http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/03/we-are-stronger-because-we-are-democracies-president-obama-addresses-people-estonia, very attractive title entailing an embedded intellectual argument in the following quotation “We’re stronger because we’re democracies. We’re not afraid of free and fair elections, because true legitimacy can only come from one source — and that is the people” Such words makes you think and wonder are democracy and strength always positively correlated? And if this is the case, is it a simple linear relationship with everything else / every other factor held constant or there might be other embedded external factors that at one point of time or another disturb and affect such correlation? I guess one of the beauties of international relations relies in the uniqueness of each country democratic experiment and model. While trying to depict and illustrate the relation between Democracy and country’s strength, one could come up with the attached graph for such relation where Democracy and Strength represents X axis and Y axis respectively. Guess such blue graph illustrates the contemplated country’s life time or more precisely strength cycles, while the red tangent line depicts “Actual NS factors” – meaning national security in its comprehensive form (i.e. political, economic, military and social) or the external factors we have been talking about previously since countries don’t operate under single factor circumstances nor in vacuum, so I think other factors should be accounted for when analyzing such relationship. I assume any country’s current strength point is the one where the line “i.e. country’s NS current capabilities” is tangent with the curve. It may / may not be the optimal point depending on the country’s strategic strength plan. I believe the attached figure represents partially some of the American history which proves that at a certain era democracy and strength were negatively correlated. This era is the American civil war that commenced in 1861, by that time US was a democracy post declaring its independence, but it was not strong stemmed from the consequences of the aforementioned civil war that affected the country pre and post war leading one to think that not it takes time for a country to develop its democratic model. That being said, it appears that an external factor “weak social security” weakened the country’s overall strength, meaning graphically moving the country from point “A” to point “B” i.e. less strength while pertaining the same level of democracy. Also another historical international example is Germany Hitler era, attaining power using democratic tools and means and it was very strong to the extent of igniting a world war where the whole world paid the expense and price of such over strength and freely chosen after wards the non-application of the pure essence of democracy. Such example could be depicted on the graph at point “C” meaning high level of democracy and strength. Another recent example of democracy that could have destructed the country’s NS is Egypt democratic example during MB’s era where it applied one aspect of democracy and harmed other aspects and forms leading ultimately to expose negatively the country’s NS if it wasn’t for June 30 revolution that saved Egypt. My conclusion, strength isn’t a sole factor of democracy, there are other external factors incorporating security and the proper and responsible application of democracy in all of its aspects and forms. Guess it is the optimum balance between security and democracy in the strategic equation that will achieve and lead to a successful strength capability.