The authors of “Democratic communities and third-party conflict management” note that domestic political structures of neighboring states have the possibility of influencing the politics of disputants meaning they have a role to play in peaceful resolutions of conflicts instead of employing military techniques. In their view, states or state actors engaged in armed conflicts will always welcome democratically stable countries to intervene using any available option. Whenever two states in a region are in loggerheads over resources, the more stable state is willing to offer a platform to find a solution to the problem, but this takes place only if the peace and security of the entire region is at risk. Regional and international organizations are quick to offer proposals for solving a problem because hostile environments cannot enable them achieve desired objectives (Beardsley and Nigel 81). Therefore, they will always lobby democratic states to take an action to ensure property and lives are not lost. A state surrounded by democratic neighbors never go through problems related to armed conflicts because solutions are provided even before they affect the region’s economic stability. National interests usually guide states, especially the security interest, which forces them to intervene in external conflicts, as they are likely to interfere with their national economic and social agendas. Democratic states are unlikely to be aggressive because they respect the rights and freedoms of others in the international system. Based on this, other actors respect and appointed them to resolve regional conflicts.
The views of the authors are valid to some extent because democracies rarely go to war against each other. In order to fulfill individual and collective interests, peace must prevail and democratic societies value this aspect to an extent that they believe in the rule of law. In the ongoing conflicts globally, countries perceived to be democratic have authority to intervene in bringing peace and stability in the troubled regions. When Kenya faced a great challenge following the disputed 2007 elections that led to over one-thousand deaths, western democracies requested Tanzania to intervene because it was the only peaceful and more democratic state in the East African region at the time. When the rebel leader, Riek Machier, attempted to overthrow the government of Salva Kiir in South Sudan, democratic countries, including the United States intervened by urging the two leaders to embrace dialogue. In South Africa, the Republic of South Africa has played a greater role in averting conflicts in the region because it has hegemonic powers socio-economically and politically. The idea behind intervention is based on the liberalist approach where states have a duty of ensuring that the world is a safe place for each person to exercise his or her right. Unfortunately, some states are likely to send forces to maintain peace and security in a neighboring country yet they do not practice democracy. In Nigeria, Obasanjo send troops to fight in central Africa and parts of the West African region only to divert attention from public scrutiny. He was a personal ruler who never valued the rights of others. In other words, states are never interested in realizing the collective objectives instead they try their best to achieve their selfish interests. This explains why the United States and other western democracies, including France and Britain, have never bothered to resolve the conflicts in Somalia given the fact they have no interests in this war-tone state.
Beardsley, Kyle, and Lo, Nigel. “Democratic communities and third-party conflict management.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 30.1 (2013): 76-93. Print.