The Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy

Introduction
The phrase “The Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” has increasingly surfaced in political and media discussions in recent years. The selection of recent laureates suggests that the Nobel Committee has shifted its focus—valuing not merely temporary mediation efforts but rather the strengthening of democratic institutions and the protection of fundamental civil rights.

This article first examines the long-term historical trajectory of the Nobel Peace Prize, with particular attention to developments in the past five years. It then demonstrates that the Prize has increasingly leaned toward the consolidation of democracy rather than the mere achievement of temporary peace. Subsequently, the analysis explores why Donald Trump is not a deserving recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize—especially given his conception of peace as a series of political power agreements primarily designed to secure economic interests, with little regard for freedom of expression, justice, or public welfare. Finally, the article argues that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado was a reasonable and justified decision.

Part I: The Foundations and Traditional Criteria of the Nobel Peace Prize

To understand how “The Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” has become a subject of controversy, one must first revisit the historical origins of the award and its classical criteria. In his will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the Peace Prize should be granted to the individual or organization that has “conferred the greatest benefit to humankind,” particularly by promoting fraternity among nations, reducing standing armies, or organizing international peace congresses.

Over time, interpretations of these criteria broadened considerably. Concepts such as human rights, sustainable reconciliation, freedom of expression, and civil society gradually entered the evaluative framework of the Nobel Committee.

During the mid-twentieth century, most Peace Prize laureates were those who had facilitated mediation or intergovernmental treaties within war-torn or divided regimes. However, from the late twentieth century onward—and more prominently in the twenty-first—the selection pattern evolved. The focus shifted away from merely ending conflicts toward recognizing individuals who, through their defense of liberty, human rights, and democratic institution-building, laid the groundwork for enduring peace.

This transformation marks the precise juncture at which “The Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” emerged as a substantive concept. In other words, the Nobel Peace Prize today is no longer solely about reducing military interventions or securing ceasefires; it is fundamentally about reinforcing the internal mechanisms of societies—mechanisms without which even a superficial peace is bound to collapse. This new perspective must serve as the foundation for any examination of recent trends in the Nobel Committee’s decisions.

Part II: The Recent Trend (2019–Present) — A Shift Toward Democratization

To analyze the connection between “The Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy,” it is particularly revealing to examine the most recent selections. The following notable examples illustrate how each reflects the Committee’s growing inclination toward strengthening democratic institutions:

• 2021: The prize was awarded to Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov. The main reason cited was their efforts to “safeguard freedom of expression under challenging media and political conditions.” This decision demonstrated that the Nobel Committee regards media freedom as one of the essential pillars of democracy—not merely an auxiliary instrument.
• 2022: The prize was shared among Ales Bialiatski, the Russian organization Memorial, and the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine. The Committee’s justification was that these recipients had “demonstrated civil courage in opposing authoritarianism and advancing the right to criticize power and protect citizens’ fundamental rights.” This choice reflected special attention to civil society, independent legal institutions, and civic resistance.
• 2023: Narges Mohammadi of Iran was selected “for her persistent struggle in defense of women’s rights, freedom, and social justice.” Here, the focus was on individual perseverance under severe repression—a recognition not of a single act, but of a sustained trajectory of resistance.
• 2024: The prize went to the Hibakusha Movement (Nihon Hidankyo), the organization of survivors of the atomic bomb. Although the subject matter related to war, the selection was based on “collective conscience,” historical remembrance, and the moral imperative to prevent the recurrence of atrocities—thus emphasizing human dignity and human rights rather than simply the containment of conflict.
• 2025: The Nobel Committee awarded the prize to María Corina Machado “for advancing democratic rights in Venezuela” and for “her struggle to achieve a fair and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” (The official committee statement highlighted these points.)
  According to the Nobel Foundation’s official analysis, Machado represents the idea that “the instruments of democracy are themselves instruments of peace.” The accompanying news release noted that her selection came at a time when democracy worldwide is in retreat, and that the Committee intended to send a clear message through this decision.

