Posted on 01/22/2005 10:25:39 PM PST by Destro
Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another. ...or Do They?
I've witnessed this debate on Usenet several times, and it always follows the same pattern:
Somebody casually brings up the old factoid about how no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.
Somebody jumps in and lists a dozen or so wars which have been fought between democracies. Somebody else points out that those countries weren't democratic, not really.
Everybody gets into arguments over who was or was not democratic.
The argument fizzles out except for two guys continuing to argue over whether the American Civil War was about slavery.
In any case, here is the traditional list of wars which may or may not have been fought between democracies:
(Excerpt) Read more at users.erols.com ...
You have already been discredited on this.
If you define democracy as a system of government in which policy is set by unpunished, unrestricted debate among the citizens of a nation and put into action by their elected representatives, then all of the above nations are democratic. On the other hand, if you start narrowing the definitions, then obviously you'll get fewer democracies to work with, so of course you're going to have fewer wars between democracies.
If you consider slavery and democracy to be mutually exclusive, then no major power was a democracy until the French Revolution, and the United States passed nearly its entire first century without being a proper democracy. If you insist that a democracy must be free from all corruption, bribery, vote fraud, cronyism, intimidation and ballot box stuffing, then even a fine old democracy like the United States fails the test more often than we like to admit. The 1960 and 1972 presidential elections, for example, had enough irregularites and questionable activities to make honest civil libertarians wring their hands and worry whether any country can meet the high standards set by political theorists. [n.3]
If you consider women's sufferage to be an essential component of democracy, then no nation was a democracy until the 20th Century. Switzerland, the poster boy of peaceful democracies, didn't pass this threshhold until 1971 (and at the local level until 1990). France fought two World Wars without being a proper democracy. With this proviso ("women have to count.") in place, you can easily weed out the first 11 controversies in our list. If you insist on that tired old bromide that the US (for example) is a republic, not a democracy, then obviously, there's no such thing as an existing democracy, so -- big surprise -- there hasn't been a war between democracies in, like, 2300 years.
Some democraticians would avoid labelling a nation democratic until after the first peaceful, orderly transfer of power to the opposition following an electoral defeat. I'll admit this makes a certain amount of sense -- until the ruling elite actually steps down, you can't be sure whether the elections are real or just for show -- however, it does significantly trim the number of democracies in the world at any given time. For example, under this rule, the USA didn't become a democracy until 1801, a quarter century after the Declaration of Independence. West Germany didn't become a democracy until 1969, 20 years after the Allied occupation ended (and only 20 years before the emergence of democracy in its East German rival). Mexico has been having regularly scheduled and hotly contested elections for decades, and yet didn't pass this threshold of democracy until a few months ago. Despite the joyous ends to oppressive regimes almost a decade ago -- and a string of regular, contested elections since then -- Russia and South Africa still are not democratic by these standards. However, rather than wait years or decades for a visible transfer of power, some democraticians prefer to set a temporal milestone at which "unstable" democracies transform into "stable" ones. If constitutional rule of law survives its first awkward years and passes (for example) its third birthday, then how about we just declare it a full adult? This way, we can dismiss any wars it fought in its infancy as growing pains and youthful mistakes made before they learned that democracies are not supposed to do that sort of thing.
I suppose that all these limits and conditions are fine in theory, except for three problems:
Everyone forgets the fine print. When a politician declares in his stump speech that democracies don't fight democracies, he usually omits the parenthetical remark that we're only counting "states in which fair competative elections have led to a peaceful handover of power from one head of government to his or her rival" (to quote the small print in Dan Smith's The State of the World Atlas, 6th ed.)
The old double standard:
Slobodon Milosovic was frequently denounced in his nation's press and challenged in elections by opposition leaders, but he maintained an iron grip on power through vote fraud, private security forces and the judicious application of unregistered cash. His armies fought secret wars. When the voices against him grew too loud, he scurried away like a thief in the night. Dictator, right?
The same, however, could be said about Richard Nixon. Why do the irregularities of Milosovic's regime prove that Yugoslavia was a dictatorship, but the irregularities of Nixon's regime prove that in America, "the system works"? (Of course, on the other hand, if we accept that Nixon was dictator rather than a democratic leader, it becomes easier to explain that the 1973 unpleasantness between Chile and the US was not an example of two democracies at war.)
