…or at least that’s what I’ve heard some people claim ( I assume that they are using ‘democratic’ to mean countries that have free elections and such, since they usually include the U.S. in that group).
A friend of mine countered this argument by saying that it actually has happened (democracies going to war with each other) and he cited the following instances:
[ul]
[li]Pakistan-India, various times from independence to the 70s (Pakistan wasn’t[/li]always a democracy, but they fought a number of wars).
[li]Egypt-Israel (I checked google, Anwar Sadat was confirmed by election[/li]after Nasser’s death).
[li]Cases could probably be made for parts of the Bosnian conflicts-yeah,[/li]election discrepencies, what about Bush and Florida? (His argument, not mine).
[/ul]
Then he proposed that we ask a different question. “How many democracies have been sustained after the government was imposed by external force? Japan and Germany. Panama. Others? Anything with less than overwhelming force?”
So then, a two-parter here:
Is there any significant correlation between a country’s ‘democratic’ status and their liklihood to go to war with other ‘democratic’ countries?
How many democracies have been sustained after the government was imposed by external agents?
As a political science major, a professor once dared me and my class to find an example of democracies at war. It was something of a trick question, as he considered “war” battlefield war with uniformed combatants, rules of engagement, etc. However, it is quite plain that between two democratic countries, war is never overt, but it does occur in a covert fashion. Let’s look at some examples from our own backyard:
1953: CIA overthrows democratically elected government of Guatemala. In the civil war that followed, when the U.S. was backing brutal generals, 165,000 people died. So much for “democracies are always nice to each other.”
1973: CIA overthrows government of Allende in Chile and installs Pinochet. This was clearly a “war” of agression, as the U.S. feared losing cheap steel.
2002: US supports attempt to overthrow democratically elected government of Venezuela. This was at least U.S.-supported (mil. linguists at Medina Regional SIGINT Operations Center were intercepting internal communications of the Venezuelan government and passing them on to active participants in the overthrow attempt) and possible U.S.-planned as well. Chavez is an idiot occasionaly, but he was elected, and seems to enjoy wide support among the population
The U.S.'s track record in Latin America does not show that democracies treat each other kindly all the time. Of course, one could argue that agencies like the CIA and NSA are not under democratic control (look how hard it is for Congress to keep them in check, and I know some military linguists who hate Jimmy Carter because he wanted to lessen America’s ability to violate privacy). Still, one would like to think the U.S. is indeed a democracy.
The conceit that “free democracies do not make war on each other” is heavily overdetermined. You can bring both theoretical and emprical examples to bear on it.
The first theoretical explanation is purely systemic. “Free Democracy” is a relatively modern concept. In, say, the past one hundred years, there have been more important considerations than democracy that have kept certain nations from fighting each other. For example, bipolarity in the past fifty years has been a more relevant factor in international policy, hence the fact that to a large degree the democracies did not prey on each other is a matter of coincidence. There was certainly correlation, but no real evidence of causation.
I see others have pointed out some of the examples in which this is not true. There are many, many others, largely linked to the problem of decolonialization. The conflict over the Falklands Islands comes to mind. Nasser was duly elected, yet France, England, and Israel had no problem making war with Egypt over the Suez Canal.
What does not tend to happen is that “western, liberal, market democracies with strong ethnic, political, historical, and linguistic ties to each other already do not make war on each other.”
Probably true, but lacking in parsimony and predictive force.
But the problem with these examples is that elections don’t make a country a democracy. Dictatorships regularly hold “elections”. But without a free press, free speech, freedom of assembly, etc, etc, etc, etc, those elections are a sham. Egypt is not and was not a democracy simply because there have been elections held there, Pakistan is not a democracy despite Mussharif “referendum”.
Dictators are regularly elected to office with 99% of the vote. Does that mean those countries are democracies?
So yeah, like I said. Western democracies don’t fight each other. Real powerful claim. Not intrinsic to democracy, intrinsic to the current balance of power.