When these examples are considered together, several common themes emerge:

1. The prominence of fundamental rights and freedoms in the selection criteria: In almost every case, the main justification for the award involved the defense of freedom of expression, resistance to oppression, or the creation of independent legal mechanisms.
2. A focus on individuals or institutions of resistance under difficult conditions, rather than on large-scale political treaties or elite negotiations.
3. Attention to long-term impact: The Committee values sustained dedication to democracy and human rights, not merely temporary acts that halt crises momentarily.
4. Global scope and symbolic resonance: The chosen laureates send messages that transcend borders and serve as sources of inspiration for societies under pressure.

Therefore, one can assert that in the past decade, “The Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” has ceased to be a mere slogan; it has become a tangible orientation guiding the Nobel Committee’s selection policy. From this perspective, choices that focus solely on superficial peace or political agreements—without investing in institution-building—align far less with the Prize’s renewed democratic vision.

Part III: The Critique of “Trumpian Peace” — Political and Economic Interests versus the Rights of the People

To better understand why Donald Trump is not a suitable candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, it is essential first to analyze his conception of peace. In Trump’s view, many of the political agreements or economic negotiations presented under the banner of “peace” are, in essence, merely a balance of interests among great powers. In other words, the type of peace that Trump envisions is largely the result of agreements between states—or between a major power and regional powers—that primarily serve economic and geopolitical interests. Within this framework:

• Verification of justice, freedom of expression, and public welfare is not a priority; what truly matters is securing lines of economic benefit, exemptions, and geopolitical influence.
  • If a deal brings economic advantages to a powerful state—regardless of the living conditions or rights of the people in the counterpart nation—it is deemed acceptable.
  • Consequently, relationships with regimes that appear to offer favorable terms for negotiation—even when they are overtly repressive—may be tolerated or even encouraged.

Several concrete examples illustrate this approach:

1. A willingness to engage with repressive regimes for transactional gain
   During and after his presidency, Trump repeatedly demonstrated that he prioritizes strategic and economic expediency over human rights considerations. When a nation possesses valuable resources or a strategic geopolitical position, he is willing to strike a deal with that regime—even if it enforces severe repression or curtails its citizens’ freedoms.
2. Disregard for democratic mechanisms
   In many of the international agreements and diplomatic initiatives that Trump has championed, there is no provision ensuring governmental transparency, public participation, or the protection of minority rights. In fact, peace imposed by a powerful state, without the meaningful involvement of the local populace, cannot be called genuine peace—its foundations lack justice and human dignity.
3. Illustrative cases of agreements claimed as Trump’s achievements
   A prominent example is the Abraham Accords, brokered by the United States between Israel and several Arab nations. While the accords resulted in closer diplomatic ties, critics argue that they effectively ignored the fundamental rights of Palestinians and prioritized geopolitical and economic advantages.

Furthermore, Trump’s approach to negotiations with North Korea, as well as his unilateral withdrawal from and reconfiguration of the Iran nuclear deal, reveal a pattern of favoring symbolic gestures and short-term political gain over substantive legal and humanitarian guarantees.

Thus, “peace of the Trump variety” often lacks legal depth and institutional integrity. This form of peace may yield temporary agreements, but since it is detached from the creation of institutions that safeguard citizens’ freedom and accountability, it proves unsustainable. In reality, such peace—devoid of justice, freedom of expression, and public welfare—is little more than a transaction among powerful states.

To illustrate further: imagine a country governed by an authoritarian regime where citizens are denied the right to protest, where no free press or fair elections exist, and where the judicial system fails to provide effective recourse. If Trump were to strike a deal with that government, securing economic or military advantages for the United States or its allies—but without any improvement in human rights or living conditions for that country’s people—could that truly be called “real peace”? The answer is almost self-evident: no. True peace must preserve human dignity, rights, and participation—it cannot be reduced to mere power bargaining.

