United Nations and the Democratic Peace?? Inaccurate Modeling

[korn469]

Imran,

I think Isreal could be labeled a democratic nation under some circumstances even though it doesn't give voting rights to all of it's citizns...if 51% of the eligable voting population the United States doesn't register and vote then is it not a democracy? if 16 and 17 year olds who are mentally able to grasp the election and ideas presented by the candidates then is the US not a democracy because it doesn't extend voting rights to them?

interesting questions...

could you please define what a democracy is according to the democratic peace theory, and exactly what a war is also?

could you also explain to me the mechanisms of why democracies fight wars according to this theory?

i could believe that there has never been a case of two democracies going to war yet...and i could believe that democratic nations might have a very low chance of going to war...but i personally find it reasonable that two democratic nations could and would wage war over a vital issue, but that is just my opinion i have no scientific facts to back it up

korn469

[NoviceCEO]

quote: 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).

I believe Imran also said that a war involves 1000 men or more.

I also believe that what Imran (I'm not saying his the only one who does it, but who gave us the concept) considers to be a democracy doesn't leave much space for naming democracies before 30 years ago (30 years seems to be a common sense in this discussion).

2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population

Imran has considered, I believe, Athens to be a democracy. By his own rule, it couldn't, because no women or slaves voted there. Same thing should apply for Roma and U.S before this century, as only this century women were given the right to vote.

It also seems to me that has been a misunderstandind over what's a democracy. It does not opposes itself to Dictatorships. Dictatorships is in the same class of Parliamentary government, Presidencialism and Monarchy. I doubt there was a democracy ruled by a dictator (and I don't have a clear concept of what is a dictator) but it may be truely possible. It is possible on Monarchies (isn't UK an example?). It may also be possible on communist countries and anarchies, but neither one has been sucessfully implanted in any country.

Jon Miller had an excellent post, and I feel I must quote it:

quote: 4. I think democracies are government by the people. And if the people want war with a nation it will not matter if it is democratic or not. Most wars WW2 and previous were fought over resources, it has only been since then that the advanced nations have solved their resource shortfalls and wants by trade and not war. Thus wars fought by these nations since WW2 have been idealogical. Democracies have no idealogical reason to fight eachother. If there was a resource shortfall that could not be solved by trade or other methods we would start seeing a demand for war, even in democracies. Of course if there was a nonsolvable resource shortfall the democracies might fall into dictarorships anyways.

You see, it's perfectly possible the engagement in war by ideological reasons. Resource shortfalls lead to tension between countries and wars happens when tensions exceed the level a country can stand up to, either in democracies or not.

korn also made a good point over Israel, that's something that should be analised.

For last, my conclusion over this thread is that democracies usually tend to think twice before engaging in wars. As Imran said plenty of times, they usually lie on Diplomacy first, but Diplomacy can also be used to cause tensions in another countries (as I tried to prove with the Paraguayan War).

I'm neither a physics student nor a History expert, so I'm expecting to be corrected.

novice

------------------
"Última flor do Lácio, inculta e bela,
És a um tempo, esplendor e sepultura."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good points all around!

quote: i could believe that there has never been a case of two democracies going to war yet...and i could believe that democratic nations might have a very low chance of going to war...but i personally find it reasonable that two democratic nations could and would wage war over a vital issue, but that is just my opinion i have no scientific facts to back it up

Now, I don't say that two democracies WILL NEVER fight, I just say that it'll be hard to do so, and thus should be represented in Civ3. If you declare war on a democracy, either the Senate should derail it, or if it gets through, then their should be some discord (to bring it back to Civ3 ).


[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 11, 2000).]

[CivNation]

Dienstag,

Your reference to "blessed are the peacemakers" betrays your ignorance of the scriptures. First of all, when Jesus says peacemakers He does not mean peace between people. He means people who preach the gospel and bring peace between human beings and God. In fact, Jesus said "Do not think I've come to bring peace. I have come not to bring peace but a sword" in Matthew 10. Jesus understands that the gospel will be divisive. I don't care what background you or anyone else comes from. Jesus is King of all. I am indeed a peacemaker, the real kind of peacemaker meant in that beatitude. Please don't quote scriptures if you are ignorant of them Dienstag. Jesus spoke in parables. The surface meaning, or the meaning that first comes to mind, is not what He intends. Jesus knew and proclaims that He brings a sword of division between the believers and the unbelievers. Jesus does not mean world peace when He says "peacemakers".

[CivNation]

Horseman,

What you call "religious bigotry" is nothing more than your propoganda to despise Jesus Christ and refuse to submit to His rightful rule. America has always been a Christian nation historically, until recently. And if we continue in our pagan methods, it will collapse- that is a guarantee.

Horseman this "bigotry" that is on the rise is nothing other than the exclusive claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ. America has always been "bigoted and exclusive" in this sense, and I'm glad it has been. The false god of tolerance and inclusiveness will lead to the destruction of the nations.

Jesus Christ did not preach that God tolerates people who don't want to respect Jesus. Jesus Christ in fact said that all who do not bow before Him will be slain by the hand of God in the parable of the judgment. Jesus Christ will not tolerate you slandering His Christian religion, His church, or His people.

[CivNation]

To Enlighten Those ignorant on the true meaning of "peacemakers":

If you read Ephesians 1 and 2 you will see that the peace God is truly concerned about is the restoration of peace between God and men. Outside of Christ God and men are at enmity with each other, because the sins of men outside of Christ have not been paid for. Every man is a sinner before the almighty God, and because of this, if God is going to be perfectly just, every man deserves His eternal wrath. But God has chosen some in Christ to be redeemed from before the foundation of the world, and He sent His Son Christ to pay for the sins of those people in their stead. Christ did this by suffering hell on the cross. Thus the enmity between God and man was removed, and peace was restored. "Blessed are the peacemakers"- those that preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[CivNation]

Imran,

If you were a realist you would not be espousing democratic peace theory. Evidently you don't understand what realism is.

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Oh, btw, I'm a Muslim, and a Realist.

Actually since I consider my self a realist I don't understand how can you argue that democratic nations do not fight? All examples are limited to the last 40 years or so, and all the situations are very unclear because of WWII and the cold war. But I do agree that democracies do tend to aviod wars. at least wars that don't have wide public support.

quote: the first time this theory was stated, it was by Immanuel Kant.

I'm not sure. According to Kant there is a distinction between the "real world of phenomenas" and the world according to the pure intelligence. He was talking about guiding rules that should apply to all intelligent beings since it's the appropriate thing to do. I think he was trying to describe how should we act. In my opinion he understood these rules can never exist in reality since they describe a sort of utopia. I also despise willson's rules, but I don't think Kant mean them to be applied. I think he wanted them to be discussed and people like you and me to talk about them.

Anyway, we could chat about it later, in a couple of months, because I am studying Kant and his rules of ethics, and since I presume you are more educated about him than I am, I would like to finish studying before I enter a discussion.

quote: during all of the Isreali-Arab wars was any of the arab nations ever a democracy? the only ones that might have and egypt...so was lebanon or egypt a democracy when they fought with isreal?

Egypt never was, and still isn't a democracy. I don't know for sure, but I tend to think Lebanon was a democracy for some time. Israel, was a democracy with a military regime and had very extreme left wing tendancies until mid 70s because most new comers and founders came from the communist block of USSR and it's neighbors. And also because many arab countries such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt declared war several times. In fact the Israeli declaration of independance was in the middle of an arab-israel crisis which then got worse and became a war.

quote: And, after all, Israel can't really be called a democracy if it doesn't give rights to Arabs in Israel, now can it?

Waht time period are you talking about Imran? Until the first peace agreement with egypt almost all arabs were considered enemies. Of course there was social injustice. Many Israeli new comers from eastern and african countries were also discriminated. But remember Israel was a very fresh and new forming country in a state of constant war \ cease fire periods.

All new democracies suffered from lack of justice. How about how americans treated african americans? and is now the discrimination totally gone? of course not.

Was Israel a democracy?
Democracy:
1)fair, regular, multiparty elections
the elections at the 50 especially weren't all fair because the left wing parties had obvious advantages and although there was an opposition with one of the most right wing people was Menahem Begin (who later was the first prime minister to sign peace with an arab nation).

2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population
All citizens were given the right to vote. Arabs in the 50s weren't considered citizens

3)vote for executive or have strong parliament
There were always elections for the parliament and the leader of state was the leader of the party that had a majority in the parliament.
4)peaceful transfer of power
Because of the constant state of war there were several governments that resigned and situations were tence, but legal elections followed and never was the power taken by force (unlike Iraq or Iran).
5)stability and longevity (at least 3 years).
As I said the political system was subject to shaking because of the war situation. If a govt. failed to perform there were new elections. When did this happened in syria or egypt?

now arabs vote and have their representatives in the parliament. This wasn't reasonable before. In the 50s or 60s to ask Israel to have arabs voting in the elections would be rediculous. Like asking the USA to let communists to vote. And if I'm not wrong, communists were put on trial and persued by the american government.

In conlusion, this long post was not written to hurt any person, nation or religion. I just wanted to show the events from my personal point of view. I do not claim to represent no person, religion or state.

I don't claim my view is the most objective or accurate. Just posting to make things clearer.

