Chapter One: The Passing of War?

Part II

Democracy and War

The first flawed idea at the end of World War I was that the extension of commerce would lead to the abolition of war. The second flawed idea was that the growth of democracy would mean the growth of pacifism and the end of war. (SABCL 15, pg. 583) It was believed that kings and aristocrats with their greed and earth-hunger and battle-hunger were the culprits behind wars driving the proletariat to take up arms though by themselves the commoners had no motivation to participate in battles. Instead democracy would respect the proletariat and drive them to a "free and fraternal amity". (Ibid, pg.583-584)

Sri Aurobindo had strongly and sarcastically contested this view. "Man refuses to learn from that history of whose lessons the wise prate to us; otherwise the story of old democracies ought to have been enough to prevent this particular illusion. In any case the answer of the gods has been, here too, sufficiently ironic. If kings and diplomatists are still often the movers of war, none more ready than the modern democracy to make itself their enthusiastic and noisy accomplice..." (Ibid.pg.584)

The fate of Democracy

Though democracies have till now rarely waged war against each other, a 2022 study found out that covert interventions do occur in the form of proxy wars and economic sanctions against other democracies. Moreover, the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2024 Democracy Index and International IDEA's Global State of Democracy 2024 report a continued decline in democratic quality worldwide - a trend which can destabilize international relations and erode amity. And besides recent studies have found out declining public trust in electoral processes even in high-performing democracies. Democracies are today, in 2025, witnessing a rise in authoritarianism and internal erosion of liberal democratic norms.

Critics also point out that democracies can have different foreign policies towards non-democracies. Indeed they point out that democracies are not inherently less war-prone than non-democracies with whom they have frequently engaged in conflicts.

Apropos Pacifism

It is also to be noted that the eulogized relationship between democracy and pacifism does not stand the test of time. The democracy's tendency to exacerbate divisions and reinforce social cleavages might stand opposed to the pacifist's non-aggressive potential. And pacifism fails to be a national policy because it fails to resist tyranny. No wonder Sri Aurobindo commented, "Bewildered pacifists who still cling to their principles and illusions, find themselves howled down by the people and, what is piquant enough, by their own recent comrades and leaders. The socialist, the syndicalist, the internationalist of yesterday stands forward as a banner-bearer in the great mutual massacre and his voice is the loudest to cheer on the dogs of war." (Ibid)

Date of Update: 31-Oct-25