Therefore, this is precisely why Trump’s international conduct, even when it leads to major agreements, fails to meet the criteria of the “Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” framework: such arrangements lack the essential foundations of justice and democratic institution-building.

Part IV: Why Donald Trump Does Not Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

Based on the arguments presented above, there are several clear reasons why Donald Trump is not deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize:

1. Lack of Focus on Democratic Institution-Building
   In recent years, the Nobel Committee has favored individuals and organizations that have strengthened the foundations of democracy by creating independent institutions, supporting civil society, and protecting minority rights. Trump, as a political leader, has tended instead toward the exercise of power, coercive diplomacy, and symbolic gestures rather than the cultivation of enduring democratic structures.
2. Absence of a Sustained Record in Defending Human Rights
   To qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize—particularly in an era when the emphasis has shifted toward “building democratic institutions”—a candidate must possess a substantial and consistent record of defending human rights. Trump’s claims to peace or his negotiation efforts are mostly tied to specific episodes, lacking any solid connection to an ongoing human rights commitment.
3. Willingness to Compromise with Repressive Regimes
   As previously mentioned, Trump has repeatedly shown a willingness to engage with authoritarian and repressive regimes if such relationships can yield economic or geopolitical benefits. This approach fundamentally contradicts the concept of peace rooted in justice and human rights.
4. A Public Campaign for the Nobel Prize
   Trump has openly sought to win the Nobel Peace Prize for himself; he has repeatedly declared that he deserves it and has even run promotional campaigns to that effect. However, as the Nobel Committee emphasized when awarding the prize to María Corina Machado, the Nobel selection must be based on actual merit and tangible achievement, not on political pressure or media campaigns.

As Time Magazine reported: “Before returning to the White House in January, Trump had launched a not-so-secret campaign to secure the Nobel Peace Prize for himself.” Moreover, according to analytical reports, Machado’s selection took place in the very year that Trump’s nomination was under intense scrutiny—an implicit signal from the Committee about its genuine priorities.

1. Lack of Lasting Impact on Real Peace
   Even if Trump has, in some cases, managed to broker temporary mediations or agreements, these efforts have lacked institutional depth and lasting influence. For the Nobel Peace Prize, it is not enough merely to create a negotiation framework; the actions must have a durable and transformative impact. In Trump’s case, most of the agreements and declarations attributed to him have been criticized as performative—short-lived displays rather than substantive achievements.

Therefore, according to the standards embodied in the evolving concept of the “Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy,” Trump fundamentally lacks the deep and structural framework that the Committee now values in its recent selections.

Part V: The Merit of María Corina Machado — A Choice Toward the Consolidation of Democracy

We now turn to the question of why awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado appears to be a logical and well-founded decision within the framework of “the Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy.”

1. A Long-Term Struggle Under Difficult Conditions

Machado has been an active figure in Venezuela’s opposition movement for many years, operating within an environment marked by an intensely authoritarian government, severe restrictions on freedom of expression, suppression of dissent, and electoral manipulation.
Her political engagement has gone far beyond conventional activism—she has faced arrest, intimidation, and constant pressure.

According to the official statement by the Nobel Committee, she exemplifies an individual who “regards the tools of democracy as the tools of peace.” This concise phrase captures the essence of why her struggle is not merely political resistance, but an ongoing effort to establish legitimate democratic mechanisms in a repressive context.

2. Emphasis on Fundamental Rights and Democracy

In its official declaration, the Nobel Committee stated that Machado was recognized for her role in “advancing democratic rights in Venezuela,” highlighting the principles of free suffrage, representative governance, and freedom of expression.
In effect, she represents the kind of civic activist who does not merely protest against injustice but actively works to reform institutions through a principled commitment to political and structural rights.

Machado’s consistent advocacy for transparent elections and institutional reform places her in the same category as other laureates who have worked not only for peace but for the democratic systems that sustain it.

3. Global Symbolism and Regional Impact

In a world where democracy faces regression in many nations, Machado’s selection carries a powerful symbolic message: that free choice, independent institutions, and civil resistance remain essential values worth defending.