[Sirotnikov]

Once again I was typing fast and since people think faster than they type (if you don't you should have that checked by a doctor) so since I was thinking way ahead some thing were typed unclear, too many "to"'s, not enough commas and some sudden subject changes.
Memo for next time: I should always make drafts first.

Peace in the middle east people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Imran, If you were a realist you would not be espousing democratic peace theory. Evidently you don't understand what realism is.

Well, I support the Balance of Power theory and I'm a Power Transitionist. I believe in anarchy in the international realm. However, I've done enough reading to realize that the Democratic Peace is real. Excuse me for not following blindly the premises of realism.

Siro, Israel may have been a democracy later, but by that time, Lebanon wasn't. The Civil Wars resulted in almost no government for a while.

[Harel]

Sirotnikov, your knowladge on our history makes me sad.

Israel gave voting rights to Arab since it's creation, in 48. It's in the "Megilat ha'azmaot" ( Bill of independce ) for god sake!
Only the arabs in the captured region of the six days war ( 67' ) still don't have independnce, but a few got resident status.

No country Israel thought was a TRUE democracy. Egypt "dictatorical republic" isn't really a democracy any more then Syria. Some arab countries are a TRUE democracy ( rights to all citizens, including women ), like Iran, Kuwait, Katar and Yaman.

On the original point of this thread, I still don't understand why the two points can't be used, since they are BOTH valid. Democracies DO have a hard time judstifing a war on another democracy to it's citizens. Common logic. Indeed, this should be modeled in. Just as a democracy would have a easier time declaring war on a dictatorship ( less democratic penalties ).
And the hegemon idea is also useful. Let's use my summary: the diplomatic pact ( that's the UN / high concuil ) will have one leader, hegemon style where all the power is in her hands. The power can be lost if she acts irresponisbly, and the hegemon title granted to a lower nation. Once the UN wonder is built, the power shifts to it's current use.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited March 15, 2000).]

[Harel]

Sorry, double post...
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited March 15, 2000).]

[Sirotnikov]

Harel, "Megilat Ha'azmaut" also promises freedom of religion, but still jewish commercial centers aren't allowed work on shabbat. Also reformed jewish communities are not considered proper jews. Jewish people have no way of marrying except the religious ceremony. There are only religous burial services (except one or two kibutzes).
Also people when immigrating to Israel have to proof they are jewish in order to recieve citizenship. In fact,most of the hebrew kushim (ani lo eshtamesh ba mila ha anglit ki ze nishma giz'ani) communities who arrived here. A famous case was in 71', you can check that.
Our country is still quite national and was very national earlier. How would you feel if a person that was fighting against you and commited terrorist actions against you would have the right to choose your leader and to determine the future of your country?

Megilat Ha'azmaut also promises a "huka" to be written no later than one year or so after the declaration. We still don't have one. Not even a draft.

I hope you meant to say Iran was a democracy. It's not exactly so these days.

I'm not saying you're wrong. We just have different points of view. Although I'm left wing, I'm not a pacifist but more of realist with some national points of view.

Basically, I think your proposition for incorporating both democratic peace and hegemonic powers is a good one. I only would like to add that I feel, that in order to be the hegemonic power you don't have to own the UN, as the USSR was quite hegemonic and the UN is after all owned by USA. UN will show who the hegemonic power is, since the UN leader will usually be the hegemonic power.
Influence and international power should be decided according to:

A. Military power 50% (including alliances und stuff. or maybe it should be different things? what do you think people?)

B. Economical power 40% (amount of trade, resources, amount of stacked money etc.)

C. Science 10% (usually leading sciences are also leading in mil. power, so science is here to differenciate between top mil. powers.)

btw Harel, if you'd like we could chat about these things over ICQ. I have many friends who I often talk with about these subjects and I constantly argue with my history and social studies teacher.
Also, we may play civ 3 over the modem when it'll come out.

Peace. (I mean it, although it'll never really fully happen nor will it last very long)

[The Mad Viking]

CivNation
Right now, I feel really sorry for you.
If you ever get in a postion of power over anyone, I feel really sorry for them.
Your brain is so clutterred with Christian propaganda that you are incapable of rational thought.
To state the obvious, you are way OT. There must be a load of Christian forums out there where you would be far better recieved. Please go there.

[Harel]

Failing to have a democratic populace does not mean the state is not democratic. Many democratic nations have racism, discrimition and other non-liberal thinking, but that doesn not effect the state or it's goal. True, we don't have a constituion, and arabs do get some discrimintion from the state and people, but mostly because the people push for those matters, not because Israel is aiming toward non-democratic views.

I am very aware we don't follow everything our bill of independnce ordered, but Arabs DID get voting power in 48', so that's that.

And yes, a more realistic view to political power is in order.

BTW, i am left wing too... Hail Yosi Sarid!