Thread: Your Thoughts on Democratic Peace

not sound, it is more a case of conflation than anything else.

Originally Posted by astralis

not sound, it is more a case of conflation than anything else.

We do know that established functioning democracies have not fought a major war with each other. Although Finland was allied with Nazi Germany and Great Britain declared war on Finland no major battles were fought. This is as far as i know the only real time functioning democracies have been at war with one another. Less than fully functioning or new democracies have gone to war with each other. So thew theory seems to hold for mature democratic political systems but no one else.

This is a little more focused topic, but here's a thread that's up your alley.

Democratic Peace and the Middle East

zraver,

We do know that established functioning democracies have not fought a major war with each other. Although Finland was allied with Nazi Germany and Great Britain declared war on Finland no major battles were fought. This is as far as i know the only real time functioning democracies have been at war with one another. Less than fully functioning or new democracies have gone to war with each other. So thew theory seems to hold for mature democratic political systems but no one else.

so the question is, is this a function of a democratic political system or is this a function of the post WWII consensus of a Europe built around a US-led alliance system?

i am very much tempted to say the latter, because "pure" democracies in the past (such as the greek city-states) fought each other, and in more modern times, countries with democratic/liberal principles have gone to the brink when it came to fighting (US/UK in 1890s, UK/france in the 1880s) or have actually fought (WWI).

on another note, one would need to ask if a democratic but nationalist china would be willing to fight the US over taiwan. i suspect yes.

Originally Posted by astralis

zraver,



so the question is, is this a function of a democratic political system or is this a function of the post WWII consensus of a Europe built around a US-led alliance system?

i am very much tempted to say the latter, because "pure" democracies in the past (such as the greek city-states) fought each other, and in more modern times, countries with democratic/liberal principles have gone to the brink when it came to fighting (US/UK in 1890s, UK/france in the 1880s) or have actually fought (WWI).

on another note, one would need to ask if a democratic but nationalist china would be willing to fight the US over taiwan. i suspect yes.

The fact remains that mature democracies have not fought a war. Ancient Greek City states hardly count as they were not full democracies but very patriarchal and the majority of the population could not vote. Nor does being a democracy preclude going to war, only going to war with another mature democracy.

Your example, a democratic but nationalist China going to war over Taiwan depends does it not on Taiwan. A truly democratic China would probalby absorb Taiwan into the fold without a war as there would be no reason on either side not to. If such a reason did exist, I am not sure a majority of even the most patriotic Chinese in a democratic system would sanction a war of conquest, and a war with the US. There are too many other competing interests at stake.

zraver,

The fact remains that mature democracies have not fought a war. Ancient Greek City states hardly count as they were not full democracies but very patriarchal and the majority of the population could not vote. Nor does being a democracy preclude going to war, only going to war with another mature democracy.

the problem here, of course, is that the term "mature democracies" is hardly very mature. for instance, how politically free was the US prior to the civil rights movement, or before that, the women's lib movement? did the US of 1940 count as a mature democracy?

so there's the problem, what we today consider a mature democracy grew following the shambles of WWII. and now we have conflation between that and the US dominated geopolitical world system afterwards.

Your example, a democratic but nationalist China going to war over Taiwan depends does it not on Taiwan. A truly democratic China would probalby absorb Taiwan into the fold without a war as there would be no reason on either side not to.

while i personally support taiwan joining china following democratization, i realize many of other taiwanese view that with no enthusiasm, either. democracy or not, 23 million people have far less say against the wishes of the other 1.3 billion.

I am not sure a majority of even the most patriotic Chinese in a democratic system would sanction a war of conquest, and a war with the US. There are too many other competing interests at stake.

just because a mature democratic system is in place doesn't preclude nationalism. why wouldn't Chinese sanction a war of conquest? i can think of one island nation, well actually two, which most chinese really wouldn't mind going after militarily, despite the obvious competing interests at stake.

How does this theory fit with the fact that liberal democracies regularly make war on non-liberal-democracies? Doesn't that put paid to the theory that the populations of liberal democracies would always vote against war?

Originally Posted by astralis

zraver,



the problem here, of course, is that the term "mature democracies" is hardly very mature. for instance, how politically free was the US prior to the civil rights movement, or before that, the women's lib movement? did the US of 1940 count as a mature democracy?