Wow, big fat no on both counts. The George III/Tory government of the beginning of the 19th century was not exactly liberally democratic. The Luddites, Spa Fields Riots, Derbyshire Insurrection, suspension of habeas corpus, and the Peterloo Massacre are not exactly characteristic of liberal western democracy. This was a period of serious transition in England, in which the government was frequently concerned with outright revolution by the lower classes.
With respect to the Civil War, well, I am a Yankee born and bred, so I have a hard time answering this question with even the barest hint of objectivity.
Well, for the time, the British government was pretty liberal and democratic, although, you’re right, it was a limited democracy.
Ok, what about the Boer War? Democratic UK (It’s the 1890s now) vs. the democratic Boer free states?
Or 1914 democratic UK vs. (imperfectly) liberal democratic Germany? Yes, voting districts were skewed to the countryside, and the Emperor, through the Chancellor, had a lot of power. But, you did have a democratically elected Reichstag, which passed the laws and had sole power over taxation and funding, as well as guarantees of freedom of speech and the press.
Or, in WWII, democratic UK vs. democratic Finland? I’m not sure how much fighting there actually was, but war was declared.
As a couple of posters have noted it depends on what you mean by democracy. I think the odd election here and there doesn’t make a genuine democracy but rather you need a solid track record of regular elections along with other institutions like a free press.
By that standard I can’t think of a single war between genuine democracies.
Certainly neither Egypt nor Pakistan count as genuine democracies.
I am less sure about the various covert operations by the US in Latin America mentioned by Uno Mundo. However these are not generally classified as US “wars”.
I don’t know much about the Boer Free States, honestly, but I had always believed that they were essentially slave republics with about the same level of democracy as, say, classical Sparta.
And pretty much no ability to set foreign policy.
You do make a very good point, though. I would argue in turn that none of the democracies actually expected anything more serious than another Bosnian Conflict of 1908, hence they were more prepared to commit to a touch of aggression to let off some of the steam that bipolarity was causing.
This is another weird one. I don’t think there was any actual fighting. As I understand it, England declared war because Finland was part of a joint offensive against the Soviet Union, which had initiated a war of aggression against it and untimately conquered it.
As always, I could be wrong.
The crux of the issue is pointed out by CyberPundit. I have been trying to make this point all along.
Because there are so few “genuine” democracies and none of them have been around all that long. I would say that it is illogical to conclude that democracy itself is the cause for peace when there are so many better systemic explanations.
So I think you’re exactly right, Captain Amazing, by pointing out all of the examples in which this theory is questionable. It reduces and reduces its descriptive power to almost nil.
Well, the big problem is, what’s your definition of democracy? You know, was the US democratic in 1776, when only white propertyholding men could vote? Did it become democratic in the 1830’s, when the property law requirements were repealed? The 1860’s, when all American men, in spite of race, got the de jure right to vote? The 1910’s, when women got the right to vote? The 1960s, when every American over 21, regardless of race, got the de facto right to vote? The 1970s, when the voting age was lowered to 18? Are we now? Felons can’t vote, and neither can non citizens. In some cantons in Switzerland, women didn’t get the right to vote until the 1970s. Was it non democratic until then.
You’re right. This theory doesn’t really have any descriptive value, because it’s so vague. I don’t usually see it used as a descriptive theory, though, but as an argument. It’s used, more often, as “See, one of the reasons democracies are good is because they’re peaceful.”, with the person making the argument using his own definitions to support the theory.
And when WWI started, I don’t think anyone, democracy or autocracy, expected it to turn out as much more than a repeat of the Bosnian crisis of 1908. It was a case of things steamrolling out of control, with no European leader having enough will to stop it. Remember, at the very beginning, WWI was extremely popular in almost all of Europe (except for Belgium).
Sure, but it certainly saves time checking the archive first. Then the thread can go on to either agree/disgree/expand on the summary. Not that it has to be done that way, of course.
And I was joking about ‘half-cocked’. It’s an expression. K?
