Democracies simply (ideally) represent their constituents. If their constituents come to conclusions about war for land, resources, or severe cultural discrepancies, those motivations would show up in their leadership and they could still vote on behalf of war. I would argue that, perhaps, there is no "necessary" reason why democracies should be at war with each other, as they should be able to get along much better, and civilians have more in common between countries than they do with their own leadership.

**The democratic peace thesis explains that democratic states are more likely to engage in international affairs with each other by means of negotiation and compromise since they share they already share the same values.** If we define [war](http://warpp.info/en/m1/articles/definitions-of-war-and-conflict-typologies) as an active conflict between two parties that claims at least 1000 lives, then between 1816 and 1991, 353 pairs have engaged in such conflict. Of these pairs, *none* were conducted by two democratic states. Some explanations have been given to suggest that these facts are representative of a mere correlation rather than a causal link, such as the idea that in the 20th century democratic states were too consumed with the threat of the USSR to fight with each other. However, there seems to be more support for the causal link approach for the following reasons: • Democratic states tend to have a diversity of institutions which provide various checks and balances on power. This makes it much less likely for belligerence to be accepted. • Democratic states have similar cultural values. These include a respect for human rights, the desire for negotiation and a willingness to compromise. As such, they are more likely to resolve problems between each other in this way, for example through international organisations such as the [G7](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49434667) and [NATO](https://www.nato.int/). Contrastingly, non-democratic states such as North Korea and Iran are usually more hostile to negotiations. Thus, democratic states will respond accordingly. _This commentary was adapted from the following source:_ _M. Griffiths, T O’Callaghan and S. T. Roach in “International Relations: The Key Concepts (3rd edn, 2014)”, Routledge, pp.68-70_

**Democracies shouldn’t need to go to war with each other in accordance with the Democratic Peace Theory.** • Within the theory of Democratic Peace, the assumption is made that democracies are [“more peaceful in their foreign relations”]( https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0014.xml). This means that democracies tend to keep the peace with other functioning democracies and ultimately proves the correlation between democracy and peace. • This is the idea that, when normally [“an impetuous dictator on one side might plunge the international system into war”](https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-3134,00.html), instead, when the disagreement is between two democratic states, the mere presence of democracy [“creates a cooling-off period”](https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-3134,00.html), whereby any urge to wage war is dissolved. It is under this assumption that I argue democracies shouldn’t have any reason to go to war with each other. • _And there is support from history_: namely the [Anglo-French dispute in Fasboda](https://www.britannica.com/event/Fashoda-Incident), Egyptian Sudan, over “a series of territorial disputes in Africa between Great Britain and France”. In other words, the _Fashoda Incident in 1898_ signalled the climax of tensions between the two nations. It concluded with a peaceful resolution between Britain and France, consequently proving the rule. • Obviously, there are exceptions to any rule or theory, but overall, I would agree with the argument that democracies have no reason to go to war with each other because of the founding principles that build a democracy. Evidence from history supports this theory.