Arab countries treat Palestinians far worse than Israel

[Imran Siddiqui]

Under such circumstances though, what is to stop a change in either 1) the belief that the other being a dmeocracy should matter and 2) the ability for those who want war to portray the other as NOT as republic, and hence, an enemy to be fought?

1) Because under liberal norms and beliefs you don't fight other countries that are democracies. That's a no-no. And if you created your democracy on liberal norms and structures, you'll generally tend to follow the theory.

2) Beacuse it will be incredibly hard to do so if that country was already defined as a democracy and the world still considers it one. People won't be fooled.

As you say, he thinks what matters is the conception of the other state, not whether it actually is a democracy.

Not totally... the state has to be democratic (under HIS definition of democracy) or else people will see right through it. As I've said before democracies are transparent, so it won't be too hard for people to determine if the claims of the war mongerers are correct.

But at leats imran we get a good argument out of you

I've been saying it without using the language. But since it comes from a respected IR guy, you are more willing to accept it .

In the end, Owen asserts democracies don't fight. Perceptions of the other matters, but if a state falls under the IR defintion of democracy it is just about impossible for anyone to say it is NOT a democracy. It may not be traditional DP theory, but it does tend to back it.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
2) Beacuse it will be incredibly hard to do so if that country was already defined as a democracy and the world still considers it one. People won't be fooled.[QUOTE]

Now its my time to ask if you can be so gullible as this.

Not totally... the state has to be democratic (under HIS definition of democracy) or else people will see right through it. As I've said before democracies are transparent, so it won't be too hard for people to determine if the claims of the war mongerers are correct.

See above. Or just look around this very forum (sadly to say, the people here are ingeneral, much better educated than the general public pertaining to issues of foreign states and their fomrs of goevrnment) about whether people find the form of s state transparent.

I've been saying it without using the language. But since it comes from a respected IR guy, you are more willing to accept it .

Your argument created a definition of democracy that did not take into account perceptions. Would you have claimed that the US would not go to war with Spain in 1873 because of the dmeocratic peace thery, given that Spain would not have fit the criteria you gave us earlier?
That would not have been part of your argument, hence Owens is slightly, but importanty, different.

In the end, Owen asserts democracies don't fight. Perceptions of the other matters, but if a state falls under the IR defintion of democracy it is just about impossible for anyone to say it is NOT a democracy. It may not be traditional DP theory, but it does tend to back it.

I don;t know about even this one. In this case,t he Ethiopia-Eritrea war becomes even more puzzling. After all, both sides especially the rulers) knew that the other side was not made up of dictators: they had fought side by side only a few years before to bring freedom.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now its my time to ask if you can be so gullible as this.

I don't think I'm being gullible. No matter how much BS we fling at the French, no moron is going to be able to convince people that France isn't a democracy. I simply don't think people will be fooled by that (perhaps I have a high opinion of people).

Or just look around this very forum (sadly to say, the people here are ingeneral, much better educated than the general public pertaining to issues of foreign states and their fomrs of goevrnment) about whether people find the form of s state transparent.

Whether they think it is transparent ENOUGH and whether it is transparent are two different things. If people see opposition parties working with in the country and opposition leaders have been elected from time... and changes in parliamentary makeup, they won't be fooled into believing that country isn't a democracy.

Your argument created a definition of democracy that did not take into account perceptions. Would you have claimed that the US would not go to war with Spain in 1873 because of the dmeocratic peace thery, given that Spain would not have fit the criteria you gave us earlier?

Traditional Democratic Peace Theory implies that some countries are percieved as democracies. Those that fit the criteria are known to others to be democratic. However, you are correct that Spain in 1873 would not be a Democracy under traditional definitions.

Owen's definition just expands how many democracies there are.. in order for a larger sample size if you will. It keeps traditional DP, but adds more. I think it is a response to Realist critiques that the definition keeps the sample size too small.

I don;t know about even this one. In this case,t he Ethiopia-Eritrea war becomes even more puzzling. After all, both sides especially the rulers) knew that the other side was not made up of dictators: they had fought side by side only a few years before to bring freedom.

Dictators does not equal non-democratic . An oligarchy of non-elected revolutionaries can also be percieved as non-democratic. Seeing as not a single election had been held in Eritrea, the perception was that they were not a democracy and the definition defines them not to be a democracy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think I'm being gullible. No matter how much BS we fling at the French, no moron is going to be able to convince people that France isn't a democracy. I simply don't think people will be fooled by that (perhaps I have a high opinion of people).

you think the geniuses that boycott French products care that France is a dempcracy? Did any of the people railling agaimst the French care that France made its choices democratically?

Traditional Democratic Peace Theory implies that some countries are percieved as democracies. Those that fit the criteria are known to others to be democratic. However, you are correct that Spain in 1873 would not be a Democracy under traditional definitions.

Owen's definition just expands how many democracies there are.. in order for a larger sample size if you will. It keeps traditional DP, but adds more. I think it is a response to Realist critiques that the definition keeps the sample size too small.

You never brought up the notion that the definition of dmeocracy was not universal, but up to the opinions of the people, which is in essence what Owen is saying.

Dictators does not equal non-democratic . An oligarchy of non-elected revolutionaries can also be percieved as non-democratic. Seeing as not a single election had been held in Eritrea, the perception was that they were not a democracy and the definition defines them not to be a democracy.

Election had not been held since Eritrea had just become independent, having broken away, in good terms, form Ethiopia, since the new leadership of the independent eritrea and the leaders of Ethiopia had fought side by side against the communist dictatorship. I higly doubt that the leaders of either state believed their fellow comrades in arms were waiting to become despots in their lands: I don;t think thinking whether the other side was democratic or not had zip to do with the decision to go to war, specially such a destructive war, over such trivia matters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you think the geniuses that boycott French products care that France is a dempcracy? Did any of the people railling agaimst the French care that France made its choices democratically?

When intellectuals like Alan Derschowitz and William Bennett start boycott, call me . Fact is that only a small minority of idiots are doing this, and they won't matter, because most likely their votes are insignificant in relation to the whole.

And most people don't want to fight with France.

You never brought up the notion that the definition of dmeocracy was not universal, but up to the opinions of the people, which is in essence what Owen is saying.

But there are some universal things required. You can't just call anyone a democracy. It is a combination of universal defintion and the beliefs of the people. In the end, during modern times, the people are usually going to follow the definition in deciding what is and is not a democracy.

Election had not been held since Eritrea had just become independent, having broken away, in good terms, form Ethiopia, since the new leadership of the independent eritrea and the leaders of Ethiopia had fought side by side against the communist dictatorship. I higly doubt that the leaders of either state believed their fellow comrades in arms were waiting to become despots in their lands: I don;t think thinking whether the other side was democratic or not had zip to do with the decision to go to war, specially such a destructive war, over such trivia matters.

How could they be sure that the breakaway group wasn't to become a despotism? Or even simply an oligarchy. It isn't like that is rare in Africa. Plenty of governments have fought against a dictatorship or colonializm and looked like the hope of a people, only to turn to dictatorships. Mugabe is a prime example.

Not only did they not fulfill the requirements of the definition, but the people of Ethopia didn't see them as a democracy. Perhaps if it had, things may have (or probably would have... depending on your POV ) turned out different.

[GePap]

The day Willima Bennet and any other intellectual get elected, call me....

In the end, during modern times, the people are usually going to follow the definition in deciding what is and is not a democracy.

The average man, the common voter, has no clue about the makeup of the government of any state not famous, or at least a neighbor. Ask your average american voters about the government of Uganda, and ask them if they know its a democracy or not. Owen does make a slightly different agrument. You say sain in 1873 was not a democracy, yet you also claim the Us did not go to war becuase people though they were. Is russia today a democracy? Not all epxerts could agree on it, and the commoners, the voters, are more apt to be utterly ignorant on the issues.

How could they be sure that the breakaway group wasn't to become a despotism?

Becuase they weren't, when the war begun, they ahd been comrandes in arms for decades, and the two states had parted away amicably. If you remember, Ethiopia and eritrea were common members of the "coolition". I highly doubt that you would be able, if you explored the issue, to find any particualr side claming its acts were OK cause the enemy was a perfidious dictatorship. The war was about a bunch of rocks for god's sake.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The day Willima Bennet and any other intellectual get elected, call me....

He may not be elected, but neither are the cabinet surrounding the President.

The average man, the common voter, has no clue about the makeup of the government of any state not famous, or at least a neighbor.

Perhaps not in the US, but in Europe, this probably wouldn't be the case. However, transparancy is the key to the DP. You wouldn't just get the leader telling the people if the state is a democracy. You'd have representatives and the UN telling you what the makeup of the state is. In most cases, the reps in Congress who oppose would be able to unearth if the country in question was a democracy. If not, they couldn't, and then had to argue why war was against the country's interests instead.

In the end, the people will follow the definition of democracy. What Owen does is instead of making it all 5 or nothing, allows a state that has 4 out of the 5 or even 3 out of the 5 elements of the definition to be considered a democracy if others percieve it to be one. In essense, he is making the definition less sticky. Because in deciding whether a state is or is not democratic, they will weigh the elements in the definition and maybe some states will have one element that is so strong that it overrides the lack of the last element.

Becuase they weren't, when the war begun, they ahd been comrandes in arms for decades, and the two states had parted away amicably.

Doesn't mean they'd be a democracy either. Who knows when they'd have an elected government? Transitional governments are unpredictable, and interestingly are more warlike (not usually interstate, but more civil war prove).