United Nations and the Democratic Peace?? Inaccurate Modeling

[CivNation]

I was reading through the suggestions list in the "Diplomacy" part of that list, and I noticed that much of the Diplomacy suggestions were inspired by the Wilsonian conception of the democratic peace enforced by a "League of Nations" or "United Nations". Although there is good late historical merit to these ideas, the understanding of democratic peace and the exaltation of democracy as a peaceful institution is simply not verified by long-term empirical evidence. Competing theories like Hegemonic Stability as well as the classical realism bandwagoning theory also account for the late term of peace among the democratic nations (nations allying with the United States and bandwagoning to the hegemonic power). Therefore I would urge the designers and the people on this forum to rethink such an avid promotion of the United Nations within the game. Instead of there being a United Nations only, I would find it more historically viable (more long term historical support) to reject the late liberal understanding and instead have the most powerful nation, ie the hegemon, be given added diplomatic abilities. This would include abitrating disputes between nations, policing nations, imperalizing and colonizating nations, and imposing specialized sanctions on nations. This ability to have additional diplomatic power and options would be given to the most powerful or two most powerful of the civilizations in the game and could change throughout history. It would not rest on who is democratic, but simply on who is the hegemonic power and thereby commands the most respect in the world system at this time. This is MUCH MORE supported by the evidence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you know how difficult that would be to program? Add new dip choices for the hegemon?

And the Democratic Peace is the closest thing to a fact in IR. Maybe Wilsonian ideas are flawed (and flawed they are), but Classic Realism isn't always correct as well. In fact all theories have some flaws. Perhaps the closest to reality is Power Transition, but that would be increadibly hard to model in the game. It would be impossible to see if the rising nation was satisfied in its position, etc.

However, the Democratic Peace is fact. Democracies simply don't fight each other! There is a good case of this in the Falkland Islands War. When both side had a democracy, they tried to talk it out, however, when a dictatorship took over Argentina, that is when the hostile words began.

[colossus]

IMO the UN can be easily modelled to include the 'most powerful' nation appropriately.

Those civs that have the largest military should have a greater say in world politics.
Just as in real world, your say is backed by your muscle. Maybe the top 5 most militarily powerful civ should have double power in the UN.

[CivNation]

Imran,

The fact is that you are simply wrong. The democratic peace is no where near fact. There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other. In fact the "dp theororists" are very vague with their definitions, defining democracy and war very narrowly in their definitions.
In fact, many would argue that this "democratic peace" is nothing more than hegemonic stability theory. The evidence simply is not there, and to call it fact Imran is very presumptuous and unscholarly.
[This message has been edited by CivNation (edited March 04, 2000).]

[pauli]

this debate is quite interesting...

colossus: why just the most powerful military states? base it on civ score! after all, that's how the computer traditionally decides who to hate

------------------
it's just my opinion. can you dig it?
[This message has been edited by pauli (edited March 05, 2000).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Originally posted by CivNation on 03-04-2000 01:47 PM Imran, The fact is that you are simply wrong. The democratic peace is no where near fact. There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other. In fact the "dp theororists" are very vague with their definitions, defining democracy and war very narrowly in their definitions. In fact, many would argue that this "democratic peace" is nothing more than hegemonic stability theory. The evidence simply is not there, and to call it fact Imran is very presumptuous and unscholarly. [This message has been edited by CivNation (edited March 04, 2000).]

Really? Presumptuous and unscholarly? Well let's see. I hope this little exercise might teach you something and perhaps some manners.

quote: In fact the "dp theororists" are very vague with their definitions, defining democracy and war very narrowly in their definitions.

Vague and narrow? Well, I wonder how that can be? It has to be one no?

Let's see these definitions.

War: 1000 battle deaths

Democracy:
1)fair, regular, multiparty elections
2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population
3)vote for executive or have strong parliament
4)peaceful transfer of power
5)stability and longevity (at least 3 years).

Under these definition, which I think are very fair, there are few democracies before the 20th Century. I can only think of Athens, US, and Britain (after 1850). So the exeptions that are stated (War of 1812, US Civil War) don't fit the criteria. In The War of 1812, the King has too much power for the UK to be considered a democracy, and in the US Civil War, was there even an election?

quote: There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other.

Interesting seeing above. The number of democracies before 1900 was VERY few. Perhaps you have examples?

quote: In fact, many would argue that this "democratic peace" is nothing more than hegemonic stability theory.

