results (Schaffer, 2000). However, the problems of democracy start with its definition which, in all its vagueness, also reflects the vagueness of democracy itself.  In this context, Schumpeter’s definition is of the utmost importance.  According to Schumpeter, “democracy is a political method, that is to say, a certain type of institutional arrangement for arriving at political – legislative and administrative – decisions and hence is incapable of being an end in itself, irrespective of what decisions it will produce under given historical conditions” (Beetham, 1999).  In other words, democracy is the method of taking political decisions which implies the dominant power of the human electorate and takes decisions by the rule of prevailing majority.
The Structural Reasons Democracy Prevents Conflict
            Dean Babst (1972) reported that "no wars have been fought between independent nations with elective governments between 1789 and 1941"(p.55).  This may be true, for violent conflicts between democracies will be infrequent because in democracies, there is an accountability based on the constraints of checks and balances, division of power, and need for public debate to enlist widespread support will slow decisions to use large-scale violence and reduce the likelihood that such decisions will be made.  Leaders of other states will perceive leaders of democracies as so constrained. Thus leaders of democracies will expect, in conflicts with other democracies, time for processes of international conflict resolution to operate, and they will not fear surprise attack (Russet & Antholis, 1992).  Kant’s own view concurs that institutional constraints are astructure of division of powers, checks and balances which would make it difficult for democratic leaders to move their countries into war. 
Popular support of war in a democracy can be built by rhetoric and exhortation, but may not be compelled by the government’s opinion only.  David Forsythe, accepts the conclusion that democracies do not go to war with each other; however views democracies may use covert action instead of overt force against popularly elected governments which pursue policies strongly disliked by the United States or other major democratic powers.  Because of the lack of scholars to analyze quantitive data, the “democratic peace” proposition is a matter of theoretical contest.  The “democratic peace” proposal is arguably a major distorted generalization.   A notion is that democracies being peaceful should be equally evaluated on the quantitative analyses and should mutually informative (Ray, 1995).  Pure democracy may improve human rights and prevent conflict, but all democracies may not be pure.  Conflicts in democracies are sometime accepted by nations and other times rejected, and an upheaval in a country not pure in democracy may result in interstate conflict.  The status quo may take up arms to defend their position of power.  The question remains is it worth raising an armed conflict to spread democracy and prevent conflicts in the future?  If all countries participated, creating democracies maybe a solution for continued peace in the world; however this is not the current case.
The major powerful democracies seem never to have launched preventive war against another major power (Schweller, 1992).  Democratic governments can respond to sudden attack by using emergency powers; however, in normal times they are hesitant to launch surprise attacks (Schweller, 1992). Finally, if democratic leaders consider other democracies to be reluctant to fight because of institutional constraints, they will not fear being attacked by another democracy (Schweller, 1992).   Because of a general aversion of the people to war in democracies, it may be unlikely democracies will fight each other.

             “Democratic peace” can prevent conflict with other democracies; however, democracies have initiated a substantial amount of conflicts with non democratic regions.  Even if democracies don’t go to war with each other, the question arises of whether democracies initiating conflicts with non-democracies are necessary to push the democratic agenda.  There is a lack of analytical information to prove that “democratic peace” or democratic conflict exists.  One of the few studies that prove democracy and conflict exists is by Ghosn.  According to Ghosn (2004), democracies initiate more conflict than non democracies, “Israel initiated about 97% (382/393) of the incidents in which it was involved; the United States initiated 82% (278/338) of its incidents, Turkey about 76% (172/226), and Britain almost 93% (126/136) of its incidents, while Iraq initiated just 19% (58/300) of its incidents.  Iraq is much more frequently a target than an initiator of its international militarized incidents.  Lebanon, similarly, initiated five incidents, a little more than 1% of the incidents in which it was involved” (p.150).  With these statistics, the world may reduce conflict with democracies halting military intervention to promote democracy.
