Some observers believe that democratic states are less likely than other states to engage each other in militarized interstate disputes. Others disagree and see democratic states differently. One side sees how the credibility and interests of democratic states are more transparent and leaves less indications of conflict, while the other side believes democratic and nondemocratic states are both equally power aggressive and are quick to result to engaging in militarized interstate disputes. I agree that democratic states are less likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes because of their political and economic transparencies. Democratic states are states that have politically and economically devolped throughout their history from a system that proved to bring much conflict. A state that implements democracy has seen how prosperous and benefitial it can be for one’s state because of the success from other democratic states. This is because democracy creates stability in a state, it creates economic growth as well as establishes a government that will help the people and the state, not just unfair selection. Democracy also lessens a state from being prone to war because of its transparency. A states transparency is based on how credible the state is with their interests and how capable they are of achieving those interests. Democratic states are less likely to do anything that might jeopardize its credibility because that would limit interaction with other states. Damaging the relationship with another state by not following through with a state to state transaction is what could cause a state to lose credibility and thus could deteriorate a beneficial relationship. Democratic states rely on each other for trade, protection, and overall economic and political peace. Democratic Peace aids states into interactions to help develop eachother. “Over the 200 or so years in which democracies have existed in their modern form, they seem not to have engaged in war with one another—or, at least, they have done so less frequently than we might expect given the overall frequency of way.” (Jeffry Friendman, 2013) When democracies deteriorate their relationships by not following through, their accountability makes them vulnerable. A states accountablitiy is what protects them from war. If one democratic state decides to betray another democratic state, war is an inevitable result. The reason democratic states are seen as “less likely” to result straight to war is because they are more civilized and are more likely to engage in resolve without war. Democratic states base decisions on what is better for the state and its people, where as a nondemocratic states ar quick to jump to conclusions and make an impulsive decision without taking other things into account. This is where democratic states have the better advantage because of their transparency. A state’s ability to communicate its interests publically allows other states to see how transparent they are. States look to see if they have similar interests and ideas and how beneficial it would be for the two to link up or become allies. This limits any reason for incomplete information which creates less space for conflict to arise. When states are allies they have little to no reason to alter or hide information from one another, thus enhancing the relationship for future needs. In addition, the more positive interactions states have the stronger their alliance become.
Nondemocratic states are not like democratic states. Their lack of transparency is what makes them less favorable because more can go wrong with them. Nondemocratic states are states that do business behind closed doors and do not have the general interest of their people. They might be willing to negotiate but are not willing to give certain things up. Resulting in nondemocratic states being unequal because the leader is more worried about themselves or their power than the state or the people inside it. This is especially true in states where small interest groups have the ability to occupy and control a small state and dictate for their own benefits. Organizations pry on the smaller less developed states because they know there is no government or authority to make them leave. This is why a states transparency could cause problems when a nondemocratic state needs aid from a democratic state, because they know how the state is run and they have no credibility for how they interact with the other states. If a nondemocratic state is not public about their conflicts or interests, it leaves no transparencies so others don’t know what the states interests are or how credible they are with their follow through so they will not go into negotiations with a noncompliant state. Also, in a nondemocratic state, leaders are not selected the same way they are in a democratic state. Nondemocratic states usually have one person dictating everything, with a small committee that makes all of the decisions. This causes conflict in incomplete information because a group and its leader of a nondemocratic state could begin negotiations with a democratic state and then use a bad tactic and ruin the relationship. Like provoking the democratic state into replying to its demands which the democratic state might not agree with. Or if it’s a less mature democratic state, coerce them into quick decisions that might not benefit the state but could harm its people. Incomplete information is a big communication inhibitor in why democratic states seldom get into negotiations with nondemocratic states.
Democratic states are less likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes because they have a better understanding of what is needed to build a state with structure, credibility, commitment, and prospering interests and interactions. Democratic states have governments set in place that make decisions on the betterment of its territory and its people. They do not make irrational decisions without first discussing a solution. Democratic states have proven throughout past decades to be the most beneficial system a state has and uses to create peace throughout the world. In 1994 Bill Clinton said “Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other.” And by that he is saying we should show the world how to act and how to become a democracy by lending a hand and showing them how to function in a way that is attractive to other states. This instruction and attraction will allow states to reach out when help is needed and their transparencies will be more evident and positive. Therefore democratic states can see that the cost of helping the state will benefit them and will help rather than see the state as hostile and not want to get involved. Growing from a nondemocratic state into a democratic state also helps other states hold themselves accountable. When a state is less accountable they are more likely to cause war than if they were able to be held accountable. This is because if a democratic state gets into negotiations with an upcoming democratic state and the plan falls through, the mature democratic state is going to hold the newer state more accountable. So if a state wants to be seen as more credible, then they need to have a high transparency level with their interests, interactions, and credibility out in public.
Some observers believe that democratic states are less likely than other states to engage each other in militarized interstate disputes. Others disagree and see democratic states differently. One side sees how the credibility and interests of democratic states are more transparent and leaves less indications of conflict, while the other side believes democratic and nondemocratic states are both equally power aggressive and are quick to result to engaging in militarized interstate disputes. I agree that democratic states are less likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes because of their political and economic transparencies.

References
Jeffry Friendman, David Lake, Kenneth Schultz (2013). World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.