Well, I've never heard this. Back in ancient Rome, barbarians (the Goths, etc.) fought many times with the hegemon. Spain in the 1500s had many wars in Europe, same with Britain. In fact, most of the time before WW1, Balance of Power was the accepted international goal, which is totally at odds with hegemonic stability. Whenever anyone got too strong, the others joined against it, so how could the Hegemonic Stability Theory account for this?

I don't see Russia and China paying much attention to the so-called hegemonic stability theory! In fact, I think it is overstated and that Power Transition is much more apt.

The fact is that most political scientists believe in Democratic Peace. In the 70s, A political scientist named Babst showed that democracies haven't fought from 1789-1941.

I do have more facts, but I've run out of time it seems. I hope that you can give me some examples and be less rude when you have little backing you up.

[CivNation]

Imran,

Once again your entire post is presumptuous and unscholarly. You seem like the kind of person who basically used Russett's SINGLE book about the democratic peace, including his definition of conflict and democracy, and made it into an historical fact. Whether you like to hear it or not it is VERY presumptuous. Russett is essentially the only individual that I know of who has produced an entire book on this subject, and boy you ate it up like a little disciple without examining the full weight of the evidence? Do you think I'm some kind of ignoramous who doesn't know where you received your information? Did you even care to think that your definition of war and democracy is so ABSOLUTELY NARROW that no scholar outside of Russett has been able to take his claims seriously? Lets see wars must be over 1000 men, do you know how many conflicts between democracies this excludes?
As for a modern day example to refute your hypothesis, all we have to do is look at Norway in WWII as the last clearcut example that refutes the ridiculous thesis.
Your definition of democracy only characterizes nations from the past 30 years and LESS, even only since the end of the Cold War! HARDLY TIME to start making these kinds of exhorbitant theories that the VERY SPECIFIC type of democracy you mentioned will always make peace. How much more narrow does your definition of democracy have to become for your theory to work even within the past 50 years? How many scholars refute your thesis? Lets see...
McDougall... pulitzer prize winning historian and scholar at the University of Pennsylvania
Trachtenburg... another big name who refutes the theory with soundness in many of his works

If you have never heard of Hegemonic Stability theory as a sound, much more supported theory than the few proponents of the democratic peace theory... I suggest you start reading political science a bit more. There are many many scholars who have argued that hegemons like Britain and America, when they have taken the global stage, provided for greatly enhanced free trade as well as an era of societal peace. Your mention of the Roman Empire not promoting peace among the barbarians has nothing pertinent to offer as a rebuttal, because the fact is at that point the Roman Empire was a declining Hegemon, precisely the time when things become unstable... just like WWI was to Britain and eventually the end of its great imperalist regime.

As you can see, you need to take all sides into consideration. Stop reading just Russett and his tiny book, and start looking at it from all sides. Russett at least is humble enough to concede that if you are to support the theory there is still much research to be done, and A LOT of process tracing to uncover potential defects in your proposed independent variable.

[korn469]

well how about this

the top two nations in term of civ score are considered the backbone of power blocks...and all of the other civs will try to either sign a treaty with one or the other or try to stay neutral, these two superpowers both get a wider range of diplomatic options

korn469

[Imran Siddiqui]

Listen, you little ****. I've tried being civil, but I see that doesn't work work with you.

I've Never read Russell, in fact I don't know who the Hell he is. Way to go for being presumptous! Actually, I'd say just about all of the faculty of my university (Rutgers, one of the best Political Science schools in the nation) believe in the democratic peace. In fact one of the faculty, Jack Levy came up with the famously quoted, "Democratic Peace is the closest thing to an empirical law in International Relations".

Just because you've started to learn IR and have read this Russell guy and your teacher disagrees with him doesn't mean that YOU ARE IN THE MAJORITY! Most poly scientists are FOR the Democratic Peace. I recommend you go to a International Relations conference at some time.

And let's see.. Norway (under Nazi German rule) against democratic Britain.

quote: There are many many scholars who have argued that hegemons like Britain and America, when they have taken the global stage, provided for greatly enhanced free trade as well as an era of societal peace.

So now free-trade leads to peace? Sorry, the Manchester Liberal have been proven wrong. More trade does not lead to peace! Example: France and Germany in 1914 were the other's greatest trading partner.

And, I do assure you that the Democratic Peace guys greatly outnumber the Hegemonic Stability guys these days. In fact, most Hegemonic Stabilty guys are now like Organsky and Power Transitionists.
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 04, 2000).]