Former US Secretary of State James Baker has maintained that democratic values and international peace reinforce each other (Mansfield and Snyder 1995).  Analyzing the historical democratic expansion, its benefits and its costs, it is apparent that democracy can prevent conflict when democracy is pure, but democracies create conflicts with other democracies and non democracies.  Violent conflicts between democracies and non-democracies will be frequent because “leaders of non-democracies are not constrained as leaders of democracies are, so they can more easily, rapidly, and secretly initiate large-scale violence” (Russet & Antholis, 1992,  p.5).   Also, leaders of states in conflict with non-democracies may initiate violence rather than risk surprise attack.  Conflict may result based on perceiving that leaders of democracies will be constrained; thus, leaders of non-democracies may press democracies to make greater concessions over issues in conflict (Russet & Antholis, 1992).
Democratic institutions may not be sufficient to prevent conflict and may aggravate and instigate conflict in sharply divided societies.It is essential to acknowledge one example of whether Israel is a democracy, for Israel and Pakistan are considered democracies at war with each other.  According to Yiftachel (1998), Israeli polity is not a democracy but an "ethnocracy."   Yifachel (1998) notes, “Israel is a state and a polity without clear boundaries; and the country's organization of social space is based on pervasive and uneven ethnic segregation” (Yiftachel, 1998, p.26).  This leads to a necessary questioning of Israel's democratic status. 
Yiftachel, (1998) examines Israel's 1996 elections and found that the result counted only the results inside the Green Line.  If all territory would have been counted in Israel, “Shimon Peres would have beaten Benjamin Netanyahu by a margin of over five percent” (Yiftachel, 1998, p.15).   With truly democratic leadership, the conflict with Palestine may have ended, because “Israel maintains a regime which structurally discriminates against non-Jews” (Yiftachel, 1998, p.25).  Because Israel is “ethnocractic” despite its several democratic features, ethnicity, not territorial citizenship, is the main logic behind resource allocation and power.  As noted, “around 60 percent of the West Bank is now held by Israeli Jews as private, state or military land” (Yiftachel, 1998, p.22).  To reiterate, Israel is really an “ethnocracy” not a democracy, and arguments that democracies don’t go to war with each other still holds.  It does not lead to the conclusion that democracy prevents conflicts.
Concluding this thought, it is necessary to ask oneself if democracy can solve problems for Israel and Palestine.  According to U.S. Secretary Clinton at AIPAC conference, democracy is not working in Palestine.  Peace is not occurring in Palestine or Israel even though they are both promotion democracies.  According Landes (2009) in the Goldstone report, “Israel and unspecified ‘Palestinian armed forces’ guilty of ‘war crimes’ and possibly crimes against humanity” (Landes, 2009).  Not only is peace not being upheld, but war atrocities are occurring.
Preventing and Creating Conflict in Developing Democracies
            Democracy is difficult to obtain in developing in developing countries.  Israel is a developed country.  According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI) that gauges a country's level of human development, Israel is ranked number 28 (U.N., 2008).   There is a strong correlation between having a high HDI score and a prosperous economy, the UN points out that the HDI accounts for more than income or productivity. Since Israel is a developed country, democracy can be obtained there,  and peace can result, even though it has made “ethnocratic” choices.
Nils Petter Gleditsch (1995) has argued that "the importance of democracy lies in it being a near-perfect sufficient condition for peace" (p.297).  However, holding developing democracies to standards that they cannot achieve, even when developed countries such as Israel cannot accomplish, produces unnecessary stress on the developing democracies.  Some new democracies have difficulties with the idea that democracy means more than majority rule. Without the understanding that majority rule includes minority protections, majority groups will be able to rule and plunder at the same time.  Majority rule without minority rights is no different than a hegemonic dictatorship.
Maoz (1996) states that democracies may view that peace can only exist between democracies.  In this context, the basic question is in what values democracy should promote, and how they fit into the generally accepted vision of the democratic rule.  Here, it is at least incorrect to say that democracy will promote the same set of values at all times.  Rather, what values to promote will largely depend on circumstances (LeBor, 2006).  More importantly, Schumpeter’s definition of democracy also implies that each state that considers itself democratic will seek to promote its own values, but whenever states apply to and work to preserve the beliefs and values that reflect the deepest convictions of the prevailing majority, they be granted the right to call themselves democratic.  Furthermore, a democratic state will always be characterized by a wide participation of masses in shaping and sharing these values and convictions (Schaffer, 2000).
