Are Conflicts Contagious? The Spread of Violence in a Supposedly Democratic World

Violence is spreading across the globe like a virus. War is no longer confined to national borders and increasingly challenges the idea that democracy can act as a vaccine against it.

For years, liberal theorists in International Relations have promoted a tempting thesis: democracies do not go to war with each other. Known as the Democratic Peace Theory, popularized by Doyle (1983), it has shaped the foreign policy strategies of many Western countries. However, recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, the Gaza conflict, rising tensions between India and Pakistan, and the ongoing civil war in Sudan, pose a serious challenge to this thesis. The shadow of violence is returning to the international system, and it seems to be expanding.

An Increasingly Violent World

According to the Peace Research Institute Oslo's (PRIO,2024), 2023 saw the highest number of armed conflicts since 1945, with 59 active conflicts, most of them involving external interventions.

The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (2024) reported over 122,000 deaths directly related to armed conflict that year, and UNHCR (2024) estimated that more than 117 million people have been forcibly displaced due to violence.

In the face of this reality, it seems the established international order is unraveling, geopolitical tensions have been reignited, and certain narratives are acting as fuel for the spread of violence.

Is Conflict Contagious?

The idea that conflict is contagious emerged before. In his study, Gleditsch (2007) explored how civil wars can spill over into neighboring countries. His main findings suggest that conflict contagion occurs through mechanisms such as forced displacement, arms trafficking, ethnic or religious affinities, and international interventions. This diffusion is especially evident in regions with weak institutions and fragmented identities.

However, contagion is not only physical — it is also discursive. Narratives of victimization, resistance, and existential threat often transcend borders, and in the age of digital technology, they can activate fears and incite unrest without geographic proximity. Take Gaza, for example. While the violence is geographically located in the Middle East, the conflict has ignited global protest movements, particularly among Muslim communities and sympathizers worldwide. These mobilizations, often charged with anger and indignation, have created tensions within other societies. Simultaneously, Western governments have ramped up their security measures, fearing potential internal unrest or attacks.

Photo by Aliaksei Lepik on Unsplash 

Likewise, the war in Ukraine has had global ramifications. Beyond military concerns, it has triggered inflation, disrupted energy and food markets, and revitalized militarized discourse even in peaceful democracies, prompting many states to increase their defense spending despite not being directly involved.

A New Existential Security Paradigm

According to Buzan et al., (1998) threats that affect a group’s identity or symbolic survival, rather than just physical security, are often treated as non-negotiable. Thus, the use of extreme measures becomes justified. For instance, Israel argues that Hamas threatens its very existence, while Palestinians view the occupation and continued blockade as a threat to their survival as a nation. This same “life-or-death” logic appears in the Ukrainian Russian conflict discourse.

On the one hand, Russia views Ukraine's annexation to NATO and its Westernization as a threat to its strategic security. Meanwhile, Ukraine views the Russian invasion as a direct threat to its existence as a sovereign state and its identity. Therefore, it is an existential threat. Both sides have their logic, so negotiations are almost nonexistent.

Constructivist theory becomes especially relevant. It emphasizes that threats are not merely objective but are socially constructed through discourse, identity, and shared narratives.

When both sides perceive existential threats, de-escalation becomes nearly impossible, concessions are interpreted as surrender, and war becomes a self-reinforcing cycle (Wendt, 1992).

Conclusion

Let us be precise: armed conflicts are resurging and multiplying. Violence is reshaping an already fragmented international system. Fueled by existential insecurity and the polarization of public discourse, the conflict today is more complex and harder to contain.

In a hyperconnected world driven by emotion, war narratives spread faster than peace initiatives. It no longer matters if a state is a democracy, conflict across the globe inevitably leaves an imprint. States, even if not directly involved, are increasingly drawn in, if the conflict gains enough media attention. Consider how little is said about Sudan’s civil war, for instance.

Once again, the anarchy of the international system is pushing states to maximize their security, and realism is re-emerging as a powerful explanatory theory amid the chaos. This directly challenges the liberal ideal of a rules-based order maintained by global institutions. War can no longer be seen as a local failure; it is reproducing itself within a system that has failed to regulate it. And democracies, far from being immune, are active participants.

The challenge is no longer just to stop a war. It is to prevent more from joining the wave.

Bibliography

1. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

2. Doyle, M. (1983). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy and Public Affair, 12(3), 205-2035.

3. Gleditsch, K. (2007). Transnational dimensions of civil war . Journal of Peace Research, 44(3), 293-309.

4. Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). (2024). New data shows record number of armed conflicts.

5. UNHCR. (2024). Https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2023. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2023

6. Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP). (2024). UCDP: Record number of armed conflicts in the world. Uppsala University.

7. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.