Due to the transparency, there is less uncertainty between opposing states if they are both democratic and the security dilemma is moderated, making relations more peaceful. However, this rationale could also be explained by realist theory because when a state knows how much military power the other has they realize when they are stronger or weaker and decide accordingly whether or not to fight. Christopher Layne cites this rational, as the reason France did not fight Britain over Fashoda in 1898. He deduces the disproportional military strength held by Britain over France was the reason the French regressed because they knew they could not win. Furthermore, Britain prepared for war against France, which is not congruent with the theory because if they knew the French had a depleted army, they would feel more secure and not feel that war was a necessary resort. .
The Trent Affair of 1861 is another example of an interaction with a democratic state (this time the confederacy during the civil war) in which Great Britain went against "democratic peace" theory. Michael Doyle, who relies on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, argues that the people of democracies serve to perpetuate peace between democracies. The leaders in democracies are accountable to their citizens and fear electoral defeat. The citizens are the ones who bear the burdens of war monetarily, with their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. Therefore, citizens will be less likely to encourage or support war and leaders will feel restrained. A related rationale is that citizens of democracies will view wars against other democracies as illegitimate because they hold the same beliefs. However, in 1861 after the neutral vessel headed to Britain was stopped by a union ship and two of its occupants, confederacy commissioners, were arrested, "the [British] public was overcome with war fever" and in response "[union] public opinion strongly favored a policy of standing up to London.