Is Democracy the answer for conflict in Africa?  Authors Danny Glover and Nicole Lee (2007) claim, "Say no to Africom" (p.1).  Many countries in Africa do not want democracy; thus, this coerced democracy may not succeed. Bush's claims that Africom “will enhance…efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa' and promote the 'goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth” (Glover, 2007, p.14).  The ideals and norms of democracy may indeed provide these benefits. Yet the Bush Administration officials fail to mention that securing and controlling African natural resources is imperative to US trade interests.  Helping African countries is not the main incentive to promote democracy in Africa.  “Transnational corporations rely on Africa for petroleum, uranium and diamonds” (Glover, 2007, p.16). 
The promotion of democracy in Africa may be due other means than for the “democratic peace” agenda.  The desire for democracy in Africa may be persuaded by the imperialistic agenda to control the oil and other resources in those countries.  The authoritative governments in existence may be more difficult to negotiate with than a democratic leadership.  The United States wants to keep oil prices low by increasing supply, there is financial incentive for the U.S. to promote democracy in the region (Glover, 2007).  A democracy allows for more international influence than an authoritarian state by the U.S. and others, for a person in a democracy may lose power and control due to an unsuccessful election whereas an authoritarian has absolute power and control.  The U.S. may be able to secure resources better in a democracy versus other forms of government.
Unfortunately, not all states that claim to be democratic were able to adopt and implement the principles of democracy in practice.  These failed democracies successfully operate beyond the boundaries of the truly democratic conduct and often exemplify a road to totalitarian regimes and discrimination (e.g., North Korea).  In political science, for a state to be considered, it should meet the three basic criteria: it must be unable to control the integrity of its territory, it must no longer uphold its legal order, and it must fail to deliver public services or create conditions for such delivery (Coyne, 2006; Koonings & Krujit, 2005).  Everything is different with democracies, and failed democracies are those which failed to encourage or promote public participation in the process of creating values.  These are particularly characteristic of Latin America, South Asia, and the Middle East (the brightest examples include Venezuela and China).
In Asian countries, the failure of democracy was mostly due to sectarianism, terrorism, political and social instability, and the history of military dictatorships (Hamid & Brooke, 2010). In the Middle East, the failure of democracies was due to democracy being imposed on states against their will and contrary to their cultural beliefs.  In the Middle East, where populations are historically used to top-down political management approaches and look to their leaders in their search for an answer, democracy in the way it is adopted in the west may not work effectively but, on the contrary, may manifest in violence, conflicts, disobedience, and civil disagreement (Legters & Burke, 1994).  As a result, although democracy is a convenient and, most probably, the ideal method of promoting public participation and self-expression, not all states and not all cultures are willing to accept its principles for various reasons.
Do Democracies Create or Prevent Interstate Conflict?
            Among the reasons of such failures and introduction to an interstate conflict include too quick of an introduction of democracy in states, the cultural incompatibility and reluctance to provide masses with more freedom, and historical commitment to state control and coercion.  For example, elections as a form of democratic self-expression can readily result in violence, especially where civil tensions and the accessibility of arms is still a relevant issue (Massing, 2002).  Take, for example, Cambodia: in Africa, which is widely regarded as the example of the least relevant and least effective democracies in the world, Cambodian election had to reinforce the positive effects of the 1991 UN supervised cease-fire (Massing, 2002).  However, with the dominant political forces holding sufficient amount of power and arms, they were able to establish and strengthen their political position despite the election results (Massing, 2002).