The Nobel Committee explicitly justified its decision as an effort to “keep alive the flame of democracy amid an expanding darkness.”
According to The Guardian, the timing of her selection was particularly significant—it coincided with Donald Trump’s mounting campaign to pressure the Committee into considering him. By choosing Machado instead, the Committee underscored its adherence to fundamental democratic principles rather than yielding to political or media influence.

Similarly, Time Magazine reported that despite Trump’s campaign, the Nobel Prize was ultimately awarded to Machado “for her steadfast commitment to defending democracy in Venezuela.”

4. Domestic Legitimacy and Representation of the Opposition

Machado is not merely a symbolic figure but a political leader who has earned a central place within Venezuela’s opposition. She has served as a member of the Venezuelan Parliament and plays a pivotal role in the political movement Vente Venezuela (“Come Venezuela” or “Freedom Movement”).

When she was awarded the prize in 2025, reports indicated that her party and opposition forces had reunited, and that she had emerged as a unifying figure among the country’s diverse opposition groups.
This quality is vital, as one of the enduring criteria for fostering democracy is the capacity to mobilize and genuinely represent the public—rather than engaging in isolated activism detached from social participation.

5. Alignment with Nobel Criteria and Recent Trends

Moreover, Machado’s selection aligns perfectly with the modern trajectory of the Nobel Peace Prize—emphasizing individuals who do not merely achieve temporary ceasefires but who institutionalize peace through legal, political, and democratic mechanisms.

The Nobel Committee’s statement stressed that Machado “has refused to abandon her non-military resistance and has remained firmly committed to a peaceful transition to democracy.”

In this light, her recognition is not a politically expedient choice but a profoundly symbolic affirmation of the Nobel Committee’s renewed commitment to democracy as the foundation of sustainable peace.

In summary, María Corina Machado’s award represents the embodiment of the Nobel Peace Prize’s evolving identity: peace as a product of democratic endurance, civic courage, and institutional resilience.

Part VI: Conclusion and Recommendations

Analytical Summary

In this article I demonstrated that the phrase “the Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” is not merely a slogan but a real change in the Nobel Committee’s selection policy. The selection pattern over the past five years shows that the Committee has focused less on ostensible or temporary peacemaking and more on those who, by defending freedom of expression, practicing civil resistance, and building legal and institutional frameworks, create the foundations for durable peace.

Within this framework, Donald Trump, because his conception of peace is largely based on agreements among powers—disregarding justice, liberty, and the welfare of ordinary people—cannot be considered an acceptable candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. He is willing to broker deals with repressive regimes without conditions that would improve their internal human-rights or legal practices. By contrast, María Corina Machado, with a sustained record of resistance, meaningful representation of the opposition, and legal and political struggle for democracy, is precisely the type of candidate the “Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” orientation should embrace.

Recommendations for Readers and Activists

• Civil-society and human-rights activists should consistently emphasize the combination of “peace and justice”, rather than accepting a peace that ignores inequality and injustice.
• Media outlets and academic institutions can help raise public understanding by highlighting the relationship between democratic institution-building and sustainable peace.
• Prize committees and similar institutions should calibrate their criteria so they clearly distinguish between producers of superficial peace and actors who build structural, institutional peace.
• International policymakers should exercise caution in granting concessions or recognition to regimes that engage only in cosmetic cooperation without undertaking deep legal or participatory reforms.

Final Conclusion

True peace is achieved not through transactional political bargains among powers, but through freedom, justice, participation, and respect for human rights. When an award like the Nobel Peace Prize, by emphasizing democratic institution-building, honors those who labor on the complex path of reconstructing civil-society and legal frameworks, the concept of “the Nobel Peace Prize and Democracy” attains concrete meaning. In this context, awarding the prize to María Corina Machado is not only logical but sends an important message to the world: peace without democracy is incomplete, and those who struggle for the freedom and rights of people are more deserving than those who appear only as transactional diplomats.