Editing Democratic peace theory (section)

==Internal violence and genocide==
{{essay-like|section|date=June 2020}}
Most of this article discusses research on relations between states. However, there is also evidence that democracies have less internal systematic violence. For instance, one study finds that the most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few [[civil war]]s, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of [[democratization]].{{sfn|Hegre|Ellington|Gates|Gleditsch|2001}} Abadie's study finds that the most democratic nations have the least terrorism.{{sfn|Abadie|2004}} Harff finds that [[genocide]] and [[politicide]] are rare in democracies.{{sfn|Harff|2003}} Rummel finds that the more democratic a regime, the less its [[democide]]. He finds that democide has killed six times as many people as battles.{{sfn|Rummel|1997}}

Davenport and Armstrong II list several other studies and states: "Repeatedly, democratic political systems have been found to decrease political bans, censorship, torture, disappearances and mass killing, doing so in a linear fashion across diverse measurements, methodologies, time periods, countries, and contexts." It concludes: "Across measures and methodological techniques, it is found that below a certain level, democracy has no impact on human rights violations, but above this level democracy influences repression in a negative and roughly linear manner."{{sfn|Davenport|Armstrong II|2004|p=1}} They also state that thirty years worth of statistical research has revealed that only two variables decrease human rights violations: political democracy and economic development.{{sfn|Davenport|Armstrong II|2003}}

Abulof and Goldman add a caveat, focusing on the contemporary Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Statistically, a MENA democracy makes a country more prone to both the onset and incidence of civil war, and the more democratic a MENA state is, the more likely it is to experience violent intrastate strife. Moreover, [[Anocracy|anocracies]] do not seem to be predisposed to civil war, either worldwide or in MENA. Looking for causality beyond correlation, they suggest that democracy's pacifying effect is partly mediated through societal subscription to self-determination and popular sovereignty. This may turn “democratizing nationalism” to a long-term prerequisite, not just an immediate hindrance, to peace and democracy.{{sfn|Abulof|Goldman|2015}}