 In the same way, after the USSR collapse, Russia, along with holding public elections and giving way to the new political parties, did not invest in the development and establishment of the state institutions, which would support and promote public self-expression.  This lack of democratic freedom may have caused interstate conflict.  For Russia to become truly democratic, it required effective state institutions, effective regulatory bodies, and effective judicial system (Massing, 2002).  With time, however, the lack of democratic expression became the dominant political line in Russia, which its leaders successfully use to control the state and the scope of mass activity and participation.  Furthermore, sometimes too much democracy may create a situation prone to conflicts such as that of "Weimar Russia," as Mansfield and Snyder (1995) noted was "among the great powers, the problem was not excessive authoritarian power at the center, but the opposite" (p.92).  Furthermore, the former Soviet Union may have fallen due to capitalism influencing poverty in the region, creating an upheaval for a new form of government.  This democratic conflict influence may have resulted in less casualties than an intrastate conflict like Iraq or Vietnam, but it was a conflict nevertheless.  It is apparent that democracy was one of the causes of interstate conflict with the fall of the Soviet Union.  The lack of democracy or too much democracy creates internal struggles within Russia today. 
Do Democracies Create or Prevent Intrastate Conflicts?
             A proponent of “democratic peace” Wright (1942) suggests that democratic institutions serve as a filtering mechanism for the governmental leadership and promote those of a more peace-making nature and discouraging selection of more quarrelsome Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc. This theory suggests that democracies avoid electing autocratic governments which may be more aggressive than those of power of the people.  This view of people having the ability to determine who is a war monger and who is not is ignorant to people have the inability to predict the leaderships future decisions.  This theory also neglects to acknowledge in democracies there are people who do want war and will elect belligerent leaders.  Furthermore, any states with historically amicable relations, democratic or nondemocratic, will have potential for peace (Miall, 1992).  Thus, a democracy is not mandatory to create peace.  Democracy is a method of potentially reducing conflicts, but it is not the only method and this method is not certain.
Another proponent of “democratic peace” is based on the Kantian premise that the people have the power to consent to war and serve restraints to the elected officials from conflict because the citizens are the ones who sacrifice their lives and their tax dollars (Bollen, 1991).  In a pure democracy where there each and every person’s vote is counted, the people have more influence over the government.  The government may uphold the status quo and  initiate conflict despite some people’s views.  The Kantian premise assumes the people do not want war, in which particular companies and people profit from war.  Furthermore, because of the lack of scholars to analyze quantitative data, the “democratic peace” proposition is a matter of theoretical contest.  The “democratic peace” proposal is arguably a major distorted generalization.   A notion is that democracies being peaceful should be equally evaluated on the quantitative analyses and should equally informative (Ray, 1995).
Do Democracies Create a Humanitarian Military Intervention Conflict?
             Many times intrastate conflict is created by democracies under the pretense of humanitarian intervention.  According to Weil (2001), the 1983 US intervention in Grenada was done not with the broader definition of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention but the narrow definition of protection of the 1,000 U.S. nationals living in Grenada.  U.S. troops stayed 2 months and a new government was established. Weil (2001) stated that two months was too long to use the narrow reason of protecting Americans, for U.S. nationals had time to flee.   The line has been blurred between humanitarian assistance and military intervention.  The United States has been paying countries for various reasons including becoming democratic.  The U.S. acknowledged humanitarian aid recipients, “particularly Malaysia and Mongolia, for cooperating with global counterterrorism efforts and for making progress in developing their economies and democratic institutions” (Lum, 2007, p.23).
It is apparent that aid is becoming a means to promote democracy.  According to Stewart (2009), “The (Department of Defense) D.O.D. has emerged as a “donor” to US government civilian agencies,” providing funds for the USAID, under “Section 1207 authority” (p.13).   According to a report by Serafino (2009), Section 1207 was due to expire at the end of 2010.  If the U.S. was to let Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of Fiscal Year 2006 expire at the end of 2010, it would keep the funding of humanitarian organizations and the military explicitly separate.  So far it is noted that the “DOD transferred $10 million in FY2006, $99.7 million in FY2007, and $100 million in FY2008 under this authority” (Serafino, 2009, p.19).  These transfers signify that these humanitarian organizations are not impartial and neutral in their efforts and may be promoting the West’s values.  
