Democratic countries will make the world more peaceful. Countries that impose a democratic nature will rely on the opinions of their citizens to decide their actions. If every country were to use a democratic government, the citizens would be less likely to want war (as it would lead to undesirable effects including forced enlistment). This would in turn lead to a greater overall promotion of peace throughout the world.
When you say "democratic countries will make the world more peaceful" do you mean that the present democratic countries will make the world more peaceful? Or that if all countries were to adopt a democratic policy that the world would be a more peaceful place?
I'm trying to say that if every country were to adopt a more democratic approach, the world would be a more peaceful place. Also, places where human rights are considered less important would be replaced, as a democratic government works to protect the rights of the nation as a whole.
I don't necessarily think that a democratic approach is feasible for many countries. Take Egypt for example: they tried a to adopt democracy - only to end up worse then they started because so called "democratic-elected" leaders becoming overwhelmed with the power they were given and then turned into demagogues. Some countries aren't ready to adopt democracy.
Say THEORETICALLY each nations was somehow coerced into adopting democracy. How are you sure that they will turn out like the "great democratic countries" such as the United States of America?
One could argue that the USA is run by a wealthy ruling elite whose enforcement arm, the CIA, operates secretly and without accountability to any authority other than its elite masters. The US Congress and the US President are mere puppets of the ruling elite, and their purpose is to provide the public with an illusion or false facade of democracy.
Anyways I want to hear what you have to say before I continue.
Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused. If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention. Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy.