"There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

[gumboot]

I think the real message is that free people rarely start wars. It tends to happen in only a couple of very limited circumstances. One occurs when the democracy has overwhelming force and can expect very limited casualties. (e.g. US vs. Iraq today) The other occurs when the democracy is attacked. (e.g. US vs. Japan in 1941)

This is a rather misleading comment above...

States, full stop, seldom start wars unless they're confident they're going to win. I don't think this is unique to democracies. Pre-WWI Germany expected to defeat France in six weeks. They clearly thought they had "overwhelming force" and could expect "very limited casualties" (bearing in mind the value on human life has increased so "limited casualties" in 1914 is different to "limited casualties" today.

The original statement seems to have been modified specifically to avoid its own fallacy. The use of "genuine" democracy seems to indicate awareness that democracies HAVE fought each other.

(Incidentally I have previous heard this argument presented simply as "two democracies have never fought each other".)

I think also many people in this thread are confusing democracy with "liberal" or "free". They are not one in the same. The natural progression of a democracy is towards liberalism and freedom for all members, naturally, however, to claim a "true democracy" must have universal suffrage and not have things like slavery is to me, incorrect.

What is democracy?

Simply put, a democracy is a state in which the suffraged citizens of that state, as a collective group, are responsible for the governing of that state.

Of course what constitutes a "suffraged citizen" varies. Before 1893 there was not a democracy in human history that had allowed female suffrage. In my country, for example, only people over the age of 18 are suffraged, so it is certainly not "universal" (likewise only citizens and residents can vote).

What constitutes "responsible for governing" also varies. In the original Athenian model, the entire body of voters WERE the government. Imagine if US Congress consisted of all of the USA's 200 million or so voters?

Instead all modern democracies have a governing body who in some form represent the greater population. They (theoretically) exercise the responsibility of their voters in governing the state.

Were we to apply the original model, Athens would be the only "genuine democracy" that ever existed. Most democracies are based more on the Roman model than the Athenian one. (The key being the separation of the ruling body and the general population).

Worse still, the entire concept of democracy is being eroded. The original intent was the whole population were responsible for the state. Now it is a mechanism for aleviating blame. Not "oh the US people did it" but "oh the US government did it".

By simply claiming "oh I didn't vote for our government" someone immediately avoids responsibility for the actions of their nation. This is in complete contradiction of the intent of democracy.

Given this practical application of democracy the world over, it would be easy to claim that there are NO democracies in existence.

-Andrew

 

[Leif Roar]

Worse still, the entire concept of democracy is being eroded. The original intent was the whole population were responsible for the state. Now it is a mechanism for aleviating blame. Not "oh the US people did it" but "oh the US government did it".

By simply claiming "oh I didn't vote for our government" someone immediately avoids responsibility for the actions of their nation. This is in complete contradiction of the intent of democracy.

I don't really think this is a new phenomenon or limited to representative democracy. I once read a contemporary comment (possibly Spartan, but I forget) about how it was impossible to put an Athenian against the wall and make him take personal responsibility for Athenin politics. It was always "Oh, I wasn't at that sessions" or "Oh, I voted against that proposal."

 

[Skeptic]

It included one phrase which jumped out at me, and I don't know if it's true, "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

The Nazis were democratically elected, for one thing. Think this is a fair assessment, or a No True Scottsman fallacy?

If nothing else, the 1812 war was between democracies (in the wider sense of "elected governments"--the USA is officially a republic and the UK a kingdom). The weasel-word "genuine" allows him to dismiss all cases as "well, it wasn't REALLY a democracy".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, but they have to be able to put together a government, which they cannot do with less than 50%. "Voted into power" means just that, and the Nazis didn't get it.

Depends on the system - under the UK system you most certainly can put together a government with significantly less than 50% of the vote. For example Labour in the 2005 election won 35.3% of the vote but have an overall majority of seats. In fact no UK government since the second world war has won 50% of the vote.

Does that mean the UK is not a democracy?

I was referring to the November, 1932 election, not the March, 1933 election. By the March election, Hitler had been named Chancellor and the SA and SS were "encouraging" the electorate, shall we say.

I really should learn to read more carefully. Sorry.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is a rather misleading comment above...

States, full stop, seldom start wars unless they're confident they're going to win. I don't think this is unique to democracies.

But there's an additional element which makes democracies less likely to start wars than dictatorships. The decision makers might be inclined to start a war if they expect to profit from it. When the decision makers consist of a king and the aristocracy, they might look at an imminent conflict and note that there will be a million people killed, but at the end of the day their army will be successful and there will be new lands from which to extract taxes.

If the decision makers include those people who have to bear the million casualties, they might come to a different conclusion about whether or not this adds up to a net gain, and therefore would be less likely to support a war.

 

[gumboot]

If the decision makers include those people who have to bear the million casualties, they might come to a different conclusion about whether or not this adds up to a net gain, and therefore would be less likely to support a war.

I think that's certainly true. And I think most importantly, the more liberal societies become, and the more they value human life (natural progressions of free democracy, IMHO) the less likely the said millions will get involved.

But I think that's more to do with an indirect link... democracy = liberal = anti-war.

Certainly, in the early stages of World War One the democratic populations of countries like the United Kingdom were well and truely behind the war, and the rates of volunteer sign-up suggest they were happy to bear the burdon personally.

But then at the same time in a democracy there's also the risk of "mob rule" in that angry or aggressive populations might drive leaders to become involved in a war the leader might otherwise have avoided.

But certainly I would say, over time, as democracies naturally become more liberal they become less involved in conflict (and even less involved in large scale conflict).

-Andrew

 

[Meadmaker]

If nothing else, the 1812 war was between democracies (in the wider sense of "elected governments"--the USA is officially a republic and the UK a kingdom). The weasel-word "genuine" allows him to dismiss all cases as "well, it wasn't REALLY a democracy".

But it is worth noting that the War of 1812 was an offshoot of a wider war that was not fought between democracies. By attacking British interests in the Americas, the US was basically joining Napoleon's side.


It is also worth noting that Great Britain was kinda sorta democratic at the time, but Canada was definitely not democratic. Part of the mistake made by the United States in joining the war was in the assumption that the US would actually have a lot of popular support in Canada, because they thought the people would prefer to join a democratic society than to be ruled by a foreign monarch whose government, although elected, was not elected by them.

 

[gumboot]

It is also worth noting that Great Britain was kinda sorta democratic at the time, but Canada was definitely not democratic.

Both Britain and Canada were democratic at the time (and in fact Canada had wider sufferage than Britain in the late 18th Century).

It should also be noted that the United States suffrage wasn't that much wider than Britain and Canada at the time either.

-Andrew

 

[Dave1001]

I think that's certainly true. And I think most importantly, the more liberal societies become, and the more they value human life (natural progressions of free democracy, IMHO) the less likely the said millions will get involved.

But I think that's more to do with an indirect link... democracy = liberal = anti-war.

Certainly, in the early stages of World War One the democratic populations of countries like the United Kingdom were well and truely behind the war, and the rates of volunteer sign-up suggest they were happy to bear the burdon personally.

But then at the same time in a democracy there's also the risk of "mob rule" in that angry or aggressive populations might drive leaders to become involved in a war the leader might otherwise have avoided.

It could be that liberal, representative countries with relatively strong social safety nets are more likely to engage in war than liberal, representative countries that don't have a strong social safety net, because older people are less dependent on needing to have healthy sons to take care of them. A case could be made that this explains America's willingness to go to war in Iraq: SUV driving Boomers for the most part voted us into war (certainly in 2004) whereas generation X'ers and Y'ers are the ones spilling blood on the field.

But certainly I would say, over time, as democracies naturally become more liberal they become less involved in conflict (and even less involved in large scale conflict).

-Andrew

I think many of us want to believe that, and thus, look to backwards justify, No True Scotsman style. Hardly an empirical approach.

 

[Meadmaker]

Both Britain and Canada were democratic at the time (and in fact Canada had wider sufferage than Britain in the late 18th Century).

In 1812? I had thought that Canada was basically the same status as pre-revolution US, which meant it had a democratic local government, but was ruled by Britain, and they couldn't vote for British MPs. Was this US grade school history propoganda?

 

[gumboot]

In 1812? I had thought that Canada was basically the same status as pre-revolution US, which meant it had a democratic local government, but was ruled by Britain, and they couldn't vote for British MPs. Was this US grade school history propoganda?

Well... all British Colonies were ruled by local Governors. Said Governors were elected by the local people. In the case of Canada not enough good hearty Protestants owned land, so they had to widen the suffrage a little (though I believe they cut it back again when things settled down).

The British Empire was much like the Roman Empire would be if the Governors were elected by the population of the Province - only landowners in Britain could vote for the government of the United Kingdom and only landowners in a given colony could vote for the government of that colony (an exception being New Zealand as it was already a nation before the British took control).

-Andrew

 

[Ryokan]

Serbia was a democracy.

 

[gumboot]

Serbia was a democracy.

Yeah but was it a "genuine" democracy?

-Andrew

 

[JamesDillon]

Part of the mistake made by the United States in joining the war was in the assumption that the US would actually have a lot of popular support in Canada, because they thought the people would prefer to join a democratic society than to be ruled by a foreign monarch whose government, although elected, was not elected by them.

Where have I heard that one recently?

 

[Ryokan]

Yeah but was it a "genuine" democracy?

-Andrew

I would say so, yes.

 

[Beerina]

And if anyone can do that ...

Define civil war!

Actually, it occurs to me that almost all those on the list that are relatively close to a democracy are wars of independence or civil wars.

Two otherwise independent political entities just don't seem to get mad at each other and start a war.

I'd like to use this opportunity to point out that there is a difference between a democracy and a free nation (nations where individuals are relatively free to pursue their own paths.) Perhaps it's free countries that never go to war with each other, with the researcher mis-using "democracy" as a synonym, as politicians are frequently wont to do (because power means power over freedoms retained by the people, and democracy gets you that power, promoting freedom lessens your power.)

 

[marksman]

I'd like to use this opportunity to point out that there is a difference between a democracy and a free nation (nations where individuals are relatively free to pursue their own paths.) Perhaps it's free countries that never go to war with each other...

What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?

 

[HeavyAaron]

He actually said "countries with a free trade agreement" which is not the same as free trade. No country allows free trade, but many have signed what they call "free trade agreements" to allow less restrictions. Of course, these would almost certainly be cancelled before going to war and so can't really be considered relevent to this debate.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Aaron

 

[Dave1001]

What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?

I think the number one indicator would be freedoms of assembly, expression (speech), and communication, including with the outside world. Also, uncontroversially it would at least be property rights that allow such freedom of expression. More controversial is whether it would allow property rights that allow individuals to accumulate greatly disproportionate wealth (as measured by the market) relative to the median member of society. By being free to do those things, I mean that the population would be free from punishment by the state, or from private agents affiliated with the state.

 

[Beerina]

What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?

By that I mean there's a lot more to freedom than just freedom of speech. A highly socialized democratic nation might have very few economic freedoms. Perhaps this maps better to the concept of not getting into a war with other, similar nations.