Furthermore, when Colin Powell congratulated Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) for being “force multipliers,” it was more apparent that the military views humanitarian assistance as strategically necessary to promote and create democracy within a country (Lischer, 2007, p.26).  The West is challenging the status quo of countries and developing democracy by winning the hearts and minds of the population. A purpose for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is to deliver assistance that promotes democracy to fragile states and post-conflict countries deemed critical for stability operations and counter-terrorism efforts.   Counter-terrorism is a recent motive to establish democracies using humanitarian means.  It has yet been proven if democracy prevents terrorist attacks or not.  In military humanitarian efforts, it may be more efficient for long term peace building to build hospitals, churches, schools, and agriculture than it would be to promote democracy.
Can Democracy Improve Human Rights and Prevent Interstate and Intrastate Conflicts?
            Sometimes human rights violations can give reason for upheaval from within the society, resulting in an interstate conflict or a humanitarian intervention from the world community creating an intrastate conflict.  The question is can democracy prevent these actions by providing decent human rights?  The assertion that democracy prevents human right conflicts is negated by Davenport in that “democracy has no impact on human rights violations,” and “Democracy influences repression in a negative and roughly linear manner” (Davenport, 2004, p.5).  For a long lasting democracy, all human rights, including minority rights are needed. 
The mention of human rights is general and not specific to any one type of right or one individual right.  T. H. Marshall (1965) summarized human rights into three categories: civil rights; political rights; and social and economic rights.  Obviously, the protection of the basic human rights is the necessary precondition for creating, preserving, and sustaining democracy in any state.  To be more specific, where democracy is associated with the rule of mass self-expression and the mass participation in creating and sharing values, such participation and such expression will be impossible, unless promote and protect human rights.  For the state members to participate in democracy, they should be able to do so, to be alive, to have the basic conditions of living, to have income, and to have an opportunity to realize their rights for participation.
Securing Democratic Political Human Rights and Conflict
            Democracy can be a good instrument of securing and protecting political human rights. Solid political human rights shape the basis for developing and sustaining democratic ideals in society.  Yet, democracy may not always fit into the specific cultural and political conditions and thus not all countries may be willing to adopt its principles. It must be noted that although political human rights and the meaning of democracy have been widely regarded as the two distinctive phenomena, this distinction in the postmodern political landscape is no longer relevant (Beetham, 1999).  The vision of democracy is no longer limited to political institutions, competitive elections, and the separation of powers but successfully extends to cover the need for a democratic state to promote the relevance and protection of human rights.  At the core of the issue are the rights for free expression, participation, assembly, free movement, and other related freedoms without which people cannot realize their right for participation in the basic democratic processes (Beetham, 1999).  These should be further supported by effective legal systems, individual liberties, and personal security (Beetham, 1999). That democracies promote and protect political human rights is easy to see through its basic characteristics.  These include accountability, openness, and the distribution of power and relate to the promotion of the social and economic rights.  
According to Chatterjee (2008), accountability and openness that are inherently characteristic of democracies make states publicly assess and justify the social and economic policies they seek to implement.  In democracies, where accountability and openness must prevail, the consequences of economic and social policies must be subject to public scrutiny, all economic and social alternatives must be openly discussed; the activities and decisions of public officials must be a matter of record and subject to accountability (Beetham, 1999).  Even if the degree of such openness is not always satisfactory, it implies that public officials in democracies will be more responsible for their actions and will mold their policies in ways that meet the basic needs of the democratic majority.