[NoviceCEO]

For what it seems, I haven't stutied as much as you guys, but I would like to add my comments.

Imram, I was agreeing with you, until you defined democracy.

Athens had numerous wars. But obviously, there wasn't any other democrat nation to fight with, as I can understand from your post.

We don't have many means to discuss this, as only in the last few years the number of "democratic" nations became relevant and the probability of having a war between democracies is greater. In this short period though, wasn't the WWII a good example? Wasn't Hitler elected by the people, had strong political support and longevity?

You named the example of the Falkland's. Why don't you mention the example of the Paraguaian War? It happened after the British democracy was consolidated, according to you. In that case, the British only used words to incite a war. If you haven't studied it yet, I strongly advice you to do so. But I don't think you'll be able to read (because no books contain that) the bottom lines. If so, please email me, I'll be glad.

Imram is also wrong when he says it would be difficult to program. You don't actually need new diplomatic options, but they would only make sense on powerful nations. For example, who gives a **** if Cuba declares economical santions over the US?

The idea is good and the discussion, so far, is high level.

[CivNation]

IMRAN,

Your language is UNCIVIL and INEXCUSABLE. The lack of quality in your conversation betrays your inability to process knowledge of quality. I go to the University of Pennsylvania and am a junior. Therefore the chances are you are probably younger than me. I'd watch who I'd call little. The University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League University with some of the best professors in the nation. MOST of the professors at this University are realists who REJECT the democratic peace theory, as do most professors at the top Universities. I suggest, ONCE AGAIN, you think twice before you speak: both to the level of your knowledge, as well as to the quality of your civility.

[CivNation]

HAHAHA,

Imran first of all you don't know a thing about the Manchester school of economics and how their theories have advanced since the early part of the century.

Secondly, Norway was NOT under Nazi rule but AS A DEMOCRACY declared war on the Western Powers.

Enough is enough Imran, educate yourself in Western Civilization PLEASE. Maybe the your eastern name has something to do with it, but your disgusting language coupled with lack of knowledge makes you quite unsavory indeed.

[korn469]

all i got to say is before anyone really gets worked up over this thread is this

quote: In Civ, you are an immortal totalitarian communist dictator who oversees an empire that will last forever unless it is conquered summary: civ is completely inaccurate...look for solutions that are fun, that is all that matters

korn469

[Imran Siddiqui]

Blah blah blah...

I'm a junior at Rutgers University, which probably (I'm sure) has a better political science department than UPenn does.

And Hell, I'm the not the one that said someone was presumptuous and unscholarly. I didn't say someone was SIMPLY WRONG. I have every right to curse and be less than civil with arrogant sons of *****es who think they are always right. I never assumed anything about the other person now did I? Who's uncivil now?

quote: Wasn't Hitler elected by the people, had strong political support and longevity?

Ah, but Hitler banned all parties. So there weren't any fair, multiparty elections. Also there really wasn't any vote for the executive after Hitler took over. But it is a good point and I thank you for your reply.

And lets see... Norway joined the Nazis and almost immediatly began to be a tool of Hitler. They ceised to be a democracy after the Nazi's turned around the nation.

And what have I read? Rhodes, Morganthau, Allison, and these fellas have influenced be enough that I am a Realist in IR. However, I also know that no structural theory (ie. one that states that the international system is in a fixed structure) can be always true. However, I do think that Power Transition by Organsky holds weight as does Balance of Power (which rememeber was not to prevent war, but to protect soveriegnty).

quote: Lets see wars must be over 1000 men, do you know how many conflicts between democracies this excludes?

So wars can be under 1000 people? HA! I guess the US has been in a Civil War for years! Imagine that!

NoviceCEO, I never heard about the Paraguayan War, but I shall look it up. All that I know is that Hegemonic Stability is shaky at best. The Hegemon is never that power to enforce its norms and wills. This has been validated by history.

I do think that it might be difficult to program. Maybe only given to the major nations, it could work; however, I don't know about picking among the major nations. However, I like your idea about only making sense on powerful nations.

Perhaps we can continue this on email? Or the OT, or perhaps even here?

[CivNation]

I NEVER claimed that democratic peace theory was simply wrong. I said your claim that it is proven is simply wrong.

As for democratic peace theory... it requires a lot more years of analysis before it can be proven correct, as well as longer historical example. It is my conviction it will not stand up to the test.

Thats all there is to argue on this anymore.