Real Democracies

[Roman]

Democratic Peace theory can only work if they define democracy in such a way that two democracies cannot fight each other. In that case, though, the theory is totally useless.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 04-25-2001 01:53 PM sorry it took a yank to explain brit political history

Well thanks for the lesson, but I think you missed the point I made at the end of my previous post, which others have mentioned as well: and that is, that the notion of "democracy" has been evolving for many centuries now. Even prior to 1830, Britain was a lot more 'democratic' than many of the other nations in Europe by the standards of the time, being the first European nation even to have such a thing as a parliament. You have to judge relative democracy by the prevailing norms in each historical period, as others have pointed out in this thread. And as JamesJKirk said, if you count segregation as an indicator of less-than-total democracy, the US wasn't fully 'democratic' till the mid-60's!

But there's little value in wrangling about "who's the most democratic"! The point that I agree with in this thread is that democracies (governments "of the people by the people", however you define that!) tend to be more peaceful toward one another than other forms of government; and this needs to be reflected in Civ.


[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 26, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-26-2001 05:22 PM But there's little value in wrangling about "who's the most democratic"! The point that I agree with in this thread is that democracies (governments "of the people by the people", however you define that!) tend to be more peaceful toward one another than other forms of government; and this needs to be reflected in Civ. [This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 26, 2001).]

I don't agree, Ilkul. The ever-peaceful senate, high military fees, and instability of the Civ2 democracy make it a government that cannot take war lightly. I believe the only reason democracies do not go to war together very often is because the democratic countries are now the great powers in this world, and there would be severe (and with nuclear weapons, possibly world-ending) consequences. If democracy had developed in, say, 500 AD, there would be wars between democracies then.

You have a skewed vision of the "peaceful democracy" because most democracies were formed in the modern era where war is incredibly difficult, costly, and scorned by the world community. The peaceful democracy has more to do with the times now then with the idea of democracy itself.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: However if you put constraints on it, the limits being defined by the established realist theory then it holds up. You can use realism to explain why democracies haven't warred against each other in recent history. Mostly to do with economic interests. (Note we are talking about Great Powers here, since I'm sure minor conflicts between minor powers have already taken place.)

Actually that justification is strange. The economic interest rational is the Realist theory? No no no... Realism only considers power. Economics is a part of Liberal Theory and always has been. But on the dyadic level, economic interests have shown no deterrant.

Why is the Democratic Peace so potent? Because Democracies are transparent. You can see the reaction of the people to an idea and other nations can play upon this. There are opposition parties that might back the other view to take the dissatisfied people. And the people usually don't really want war in the first place. Also democracies are more deliberative in domestic politics leading to them being similar in the international realm. More talk, less action, basically.

[Lord MJ]

On it's own the democratic peace theory doesn't hold up.

However if you put constraints on it, the limits being defined by the established realist theory then it holds up. You can use realism to explain why democracies haven't warred against each other in recent history. Mostly to do with economic interests. (Note we are talking about Great Powers here, since I'm sure minor conflicts between minor powers have already taken place.)


With the bounded theory, a democracy will fight with another democracy for the same reason a war occurs between any other two actors. Competing interests, shifts in the balance of power, conflicts between status quo powers and imperialist powers, etc.

[Lord MJ]

quote: Actually that justification is strange. The economic interest rational is the Realist theory? No no no... Realism only considers power. Economics is a part of Liberal Theory and always has been. But on the dyadic level, economic interests have shown no deterrant.

Yes economic interests is rational in realist theory, well not part of it explicitly, but I am referring to economics as a component of power. Since the trade is benefiting the particular actor, the actor takes the possible effects of disruption of that economic tie into account when formulating it's policy.


For a pure realist point of view however, there hasn't really been a situation where two democratic Great Powers have had a conflict of interests that was so serious that it could lead to war. Also take in to account that all actors when formulating policy tend to conduct diplomacy so that things don't end in war, unless said actor WANTS to go to war.

Also there has never been a situation when a democratic dominant status quo power has been challenged by an imperialist democratic actor seeking to change the status quo in such a way that the status quo power would use force to stop it.


BTW are you an expert or a student in IR? If so I would love to discuss with you a little IR discussion I was having earlier about the current situation with China.

------------------
MJ's Web Empire
MJ's Home Page.
Reviews site
Discussion Forum for Civ, college talk and general discussion.
Civilization Empire SMAC, Civ2, CTP.
[This message has been edited by Lord MJ (edited April 27, 2001).]