^aRóka utca 1, Budapest 1016, Hungary. E-mail: katalin.sarvary@gmail.com

Abstract

The severance of the relationship between liberalism and nationalism and liberalism and self-determination as well as an underestimation of substantive legitimacy led to confusion about the relationship between democracy and security in liberal theory. Based on the liberal view that democracies are inherently peaceful, democracy promotion is seen as a means of conflict resolution that is able to create both security and legitimacy. Similarly, the globalization of democracy is seen as the guarantee of peace and security in a post-sovereign international order. Against this view, the present article argues that the imposition of democracy without the prior creation of security and legitimacy can exacerbate conflicts and undermine peace. Civic nationalism, in this view, is a consequence of security, while ethnic nationalism is a consequence of insecurity. The article argues that both conflict resolution and democracy would be better served by taking a more reflexive stance on boundaries. This would have the further beneficial consequence of putting an end to a situation when no legitimate means of change exists in international relations, a situation persisting since the end of the First World War. International practice to this effect could lead to the termination of protracted conflicts and towards sophisticated procedures of peaceful change in the future.