Yes the US of 1940 counts, all citizens could vote within the limits of the law- age of majority in most cases.

so there's the problem, what we today consider a mature democracy grew following the shambles of WWII. and now we have conflation between that and the US dominated geopolitical world system afterwards.

What we consider a mature democracy was born following the civil war. Political systems are not stagnant so a maturation process is on going.

while i personally support taiwan joining china following democratization, i realize many of other taiwanese view that with no enthusiasm, either. democracy or not, 23 million people have far less say against the wishes of the other 1.3 billion.

In a democratic system that other democracy would have its chance to sway public opinion. More importantly such has not happened, so until it does its idel speculation. What is a fact is that no mature democracy which I'll define as any two of the following 3 all legal- of age- citizens being able to vote with a constitution that serves as a basis for the rule of law and who have been in existence with said government for more than 10 years have not gone to war with one another.

just because a mature democratic system is in place doesn't preclude nationalism. why wouldn't Chinese sanction a war of conquest? i can think of one island nation, well actually two, which most Chinese really wouldn't mind going after militarily, despite the obvious competing interests at stake.

If that happens, I'll apologize and admit your right, but right now it has not happened. What I do know is that despite the actions of the Japanese in WWII, both Taiwan and Japan have found a way to engage in trade.

What your calling conflation ignores that fact that the peace goes back well before WWII, well before WWI in fact. So why your arguing maybes, the history is pretty clear- democratic peace theory holds at least for mature democracies.

Pari,

How does this theory fit with the fact that liberal democracies regularly make war on non-liberal-democracies?

examples?

Doesn't that put paid to the theory that the populations of liberal democracies would always vote against war?

Who said democracies won't vote for war? The US seems to need a big one at least every 20 years or so. mature democracies simply do not go to war with one another because diplomacy, shared values and trade open up alternative dispute resolution. For example, the US and Canada have a huge never ending dispute over salmon. Neither side thinks the other side has a leg to stand on. Did they go to war over it? No they created a bi-national commission to set the rules and judge/resolve disputes and made it binding on both. Or look at the ABCA, shared culture, shared traditions, shared language so dispute when they arise are easily settled. Europe is building that now amongst itself- although i think the EU will morph into a super federal state. Or look at India and the US, on opposite sides of the Cold War. The US was allied with Pakistan, and India was close to the USSR. There were some hot times and tough talk, but no blood shed because other options existed.

I think the great mistake of the UN is in thinking you have meaningful diplomacy with states that are not based on the rule of law, and rights of man. America for all its faults pre-civil rights movement was moving towards civil rights from day one because we did respect our constitution, our courts and the rule of law. States that don't agree with those two premise have no reason to respect agreements because they follow a power model.

Originally Posted by zraver

What we consider a mature democracy was born following the civil war. Political systems are not stagnant so a maturation process is on going.

I'm lost on this one. The British Civil War happened a long time before yours and established our Rules of Conduct. Are you stating the start of mature democracies from the War between Charles I and Cromwell or the Lee-Grant finale?

zraver,

Yes the US of 1940 counts, all citizens could vote within the limits of the law- age of majority in most cases.

seems weak to me- the law might say blacks technically could vote, grandfather clauses/literacy exams in the south make that practically un-doable.

What your calling conflation ignores that fact that the peace goes back well before WWII, well before WWI in fact. So why your arguing maybes, the history is pretty clear- democratic peace theory holds at least for mature democracies.

first is the length problem. under the fairly narrow guidelines you set out to define "mature democracy", how many democracies have actually existed and for how long? you'll find the answer to be "not many" and "not for long", given the sweep of human history. second, was peace kept BECAUSE of democratic processes, or because of power considerations/other factors?

i find the democratic peace theory hard to pin down simply because there are many, many considerations that go into a peace/war decision, many of which do not have anything to do with the type of political system. does being a mature democracy influence things, yes, i think it does. is it a primary motivator, that i am a lot less sure about.

For example, the US and Canada have a huge never ending dispute over salmon. Neither side thinks the other side has a leg to stand on. Did they go to war over it? No they created a bi-national commission to set the rules and judge/resolve disputes and made it binding on both.

well, is this because of the high cost of war vs the low benefit of getting salmon? or is this because of similar culture, or rule of law, or a million other factors? would things change if the resource in question was a vital security resource or if canadians were bloodthirsty ritualistic cannibals?