Statistically insignificant sample:
As we trim more and more dubious democracies from our list, we certainly make the statement that "democracies don't fight each other" truer, but we also make it a lot less impressive. If there are only 2 functioning democracies in the world (think, for example, the United States and Switzerland, ca. 1855), then peace between them is no big surprise. After all, how many times have two Mormon countries gone to war with one another? Or two nations led by people named Leslie? "War"
On any given day, as you flip page-by-page through a big city newspaper, you'll see stories from a half dozen wars going on worldwide -- and these are just the wars that produced something newsworthy the day before. Taking into account the wars which have entered a hiatus as one side plans and the other side licks its wounds (along with unofficial cease-fires, disruptive weather, and concealed massacres) we can easily assume another dozen distant wars smoldering out of sight of newspaper's understaffed foreign bureaus.
In fact, to pull some numbers into this discussion, the Center for Defense Information listed 21 armed conflicts under way as of 1 January 1998. The New State of War and Peace by Kidron and Smith has a table listing 82 unique wars fought between January 1980 and September 1990.
And yet, in this violent world, how many wars were being fought between democracies? A handful at most -- and arguably none at all. Eighty-two wars and not a single one pitting undisputed democracies against each other? Shouldn't this tell us something?
Well, it tells me that we need to clarify what we mean by war. Most of the conflicts raging across the world at any given time are civil wars. Rather than being well-organized, distinct affairs in which massed armies blitzkrieg across the border and formally annex foreign territory, your average civil war sputters along indistinctly, year after year. In these wars, loosely constituted rebel armies launch sporadic raids from secret bases against government targets and then melt back unrecognizably into the population. The government retaliates by torturing information out of any citizen who may have made contact with the rebels, and by depopulating the war zone with massacres and deportations in order to dry up the rebels' pool of supporters and potential recruits.
In civil wars, the opposing sides are generally refered to as the rebels and the government -- that's "government" in the singular -- but when we talk of the likelihood of two democratic governments going to war, we are talking about "governments" in the plural. So, let's forget the 82 armed conflicts of the 1980s. If were going to get a handle on the probability of two democracies coming into conflict, we have to limit ourselves to international wars, a much rarer phenomenon.
How many international wars have there been in the 55 years since WW2? How many times have regular troops from sovereign nations openly exchanged fire with each other, with intent to kill, under orders, during a continuous period of armed clashes? The list thins out quite a bit:
Please keep in mind that our definition of "international war" only includes wars in which governments fight each other, not where several governments band together to fight rebels. Thus the war which Americans generally call "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan" is not an international war because the two governments involved were allies, not foes.
Naturally, we can quibble over specific wars.
Was the Biafran War of 1967-70 international or not? (The answer: It depends on whether Biafra was a nation.) Similarly, maybe we should exclude the Israeli War of Independence considering that Israel didn't actually become a nation until it won the war.
Should we count the American bombing of Libya in April 1986? Is one air raid a proper war? Did any of the various intervening armies in Lebanon or Congo actually come to blows with each other, or just with various rebel factions?
Was the Chinese seizure of Tibet a foreign invasion, or the reclamation of a rebellious province? However, even shuffling the dubious cases (adding some, subtracting some), the pattern holds up. Between 1945 and 2000, there were fewer international wars than there were years.
Also, keep in mind that some of these conflicts are rather small -- often mere blips on the world radar -- so if we impose a minimum death toll we could lose several of them. (And remember -- as we reduce the number of valid wars under consideration, it becomes less surprising that few, if any, were between democracies.)
In the context at hand, we can trim the list even more. If the believers in Democratic Peace want to weed out wars between democratic regimes that are less than 3 years old, then the believers in Democratic War get to ignore wars involving any regime that's less than three years old. If the Franco-Roman War of 1848 is cut because the governments involved were too young, then we have to cut Korea, Tibet, the Iran-Iraq War and at least a couple of the Arab-Israeli or Indo-Pak Wars because they too involve the impetuous youth of immature regimes -- in this case, however, the immature bullies of the world. (It can easily be argued that even the most brutal totalitarian regimes mellow with age. Notice that Red China's wars get smaller and fewer as time goes by.)
So just taking a quick look at the raw numbers here, what do we see?
Of the 39 international wars between WW2 and Y2K, 6 might have been between democracies.
That's 15% -- one out of six and a half. That's not much, is it? In an era where somewhere between a quarter and a half of all the world's countries are democracies, it doesn't seem like a lot, right?
Mathematical Probability: (Hey wait! Don't run off! I'll be mercifully brief. I promise)
By pure mathematics, we wouldn't expect too many interdemocratic wars anyway. The odds of an event happening (flipping heads on a coin; a democracy going to war) are considerably higher than the odds of that same event happening twice (flipping heads on a coin twice; two democracies going to war).
