Editing Democratic peace theory (section)

===Defining democracy===
Democracies have been defined differently by different theorists and researchers; this accounts for some of the variations in their findings. Some examples:

Small and Singer define democracy as a nation that (1) holds periodic elections in which the opposition parties are as free to run as government parties, (2) allows at least 10% of the adult population to vote, and (3) has a parliament that either controls or enjoys parity with the executive branch of the government.{{sfn|Small|Singer|1976}}

Doyle requires (1) that "liberal regimes" have market or private property economics, (2) they have policies that are internally sovereign, (3) they have citizens with juridical rights, and (4) they have representative governments. Either 30% of the adult males were able to vote or it was possible for every man to acquire voting rights as by attaining enough property. He allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other researchers; for example, he counts the rule of [[Louis-Philippe of France]] as a liberal regime.<ref name="Doyle 1983">{{harvs|nb|last=Doyle|year1=1983a|year2=1983b}}</ref>

Ray requires that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election. This definition excludes long periods often viewed as democratic. For example, the United States until 1800, India from independence until 1979, and Japan until 1993 were all under a [[dominant-party system]], and thus would not be counted under this definition.{{sfn|Ray|1995|p=100}}

Rummel states that "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3 of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights."{{sfn|Rummel|1997}}

====Non-binary classifications====
The above definitions are binary, classifying nations into either democracies or non-democracies. Many researchers have instead used more finely grained scales. One example is the [[Polity data series]] which scores each state on two scales, one for democracy and one for autocracy, for each year since 1800; as well as several others.{{efn|Other such rankings have made by Steve Chan and by Ze'ev Maoz.{{sfn|Maoz|1997}} See also SIPRI{{sfn|SIPRI|n.d.}} and Peter D. Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation.{{sfn|Peter D. Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation|n.d.}}}} The use of the Polity Data has varied. Some researchers have done correlations between the democracy scale and belligerence; others have treated it as a binary classification by (as its maker does) calling all states with a high democracy score and a low autocracy score democracies; yet others have used the difference of the two scores, sometimes again making this into a binary classification.{{sfn|Gleditsch|1992}}

====Young democracies====
Several researchers have observed that many of the possible exceptions to the democratic peace have occurred when at least one of the involved democracies was very young. Many of them have therefore added a qualifier, typically stating that the peacefulness apply to democracies older than three years.<ref name="Doyle 1983"/>{{sfn|Russett|1993}}{{sfn|Rummel|1997}}{{sfn|Weart|1998}} Rummel argues that this is enough time for "democratic procedures to be accepted, and democratic culture to settle in." Additionally, this may allow for other states to actually come to the recognition of the state as a democracy.{{sfn|Rummel|1997}}

Mansfield and Snyder, while agreeing that there have been no wars between mature liberal democracies, state that countries in transition to democracy are especially likely to be involved in wars. They find that democratizing countries are even more warlike than stable democracies, stable autocracies or even countries in transition towards autocracy. So, they suggest caution in eliminating these wars from the analysis, because this might hide a negative aspect of the process of democratization.{{sfn|Mansfield|Snyder|2002}}{{sfn|Mansfield|Snyder|2005}}{{sfn|Owen|2005}} A reanalysis of the earlier study's statistical results emphasizes that the above relationship between democratization and war can only be said to hold for those democratizing countries where the executive lacks sufficient power, independence, and institutional strength.{{sfn|Braumoeller|2004}} A review cites several other studies finding that the increase in the risk of war in democratizing countries happens only if many or most of the surrounding nations are undemocratic.{{sfn|Ray|2003}} If wars between young democracies are included in the analysis, several studies and reviews still find enough evidence supporting the stronger claim that all democracies, whether young or established, go into war with one another less frequently;{{sfn|Ray|1998}}{{sfn|Ray|2003}}{{sfn|Hegre|2004}} while some do not.{{sfn|Schwartz|Skinner|2002|p=159}}