Well sort of: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/799/is-it-true-there-has-never-been-a-war-between-two-democracies
Well, I think we might soon see a No True Scotsman argument in the future.
“Western, wealthy democracies don’t fight each other.”
“*Western, liberal, parliamentary *wealthy democracies don’t fight each other.”
The Russia-Georgia war from 2008 fits the bill too I think.
India and Pakistan have had some minor border skirmishes, but nothing that most people would call a war.
The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War probably counts. Cecil mentioned the 1983 war, calling it “confusing” (understatement of the year there). I think in 2006 both participants were undeniably democracies.
Any others? I was thinking the Ethiopia-Eritrea war, but I’m not sure that Eritrea can really be called a democracy in any real sense. Same problem with the Sudan-South Sudan conflicts: Omar al-Bashir holds all the power in Sudan, even if there are nominal elections.
Edit: Of course Wikipedia has an article
Somewhat like the evolving and ever more specific definition of what constitutes recognition of Israel by Palestine?
When did Russia become a democracy?
The first presidential election was held on 12 June, 1991. Boris Yeltsin won about 59% of the vote.
To be fair, predicting the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is a little like predicting the sun will rise in the east in the morning.
Sorry. I was being sarcastic. It’s long been ludicrous to equate democracy with elections. As Cecil noted, many people have tried to modify the statement about war by requiring that the nations be liberal democracies, and even that’s a problem to define.
Another variant has it that no two nations with McDonalds have ever gone to war. Whatever the truth of that, it’s telling that Russia recently shut down its McDonalds. :eek:
On a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being North Korea and 1 being Denmark, Russia rates a 6 on both civil and political rights. Not free. The Ukraine rates a 3: partly free. Cite: Freedom House’s 2015 report.
Israel: 1-2. 1 for political rights, 2 for civil liberties. Lebanon: 5-4: “Partly free”.
Georgia: currently 3-3.
Sudan: 7-7: not free at all.
Right, we’re quickly getting into No True Scotsman here. Democracy and freedom do not always go hand in hand. Democracy and wealth do not always go hand in hand. Democracy and peace do not always go hand in hand. Is it true that no two relatively “free” countries have gone to war? Maybe, but that’s probably for the same reason Cecil guesses: There aren’t that many “free” countries, and those that are tend to be wealthy.
For the record, the Moscow McDonald’s appears to be open again.
Georgia had one when it fought with Russia.
Additionally, India and Pakistan both had McDonald’s during their 1999 war.
Lebanon and Israel both had McDonald’s during their latest war.
But note: US Department of State, US Agency for International Development, and Mikhail Khodorkovskyi a Russian exile oligarch and Kremilin opponent are all significant donors to Freedom House.
Ok. But I think I could show that Russia is more free than North Korea, which has a rank of 7. Meanwhile, while Turkey’s situation is deteriorating and has a score of 3-4 (partly free), can anybody credibly claim that Russia’s system of de facto one party rule is better? You may not like the ref, but unless you can point to some clearly bad calls charges of bias aren’t entirely convincing.
At any rate, it’s just another piece of evidence. To call Russia a democracy is a stretch.
You can’t count the U.S. in any of these cases. <sarcasm>We’re a republic and not a democracy.</sarcasm>
No true Scotsmen have ever gone to war with each other.
Depends on what you mean by minor, but I’d consider the 1971 event a bona fide war. This was part of Bangladesh’s independence war against Pakistan. I don’t know if I’d assess “democracy.”
But what were their FREEEEEDOOOOM! House rankings?
I wouldn’t call Pakistan a democracy in 1971 under even a generous definition. They held elections in 1970 that seemed to be fair enough, but the military promptly ignored the results.
I will revise my earlier opinion though. I think the 1999 conflict can be considered a war, albeit a short and limited one, and both nations were democracies at that point. Pakistan did have a succesful coup later that year, so it obviously wasn’t a very stable democracy at the time.
As did anybody watching Russia and Ukraine anytime they weren’t parts of the same country. (shrug)
Not exactly a war, but at least an act of war between Democracies when France sent secret agents to New Zealand to blow up the Rainbow Warrior.
For some reasons New Zealand is considered easy-meat for various countries including France and Israel - who uses NZ as an unapproved training ground and source of ‘clean’ passports for hostile activities.
This. The entire reason the 1971 war happened was because an East Pakistani* party won a majority of seats in the legislature, and the West Pakistan-dominated army didn’t think that was the correct result (and decided to kill everyone.) The civilian government had already been suspended by 1969 and Yahya Khan had declared martial law and become the de facto ruler of Pakistan. It would be inaccurate to call the Pakistan of 1971 a democracy in even the broadest possible terms.
The difference between a democracy and a totalitarian regime is that a general takes off his uniform before coming to power in the former.
*as Bangladesh was then known.