extend to ‘Others’?

Advocates of liberal democracy argue that its principles and practices contribute directly to peace (at both inter-state and domestic levels). They rely on ideals such as the rule of law, institutional checks and balances on power, an ethos of tolerance, and free market economics to deliver the liberal peace. Liberals, however, overlook three important features embedded in the construction of liberal democracy which can serve to facilitate political violence: 1) the fixed and thus non-negotiable nature of liberal democracy’s core principles, 2) the inferior manner in which it conceives ‘Other ’ social orders that do not share its core principles, and 3) the urge to proselytise Others. Together, these constitutive qualities can facilitate moves by leaders of Other groups to argue that liberal democracy threatens ‘their ’ preferred identity, and thus its promised peaceful outcomes can be put in doubt. With liberal democracy comes peace, so mainstream liberal discourses contend. Immanuel Kant is perhaps the founding father of this belief, but contemporary thinkers such as Michael Doyle and Bruce Russett are among a distinguished list who have added significant weight to the overall argument. While the specific foci and logics vary, these viewpoints all lead to one ultimate conclusion: that adherence to liberal democratic ideals and practices creates peace (see fo