In the case of flipping heads, the probability is 1/2 on one flip, 1/4 on two flips [1/2*1/2], 1/8 on three flips [1/2*1/2*1/2]. (We all remember our high school algebra, don't we?) What then is the baseline probability for any two types of government going to war? That is, if we were to grab two random countries to fight a war, what would be the odds that we would grab two democracies?
THE MATH: In 1967 (just to pick a year) there were 126 sovereign nations big enough to show up on a world map, among them 33 democracies of the same minimum size [n.4]. That's 26%. Therefore if we were to stage random, one-on-one wars between all the world's visible nations at that time, 6.8% (or 26%*26%) of these wars would pit democracies against democracies, 38.7% (or 74%*26%*2) would see democracies fighting non-democracies and 54.5% (or 74%*74%) would be exclusively between non-democracies.
Now, 1967 is just a single year, but I've spent a good deal of this Atlas counting democracies. I can state with reasonable certainty that 44.5% of mapable sovereignties during the WW2-Y2K Era were full democracies. This calculates out to...
The odds of 2 random democracies going to war: 19.8% The odds of 2 random non-democracies going to war: 30.8% The odds of a random democracy going to war with a random non-democracy: 49.4%
This means that among the 39 international wars during the WW2-Y2K Era, we would only expect to find 8 inter-democratic wars anyway.
And we've found 6 instead -- maybe. What does this tell us?
It tells me that when you're calculating the odds of a rare type of country (democracy) performing a rare act (fighting an international war), the sample is too small to draw any valid conclusion. The difference between 6 and 8 falls easily within any reasonable margin of error.
Why does it matter?
Although there is no undisputed case of two democracies at war, the evidence certainly casts doubt on the thesis. In fact, the thesis is not nearly as strong as the statement that no two countries with a McDonald's Restaurant have ever gone to war with one another, so why do you never hear distinguished international diplomats expound on the need to sell more beef patties in the world? [n.5]
At first, this McDonald's factoid seems enormously trivial; however, when you stop and think about it, the McDonald's Peace Formula can be quite interesting. It seems to indicate that as countries are incorporated into the global economy by trans-national corporations, they stop waging war on one another (although it might be vice versa). Unfortunately, no one wants to go around saying that the best way to assure peace is to surrender your national economy to large heartless corporations. It makes a much better campaign slogan to say that democracy is the best path to peace. This is why we see so many people claiming that democracies never fight each other, and relatively few people outside of McDonald's Corporate Headquarters claiming the geopolitical virtues of burger bars.
The Universal Democracy Peace Formula has been around a long time -- since the days of Immanuel Kant and his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace, in fact. It dates back to an era when democracies were more often hypothetical rather than real, and political philosophers were trying to sell democracy as a path to peace by prophesying that no one really likes war, so if we granted our cannon fodder the chance to decide their fates for themselves, they'd say no, thank you. In fact, it almost sounds like that old adage spouted by monarchs, fascists and dictators for centuries -- Democracies don't have the stomach for war -- and it seems to forget that it doesn't take much to whip a mob into an angry frenzy.
Appendix:
(1) Boosting the number of democracies and (2) The concept of dyads (This is not really vital to the main essay, and it tends to be horribly mathematical, so I won't be at all offended if you just want to skip down to the hyperlinks and check out some related sites, or maybe even go out and enjoy this lovely day. Class dismissed.)
Many of the Democratic Peaceniks realize the statistical dangers of declaring too many borderline regimes to be non-democratic, so they try to pump the numbers back up to significant levels by finding multiple democracies where others see only one. For example, Weart finds it significant that individual Swiss cantons have remained at peace with one another. That's like finding significance in the fact that Alberta has never launched a punitive raid against Manitoba. If we're going to start counting the number of federated sub-jurisdictions (rather than actual countries) that have never fought each other, then why not count the 70 years of peaceful coexistance between the totalitarian Kazakh, Tadjik and Uzbek SSRs. The next thing you know, the belivers in Democratic Peace will be offering as examples of non-fighting democracies American states like Alabama and Ohio.
Whoops. They can't.
Which bring me (as promised in the title) to the concept of dyads. "Dyad" is just a fancy name for "a pair of things having some relationship". In our context, the relationship would be a state of war.
This lovely article takes apart all your arguments in all possible combinations.
now yours is one funny tagline
We are dealing with a Democratic Peaceniks theory - which always changes the meaning of what a "democracy" is everytime the theory is challenged. Read the article in the original link - well worth the read.
Name two democracies that have gone to war.
If you think the Civil War was about SLAVERY then you are not a student of HISTORY!
Read above.
The author was going through the list of possible arguments pro and con:
9. American Civil War, 1861-65
Democracies (that have gone to war with each other): United States vs. Confederate States
Rebuttal: The Confederacy was a slave-holding nation and therefore definitely not a democracy -- and while we're at it, the same could be said for the Union as well. Also, "[t]he South was not a sovereign democracy at that time... President Jefferson Davis was not elected, but appointed by representatives selected by confederate states. There was an election in 1861, but it was not competitive." [Rummel]
Counterrebuttal: Both nations used almost identical Constitutions, which were easily the most democratic in the world at the time. Both nations conducted state and congressional elections on schedule, despite the difficulties of wartime. They both allowed substantial dissent within their Congresses, even if the opposition in the South never quite formalized into a two party sytem. Every major policy decision in both nations was enacted and approved by elected officials. (And since when is being "appointed by representatives selected by [individual] states" undemocratic? Technically, that's how every American president has been chosen.)
One need go no further than this line to know the rest of the article is complete bull****.
Nixon never had an 'iron grip' on power, and he didn't win through fraud or intimidation. IIRC, Nixon won something like a 48 state landslide for his second term. He also didn't 'sneak away.' I remember watching him leave Washington on national television. That's hardly 'sneaking'.
This author has a rather flawed view of recent American history, that or he's just another rather verbose BS'er with an agenda.
L
NUH UH NUH UH NUH UH,
My liberal text books say the Civil War was about slavery. The evil capitalist pig white man fought to keep the negro in slavery. </sarcasm>
Destro does seem to be overdoing it, doesn't he? LOL!
21. Kosovo War, 1999 Democracies (that have gone to war with each other): The countries of NATO vs. Yugoslavia.
Rebuttal: Milosovic was a dictator.
Counter-rebuttal: In the legislative elections of Nov. 1996, Milosovic's supporters won a mere 64 out of 138 seats in parliament, and control of government probably would have gone to the opposition had not infighting and internal divisions prevented them from claiming their place at the helm. In 1997, Milosovic was re-elected president by a plausible margin of 59% to 38% [n.1] which suggests that these elections were not entirely rigged either. In October 2000, a soundly beaten Milosovic actually conceded defeat after an apparently free presidential election. Sure it took a week or so of prodding to get him to vacate the presidential palace, but a concession is a concession nonetheless. (and he gave in quicker than Al Gore.)
The old double standard:
Slobodon Milosovic was frequently denounced in his nation's press and challenged in elections by opposition leaders, but he maintained an iron grip on power through vote fraud, private security forces and the judicious application of unregistered cash. His armies fought secret wars. When the voices against him grew too loud, he scurried away like a thief in the night. Dictator, right?
The same, however, could be said about Richard Nixon. Why do the irregularities of Milosovic's regime prove that Yugoslavia was a dictatorship, but the irregularities of Nixon's regime prove that in America, "the system works"? (Of course, on the other hand, if we accept that Nixon was dictator rather than a democratic leader, it becomes easier to explain that the 1973 unpleasantness between Chile and the US was not an example of two democracies at war.)
Mexican Politics
At the time of the war, Mexico had a highly unstable government. The federal constitution of 1824 had been abrogated in 1835 and replaced by a centralized dictatorship. Two diametrically opposed factions had arisen: the Federalists, who supported a constitutional democracy; and the Centralists, who supported an autocratic government under a monarch or dictator. Various clashing parties of Centralists were in control of the government from 1835 to December 1844. During that time numerous rebellions and insurgencies occurred within Mexican territory, including the temporary disaffection of California and the Texas Revolution, which resulted in the independence (1836) of Texas.
In December 1844 a coalition of moderates and Federalists forced the dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna into exile and installed Jose Joaquin Herrera as acting president of Mexico. The victory was a short-lived, uneasy one. Although Santa Anna himself was in Cuba, other Centralists began planning the overthrow of Herrera, and the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845 provided them with a jingoistic cause.
I can't figure out why you guys even care to argue the point. If the democratically elected government of an aggressor state infringes on the interests of, or attacks the US of A, we'll kick their butts till they decide to democratically elect some more reasonable leaders. End of story.
You are correct. Democracy is mob rule. The founding fathers knew that and avoided the trap of democracy.
So which was more "democratic"
Your argument is a fallacy - you don't even know how to define what a democracy is to be able to prove your peace between democracies theory. Your "democracy" definition goal posts keeps changing till you statistically run out of democratic nations that can pass the test for being a democracy.
Texasforever supports the theory that two democracies will never go to war with each other. Challenge that assertion and she changes the definition of what a democracy is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.