When democratic systems exist, it is generally expected that the authority's willingness and capacity to violate human rights would be diminished.  Some research identifies human rights conditions are only improved when a full democracy exists (Davenport, 2004, p.539).  “The opposite spectrum of pure autocracy and pure democracy” protects human right violations because there are effective measures to constrain state activity (Davenport, 2004, p.539).  Davenport concludes that anywhere in between a pure democracy and a pure autocracy, human right violations will occur.  “Any and all improvements in the institutions and behaviors associated with democracy yield a pacifying influence on human rights violations” (Davenport, 2004, p.542).  Democracy can have zero influence over protecting human rights if there is a lack of accountability for the government.   In other words, “it does not make much sense to talk about the legislature's ability to sanction political authorities if the people have no power to remove individuals from office” (Davenport, 2004, p.542).
            It is ineffective for citizens to have the power to remove the president through the vote in periodic elections without some other institutional constraints on the chief executive's behavior.  For instance in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has the ability to continue to govern without term limits (Guliyev, 2009).   President Chavez has more ability to violate human rights which may lead to conflict because of the lack of accountability. There is a difference between popularity and power.  One does have to be popular to have the power.  Democracies intent is to increase popularity’s influence over power.  However, other checks and balances are necessary to ensure the protection of human rights. Castaldi (2006) writes that the judicial independence of Venezuela is being threatened because of the removal of Venezuelan judges and the complications of rule of law reform.  The Venezuelan courts need to remain autonomous by the executive in order to protect human rights.  As far as democracy improving human rights, it is necessary to examine the State Department’s 2009 report.  According to Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (2009),
the following human rights problems were reported: unlawful killings; harsh prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detentions; a corrupt, inefficient, and politicized judicial system characterized by trial delays, impunity, and violations of due process; official intimidation and attacks on the independent media; discrimination based on political grounds; widespread corruption at all levels of government; violence against women; trafficking in persons; and restrictions on workers' right of association (p.1).
Although the non-reelection rule does not guarantee democracy, ending term limits erodes the erroneous flaw which is the possibility of an infinite period of time in office (Guliyev, 2009, p.1).  It makes it harder for opposition candidates to compete for the presidency, leaving almost no chance for meaningful political change (Guliyev, 2009, p.1).
The principles of power distribution in democracy leave enough room for empowering people and create conditions necessary for their political participation which creates reciprocal relationships between democracies and its people.   This makes democracies more responsive to the population needs (LeBor, 2006).   In political theory and practice, the extent to which individuals and groups are involved in the process of discussing their economic rights and the ways of their delivery often predetermines the extent to which each particular democracy can protect human rights (Beetham, 1999).  Unfortunately, the stability of human rights protection in democracies is not without its risks and that the state claims itself to be democratic does not necessarily imply that it can equally protect all economic and social rights of its members. In reality, the culture of political contentment in the democratic majority often manifests in continuous negligence of minority rights (Schaffer, 2000).  For example, the prevailing democratic majority can hold to a belief that supporting deprived population groups is detrimental to the stability of the social and economic order.
Democratic Social Rights and Conflict
            Democracy is supposed to be the foundation of human rights which is derived from humans’ natural rights.  One founder of the democratic principle was John Locke, who takes “the protection of natural rights as the goal and representative government as the means to achieve that goal” (Arat, 1999, p.17).   This increasingly popular paradigm of democracy is supposed to prevent conflict by protecting social rights; however; it merely recognizes some human rights.  Democratic realization and protection inevitably retreats from being a fundamental objective of the founding thinkers of democracy (Arat, 1999).  For the present day proponents of democracy, establishing representative government appears to be the main focus to secure those social rights, but many times this is not the case. 
            Democracies consciously or unconsciously deprive minorities of the basic social rights and self-realization opportunities, leaving them without the right to vote, the right for welfare, the right for education, etc.  This is mostly the problem of developed democracies and may lead to conflict from within.  The majority who is able to achieve the point of social and economic saturation is no longer interested in well-being of other social groups. In developing countries, such majorities may fail to participate in the most important democratic processes, thus making human rights irrelevant and ineffective (Beetham, 1999).  As a result, whether democracies protect economic and social human rights depends on a whole set of conditions and circumstances.
