Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is something called "democratic peace theory" which argues that democracies are less likely to attack other democracies, compared to other forms.

So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.

edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):

> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.



> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace

Op's comment was about how this is not a given. Though tbf I can't recall any "peaceful" dictatorships, while I can recall a few war-happy democracies.


In my own country, Spain, the Francoist dictatorship (1939–1975) never attacked other countries or participated in any foreign wars (beyond sending a division of volunteers to WWII). Its domestic policy was highly repressive with common execution of political dissidents, etc., but in the sense of "no war" it was peaceful. The same goes for Salazar's Portugal, Hoxha’s Albania or Tito's Yugoslavia.


Are we not counting Portugal's colonial war as "not peaceful"?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: