"Democratic leaders, whose power is ultimately dependent on popular support, are held accountable for failing to improve the lives of their citizens. Therefore, they have a powerful incentive to keep their societies peaceful and prosperous"
About this Quote
Natan Sharansky links political accountability to the basic incentives that shape state behavior. When a leader knows power depends on voters who can remove them for poor results, war and economic mismanagement become politically risky. Elections, a free press, an organized opposition, independent courts, and civil society raise the domestic price of failure. Those institutions create audience costs: if a leader bluffs, wages an unpopular war, or allows living standards to slide, they face punishment at the ballot box or in parliament. That pressure channels ambition toward keeping the public safe and prosperous.
Political scientists have described a similar mechanism with the selectorate theory: leaders who must satisfy a large winning coalition invest in public goods like peace and growth, while autocrats who rely on a small clique can buy loyalty with private rewards and use repression to survive policy disasters. Transparency in democracies also makes mobilization for large, risky wars harder, and bargaining more credible. These dynamics help explain the democratic peace finding that consolidated democracies rarely fight one another.
Sharansky speaks from the vantage point of a Soviet dissident who became an Israeli statesman and a leading advocate of universal freedom. In The Case for Democracy he argued that regimes built on fear export instability, while free societies tend toward peace. His famous town square test captured the moral core: if citizens can criticize power without fear, the regime is likely to be peaceful at home and abroad.
There are limits. Democracies have launched wars, sometimes under the sway of misperception or populist fervor. Leaders may try diversionary conflicts, media can fail, and polarization can dull accountability. Yet competitive politics and open information typically correct course over time. Sharansky’s claim is both empirical and aspirational: by tying rulers to the everyday welfare of citizens, democracy harnesses power to the quiet work of prosperity and the prudence of peace.
Political scientists have described a similar mechanism with the selectorate theory: leaders who must satisfy a large winning coalition invest in public goods like peace and growth, while autocrats who rely on a small clique can buy loyalty with private rewards and use repression to survive policy disasters. Transparency in democracies also makes mobilization for large, risky wars harder, and bargaining more credible. These dynamics help explain the democratic peace finding that consolidated democracies rarely fight one another.
Sharansky speaks from the vantage point of a Soviet dissident who became an Israeli statesman and a leading advocate of universal freedom. In The Case for Democracy he argued that regimes built on fear export instability, while free societies tend toward peace. His famous town square test captured the moral core: if citizens can criticize power without fear, the regime is likely to be peaceful at home and abroad.
There are limits. Democracies have launched wars, sometimes under the sway of misperception or populist fervor. Leaders may try diversionary conflicts, media can fail, and polarization can dull accountability. Yet competitive politics and open information typically correct course over time. Sharansky’s claim is both empirical and aspirational: by tying rulers to the everyday welfare of citizens, democracy harnesses power to the quiet work of prosperity and the prudence of peace.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|---|
| Source | The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, Natan Sharansky, 2004 (attributed to Sharansky's argument about democratic accountability and incentives) |
More Quotes by Natan
Add to List