Democratic Cultural Rights and Conflict
            The situation is somewhat more complex with cultural rights.  This is where the issues of diversity and international tolerance come into play. Here, the two distinct groups of cultural rights must be considered.  The first is the one covered by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  An example may be the right for education and free access to scientific developments and achievements (Beetham, 1999).  The second one is the right of cultural groups to practice and promote their unique culture (Beetham, 1999).  The question is whether it is worth promoting the cultural rights of all democratic groups (even if they go against the basic principles of the majority), and whether the refusal of certain cultural norms reduces the relevance and effectiveness of democratic institutions which may lead to conflicts.  In this situation, diversity and tolerance should serve the two basic values.  Not only should democracies provide all individuals and cultural minorities with the right for self-determination, but democracies which, for some reason or other fail to meet the needs of all cultural minorities, should not lose their democratic status.  
Democracies promote universal human rights, but the meaning of democracy entails the need for democracies to balance universality with diversity and to exercise an appropriate degree of tolerance toward all cultural groups.  Cultural needs, despite their specificity, are universal by themselves, for “the need for a distinctive identity, which is accorded recognition and respect by others, is a universal human need, and this need is fulfilled in part through group membership and through the reproduction of its distinctive way of life” (Beetham, 1999, p.109).  That does not mean that democracies, which fail to satisfy the needs of all, without any exception, lose their democratic status or lead to conflict.  The vision of democracy leaves sufficient space for democratic states to take relevant decisions and to define the scope of their cultural and human rights interventions. Unfortunately, even if democracies present an effective way to protect and promote human rights, not all states will be willing or ready to adopt its principles for a variety of reasons, including cultural and political/ historical specificity of each particular state.
Can Coercive Democracy Create Peace?
            Coercion maybe defined as the promotion of democracies when countries do not make the decision on their own volition.  For instance, an outside force uses any means to persuade a country to change its political structure.  Foreign governments may refuse democracy and international intervention if democracy is coerced.   States may resort to coercive means within their borders because they retain exclusive rights to coercion.  Democracy cannot resolve conflict if democracy does not succeed.  Denied democracies in Burma, Nigeria and Algeria, and Vietnam signify that coerced democracy is indeed a difficult task (Von Hippel, 2002). Nevertheless, most studies have found some form of “democratic peace” exists, and some of these countries are coerced democracies (Kinsella 2005).   In some countries “democratic peace” may result because democratic states do not usually use physical coercion to manage political competition of elections.   In some cases, if the opposing party wins when the election was tainted, there may be outright violence.   As long as the election was fair and just, physical coercion usually does not exist.  The most ubiquitous example is most democratic losers of elections are supposed to acknowledge the winners' rights to govern. 
Coercive democracy may indeed result in global peace because democracies constitute a majority of the states in the international system, and it is likely that the norms governing their relations have a better chance to become the dominant mode of interaction in world politics (Shin, 1994).  There is a doctrine of intervention that was created following World War I and II which established norms of behavior codified in treaties and conventions.  At the end of the Cold War, there are challenging traditional readings of international law and the behavior of nations and institutions.  The interpretations of sovereignty, the principles of non use of force, and non interference in the internal of states limit ability for coercive democracy.  If genocide, attacks against religion, or other factors persist, internal aggressive acts by the military on civilian populations require intrastate or international intervention which may lead to a coercive democratic change.  A natural disaster does not mandate international intervention and a coercive takeover.  A sovereign country may deny humanitarian aid and prevent Western powers from funding democratic activities within the state.
Ottaway (2007) argues that coercive democracy fails because in post conflict situations the state lacks complete control over its territory and thus is incapable of imposing a democratic will upon its citizens   However, Ottaway states that democracy is the best answer to solve global oppression but does not advocate for coerced democracy to achieve democratic goals.  Many times coerced democracy is used to push democratic values sometimes by armed conflict with the goal of prevent future conflict because of the “democratic peace” theory.
Creating conflict to prevent conflict is counterproductive and contradictory of the peaceful purpose. A peaceful government change is difficult.  Ottaway states that coerced democracy has failed in “Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq” (Ottaway, 2007, p.7).  These failures and the successes of “Hungry, Poland and the Czech Republic” are all conflicts that resulted because democracy was forced.  The question is whether the people of a country should allow hegemonic relations and be oppressed or take conflict action for democracy.  If the West uses coercive democracy for those who do not want it, failure is likely.  Furthermore, coercive democracy which seeks to take root in societies divided along religious and ethnic lines will exacerbate those tensions.   Kimberly Marten (2007) concurs in her article "Is Stability the Answer?" that coercive democracy has not proven successful and that “social transformation and control significantly resemble the imperialism practiced by liberal states at the turn of the twentieth century” (p.22). 
Discussion
            In closing, “democratic peace” is a difficult task, for not all democracies equally represent the people, and not all countries have the capacity and capability of being democratic.  “Democratic peace” is established based on the assumption the people have a voice in conflict and peace and if the government has ears to hear that voice.  “Democratic peace” promotes that other countries should adopt democratic principles. However, there are certain obstacles a country faces when attempting to start democracy in a developing world.  Majority rule without minority rights is no different than a hegemonic dictatorship and lead to internal conflict.   To prevent conflicts in great magnitude, it is logical to prevent totalitarian governments who are more prone to war than democracies are.  However, “democratic peace” is unattainable, for democracy is not the way to go for every country. 
Democracy maybe defined as the method of taking political decisions, which implies the involvement of human electorate in the process of creating and sharing political values.   In the current state of political science, democracy is referred to as an effective means of securing and promoting human rights.  The latter, as a result, lay the foundation for developing and sustaining democratic trends in different societies.  Nevertheless, democracy does not only fit into the cultural and political norms of different societies and states and is impartial with preventing conflict.   
What has been noted in this paper is that the accountability view of democracy neglects to acknowledge that not all people have a personal interest in preventing conflict.  People who are of military age may vote against war but they are not the only voters in a democracy; hence, some voters may have an interest to pursue war.  If the people desire war and the elected officials want peace, a truly democratic system will do what the people wish.  Thus, even a pure democracy in theory can result in conflict.    
Other theorists argue that democracies are not less likely to become involved in interstate and intrastate conflicts than states organized under alternative governing arrangements (Maoz & Abdolali, 1989).  The implications of these findings are the growing number of failed democracies confirms that democracy is not always the best solution and approach to political issues.  Because of their cultural and political specificity, not all countries may be willing to adopt the principles of democracy and thus will have to choose a different development path.  As a result, democracies are inherently interested in making human rights stable and effective. 
Democracy may be a useless cause, for democracy may not prevent conflict with human rights. 
Arat (1999) firmly concurs with the assertion that “democratic peace” does not exist.  Arat states, “if we define democracy a ‘rule by the people’ or, more narrowly, as ‘popular control of government’ and human rights as ‘equal dignity of all human beings,’ we can clearly see that no regime has ever managed to achieve either, regardless of the claims” (Arat, 1999, p.14).   Therefore, democracy does not prevent conflict more than any other nation would by theory.  The lack of analytical data proving that it is worth coercing democracy to prevent future conflict is not established. Does that mean that whenever states achieve the ultimate form of democratic existence, they will seek to promote and sustain human rights in the long run?  In this context, it would be fair to assume that the extent to which democracies can sustain and promote human rights largely depends on how well democracies can balance their public accountability, openness, with the distribution of power and to reduce the probability that the open and participating majority will fall down to discriminating against the right of the democratic minorities. 
Many “democratic peace” theorists ignore that because not all people are represented in a democracy, accountability of the government is mitigated.  Even in the U.S. where the U.S. leads the example of democracy, there is a lack of representation and accountability.  For instance, in its own capital, Washington D.C., the people complain about taxation without representation because they pay a significant amount of federal taxes without a federal voice.  The D.C. federal tax dollars helps fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but the people lack influence in politics.  D.C. lacks the ability to elect U.S. Senators to represent anti-conflict interests.  Thus D.C. does not have the ability to influence the U.S.’s involvement in conflict or peace.