I think the great mistake of the UN is in thinking you have meaningful diplomacy with states that are not based on the rule of law, and rights of man. America for all its faults pre-civil rights movement was moving towards civil rights from day one because we did respect our constitution, our courts and the rule of law. States that don't agree with those two premise have no reason to respect agreements because they follow a power model.

the success of free trade agreements, anti-proliferation, environmental pacts, extradition agreements (among other things) would indicate that this is not necessarily true. to begin with, very few states are "completely unfree", they vary by degrees. furthermore, the main reason why we can have meaningful diplomacy, either through the UN or other channels, is because at the core of it diplomacy is based upon negotiating mutual interests. states will respect agreements so long as they find them beneficial, and this is true for a dictatorial state as well as for a democratic one. rule of law is nice but certainly not necessarily needed.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm lost on this one. The British Civil War happened a long time before yours and established our Rules of Conduct. Are you stating the start of mature democracies from the War between Charles I and Cromwell or the Lee-Grant finale?

England was not a democracy up through most of Victoria's reign, some would argue until after WWI.

[QUOTE=astralis;653060]zraver,

seems weak to me- the law might say blacks technically could vote, grandfather clauses/literacy exams in the south make that practically un-doable.

Look the other two the length of the constitution and the fact that it was more than just a piece of paper but served as a strong basis for the rule of law. Compare Iran with pre-WWII Alabama.. both have an opressed population, but one has effective access to the courts and those courts can and do make corrections to the system. The whole beginning of the right to council in the American legal tradition begins with homeless blackmen being accused of raping a white girl.

first is the length problem. under the fairly narrow guidelines you set out to define "mature democracy", how many democracies have actually existed and for how long? you'll find the answer to be "not many" and "not for long", given the sweep of human history. second, was peace kept BECAUSE of democratic processes, or because of power considerations/other factors?

How many doesn't really matter, because we are comparing them against other political systems but against each other. How long is also not as important as you seem to think. Have mature democracies been in a position that would have led to war between the same nations earlier? That answer is yes, and yet since becoming a democracy they have not gone to war.

i find the democratic peace theory hard to pin down simply because there are many, many considerations that go into a peace/war decision, many of which do not have anything to do with the type of political system. does being a mature democracy influence things, yes, i think it does. is it a primary motivator, that i am a lot less sure about.

No one is saying being a mature democracy is a primary motivator. Rather it makes other avenues for dispute resolution more readily available.

well, is this because of the high cost of war vs the low benefit of getting salmon? or is this because of similar culture, or rule of law, or a million other factors? would things change if the resource in question was a vital security resource or if canadians were bloodthirsty ritualistic cannibals?

That was just one example, the problem for you is there are no examples from the other side where mature democracies have gone to war with one another. So its observed fact, vs speculation.

the success of free trade agreements, anti-proliferation, environmental pacts, extradition agreements (among other things) would indicate that this is not necessarily true. to begin with, very few states are "completely unfree", they vary by degrees. furthermore, the main reason why we can have meaningful diplomacy, either through the UN or other channels, is because at the core of it diplomacy is based upon negotiating mutual interests. states will respect agreements so long as they find them beneficial, and this is true for a dictatorial state as well as for a democratic one. rule of law is nice but certainly not necessarily needed.

So how well has all that worked with product piracy, internet crimes, nuclear issues, drugs, conventional weapons etc with non-democratic states? You might point to some of the agreements with the former USSR, but are those agreements really valid in this discussion. The USSR and US agreements during the col war were during a standoff which could have ended the world. Luckily the West had the firepower to say no and thus force compliance. Look at Hungary of Czechlovakia. A better modern example would be China on one end and North Korea on the other. One is highly interrelated in the international system one isn't. Obviously everything North Korea does is for it self and its own internal reasons. But China should be following a different path via free trade, international agreements etc and so forth. But it isn't. missiles to Iran, tanks to Africa, blocking UN action on the Sudan, no respect for copywright, ongoing military disputes with several nations etc. Despite those agreements, because the state is central in China and power thus devolves not from the consent of the governed but from a power based mandate agreements are only worthwhile while they are a tool of state.

The PRC feels no need to actually follow an international agreement, never has never will as long as its communist.