Real Democracies

[RyanR]

Real democracies have never gone to war against eachother in RL, I dunno maybe this should be reflected in Civ3 although I have a feeling I am about to go down in flames from those war hawks and commies out there.

heh.

Time for me to disappear again.

[connorkimbro]

Just because they havn't doesn't mean they couldn't/wouldn't.

[MrFun]

I can't remember -- someday correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't United States go to war against Mexico even though Mexico had its own free republic government?

Or was Mexico under a despotic government during the Mexican War? I think the government might have been republic in the early part of the war, but then a despot took it over??

I hate it when I can't remember all of these things off-hand!

[JamesJKirk]

Mexico was pretty despotic, a military dictatorship under Santa Ana, and the US, a country that only allowed white males to vote, while pretty progressive for the early-mid 1800's is by no means democratic...that isn't to say that I buy the democratic peace theory...I'm an international relations major, and I can see no reason for that theory to be true, just as was said, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't, plus you could get into the whole arguement of how democratic modern democracies really are, and bring populism into play...a load of bunk is what that theory is
[This message has been edited by JamesJKirk (edited April 24, 2001).]

[SerapisIV]

Hey don't forget that Hitler was democratically elected. So was Slobdan Milosovic. I won't say Japan preWWII because the military really owned the gov't. Besides large scale democracy is still a relatively recent phenomenon, up until WWII, most of this world was colonies. Then the Cold War kept every semi-peaceful but at everyone's throats until the past decade. The past 10 years have been the first period with lots of democracies without a polarizing larger conflict to keep the rest of the world in line. I'd wait a few years before you claim that democracies never fought each other.

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large groups (ie. Nader actually getting votes)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Democracies don't go to war against each other. Want to see an in depth debate about this very topic?
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001191.html

Oh, btw, I'm the one that got the Democratic Peace included in 'The List' .

edit: Wouldn't call Nazi Germany or Milosevic's Yugoslavia as democracies, either .
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited April 24, 2001).]

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Democratie can do war each other, only if populations hates each other.
Else they would refuse to fight.

[SerapisIV]

Recent history (past 50 years or so) presents an odd question about democracies. What are a lot of them? There are a lot of democracies where the gov't controls the media and so stifle resistence, yet are actually elected. What would they be by Civ standards, Despots? Monarchy?

[Mister Pleasant]

Speaking of the stupidity of large groups of people, allowing the Democrats and Republicans, their differences primarily being abortion and the speed with which we destroy the environment, to dominate all politics is pretty dumb (almost as dumb as actually electing Nader would have been). At least Nader questioned drug and energy policy. As for democracies fighting each other, its not inconceivable. Nationalistic or religous tensions might push one into it. More likely though would be some sort of resource conflict - like the need for water, oil, etc. This just demonstrates the value of pluralistic societies with liberal/libertarian democratic structures

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-24-2001 02:18 AM Yes, Democracies don't go to war against each other. Want to see an in depth debate about this very topic?[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited April 24, 2001).]

Ehm, I am sorry to dispel your illusion, but there is a multitude of cases where democracies have fought against democracies in the 20th century.

I am an International Relations major and I did a small study of wars in Latin America. I don't have the precise figures with me, but here are the rounded ones:
Over the 20th century there were over 1500 armed inter-state conflicts in Latin America. Out of those conflicts more than 300 were democracy against democracy conflicts. Now, considering how few democracies there were in Latin America over the 20th century, I did a quantitative analysis to determine the likelihood of democracies fighting each other compared to dictatorships doing so. The results were quite suprising, showing that although democracies are slightly less likely to fight each other than dictatorships are, the difference is in fact so tiny as to bbe completely negligible.

You might object to my analysis, because interstate armed conflicts include also those conflicts between countries where there were fewer than 1000 casualties, but that is merely a difference of scale of fighting, there is no actual qualitative difference between a war and an armed conflict. Moreover, there were actually at least 8 actual wars with more than 1000 casualties of democracies against other democracies in Latin America over the 20th century alone, and I must point out that Latin America is one of the more peaceful regions of the world, so I strongly suspect there were more inter-democracy wars elsewhere.

[Bereta_Eder]

«Democracies» do go to war I'm afraid.

It just takes a while to psych up the national(ist) feelings of the people.

Having said that, democracies going to war for any other reason than defending their territory and people, usually have a very hard time selling it in contrast with non democratic governments where oppression works «miracles» (actually abominations)on people's opposite views.

The exception might have been WWII when everybody (at least Greece, Britain, USA, Serbia and other Allies) were really fighting for democracy (as well as territory).

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-24-2001 02:11 AM Hey don't forget that Hitler was democratically elected.

He was CONSTITUTIONALLY selected but hardly democratically. He was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg(himself demcoratically elected) , despite Nazi partys lack of a majority in reichstag, in hope that Center party (catholic) pols could control him and achieve a working govt without the social democrats. Hindenburg was exercising emergency powers under Weimar constitution. these emergency powers have been criticezed for their "undemocratic" nature.

Subsequent to Hitlers chancellorship, Hindenburg died and hitler was elected President, but Nazi party was already manipulating the levers of power.

Hitlers ascent is a case study in a weak democracy, with powerful undemocratic elements - the "prussian" judiciary and bureaucracy, as well as the undemocratic emergency provisions. Democracy must be judged in total, by democratic political culture and functioning of institutions, not just by formal (even contested) elections.

And note please, that Germany had dropped all pretense of democracy long before going to war.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-24-2001 07:12 AM Ehm, I am sorry to dispel your illusion, but there is a multitude of cases where democracies have fought against democracies in the 20th century. I am an International Relations major and I did a small study of wars in Latin America. I don't have the precise figures with me, but here are the rounded ones: Over the 20th century there were over 1500 armed inter-state conflicts in Latin America. Out of those conflicts more than 300 were democracy against democracy conflicts.

and what were your criteria for a functioning democracy? My own sense is that you will find precious few examples of functioning democracy in latin america before the 1980's - maybe in the cone of South America in the early years of the century.

To test a theory you must adequately specify it - the theory of democratic peace includes the notion of greater civilian control of the military in a demo, and the reluctance of democratic majorities to incur the costs of war. This means that the specification of democracy to test this theory must include real democratic control over foreign policy, and a democratic culture, including a party system, which makes democratic control over policy real. A mere alteration in office between "colorados" and "blancos" both representing elites, hardly tests the theory of democratic peace.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-24-2001 07:12 AM Moreover, there were actually at least 8 actual wars with more than 1000 casualties of democracies against other democracies in Latin America over the 20th century alone, and I must point out that Latin America is one of the more peaceful regions of the world, so I strongly suspect there were more inter-democracy wars elsewhere.

8 wars - name them please.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 04-24-2001 09:54 AM Hitlers ascent is a case study in a weak democracy, with powerful undemocratic elements - the "prussian" judiciary and bureaucracy, as well as the undemocratic emergency provisions. Democracy must be judged in total, by democratic political culture and functioning of institutions, not just by formal (even contested) elections.

And this is something that needs to be kept in mind ESPECIALLY in your corner of the world, Roman. If, tomorrow, Russia were to go to war with Ukraine (heaven forbid!) would you call it a war between two functioning democracies? I would see it as a manifestation of the weakness of democracy in both states.

LOTM