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

[Dave1001]

Nazi/soviet

A good case can be made that the Soviets weren't fascist. Certainly fascists didn't think so.

 

[Mike B.]

Well, yeah. And similarly, if you ignore all the exceptions or quasi-exceptions, the Chicago Cubs in general are a winning baseball team.

"Liberal democracies" are a relateively recent phenomenon; most of the "democracies" in the world today are less than 100 years old, and almost any of them can be argued to be "exceptional" (e.g. the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic -- and of course Great Britain isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy, and Switzerland is a confederation, and Canada is actually a colony of a foreign head of state,....).

Which suggests that throwing out all the exceptions and quasi-exceptions is cherry-picking, pure and simple.

Totally false assumptions here.

You are arguing something different.
The question is whether liberal democracies are more apt to not fight each other than other forms of government.
Look at trends.

Your Chicago Cubs comment is completely off the point.

 

[drkitten]

It may also be true that there has never been a war between two genuine fascist states, and that there has never been a war between two genuine islamic theocracies.

Given that in the entire course of world history, there has been exactly one "genuine fascist state" (Mussolini's Italy), it would have been irregular for there to have been a war between two of them.

Similarly -- how many genuine Islamic theocracies have there been in world history? Iran is probably theocratic, since the government is officially supervised by a pair of clerical offices. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy. The Taliban, as a group of clerics, arguably established a theocracy in Afghanistan. I could make a case for Mahdist Sudan in the 19th century, and for 7th century Mecca under Muhammad.

 

[drkitten]

Totally false assumptions here.

Yes, starting with your assumption that you can cherry-pick away the exceptions and therefore establish the rule.

The question is whether liberal democracies are more apt to not fight each other than other forms of government.

No, that's a question. There are also several other questions that are relevant at that level of analysis, such as the question about whether two countries both being liberal democracies are a cause or an effect of their being close enough politically to not fight each other, and whether this is a function of the current geo-political situation (i.e. the reason that we don't see western monarchies fighting western monarchies any more is because there aren't any left.)

But the question is :

"Is the statement ""There has never been a war between two genuine democracies" true?"

 

[ceo_esq]

As for "there has never been a war between two democracies," well, as always it depends on how you define "democracy." For example, certain forumites were celebtrating the words of Anatoly ("Natan") Sharanksy, an Israeli MK who declared that "the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you." Mysteriously, this philosophy fell by the wayside when the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections.

Another example is Hugo Chavez; his election (and re-election) was observed by international monitors who declared the polling to be open and fair.

Ah, yes. To quote Dick Tuck, "The people have spoken - the bastards."

 

[Ziggurat]

The American Civil War, for example, was between two halves of the same democracy, so the original author will need to explain why South Carolina was a democracy in 1859, but not in 1862, without changing its government.

One counter-argument is that because the South had slavery, it could not be considered democratic. Had it not been for the anti-democratic nature of slavery, I don't think it would have come to war.

 

[Dave1001]

Given that in the entire course of world history, there has been exactly one "genuine fascist state" (Mussolini's Italy), it would have been irregular for there to have been a war between two of them.

Similarly -- how many genuine Islamic theocracies have there been in world history? Iran is probably theocratic, since the government is officially supervised by a pair of clerical offices. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy. The Taliban, as a group of clerics, arguably established a theocracy in Afghanistan. I could make a case for Mahdist Sudan in the 19th century, and for 7th century Mecca under Muhammad.

Well then, a similar case can be made about democracies. How many genuine democracies have there been over the entire course of world history? I suspect the monarchy has by far been the most common type of government over the course of world history, dwarfing all other types with the possible exceptions of oligarchies and theocracies.

 

[drkitten]

One counter-argument is that because the South had slavery, it could not be considered democratic.

Yes. More cherry-picking.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Well then, a similar case can be made about democracies. How many genuine democracies have there been over the entire course of world history? I suspect the monarchy has by far been the most common type of government over the course of world history, dwarfing all other types with the possible exceptions of oligarchies and theocracies.

I'll agree with you conditioned on the definition of monarchy. If monarchy is defined as rule by a single individual, then yes. If it also entails heretary rule then I'm not so sure. Dictatorships and other despotisms seem more numerous now and previously to me.

Of course, it's also a matter of how you measure. Does China count only as a single monarchy for thousands of years, wheras some African nation counts a zillion times as different dictatorships with military coup after military coup?

A more rational measurement (to me) would seem to be weighted by longevity, and perhaps even by population as well.

Aaron

 

[drkitten]

Well then, a similar case can be made about democracies.

Not really. The definition of "theocratic" and "fascist" are both extremely restrictive; "democracy" less so, precisely because of several hundred years of deliberate blurring on the part of self-identified "democracies."

Basically, lots of people want to be democracies, and are willing to expand the definition of "democracy" in order to encompass themselves. (I already listed some examples of the expansion). On the other hand, even other right-wing authoritarian governments (e.g. Nazi Germany, Peronist Argentina, &c.) have been very direct in distinguishing themselves from "Fascism."

It's the difference between saying that I drive a "rice-burner" and a Honda.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. More cherry-picking.

Cherry-picking on whose part? Mine? I think a country that allows slavery can NOT be considered a true (or, more specifically, a full) democracy. Slavery is about as explicitly anti-democratic as you can get, so I don't have any problem calling pre-civil war US only a partial democracy. And there are better examples of exceptions to the rule given by that wikipedia page linked above anyways.

 

[yinyinwang]

A good case can be made that the Soviets weren't fascist. Certainly fascists didn't think so.

We grade them by their own opinion?

 

[Ziggurat]

For example, certain forumites were celebtrating the words of Anatoly ("Natan") Sharanksy, an Israeli MK who declared that "the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you." Mysteriously, this philosophy fell by the wayside when the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections.

In the long run, though, I think that will be the case. If the Palestinians democratically elect a party that wants war with Israel, that's probably what they'll get, as we're seeing. They will suffer for that choice, and if they've got any sense at all they will realize it was a mistake and change their choice in the future. So as long as the Palestinians REMAIN democratic (not a given), I think they will change course. In other words, while the election of Hamas does suggest it's not true that democracies never war with each other, it may still turn out to be true that democracies do not wage war with each other as frequently.

Another example is Hugo Chavez; his election (and re-election) was observed by international monitors who declared the polling to be open and fair. However, that little fact is inconvenient, so it's taken as "fact" among right-wing commentators that Chavez rigged the election somehow.

Chavez may indeed have been fairly elected. The problem with him, though, is that he's been systematically dismantling the checks and balances required to KEEP Venezuela democratic. If you subscribe to the idea that democracy makes war less likely, that is troubling.

 

[drkitten]

Cherry-picking on whose part? Mine?

Yes.

I think a country that allows slavery can NOT be considered a true (or, more specifically, a full) democracy.

You're right. You do think that. That's your after-the-fact judgement that would not have been shared either by members of the Southern political structure or its rivals in the Northern political structure at the time. Basically, you're claiming you know better than both sides in the dispute.

Basically, the Confederacy considered itself a democracy, and considered the Union to be a democracy. Similarly, the Union considered both itself and the Confederacy to be a democracy. As, for that matter, did all the other countries in the world that had diplomatic relations with one or the other country.

Which makes it strongly appear that there's nothing about being "democratic" that keeps two countries from going to war with each other. Unless you're going to retroacctively define "democratic" to mean something other than what it demonstrably meant to everyone involved in the conflict at the time.

And, yes, I consider retroactive definitions tailored to prove the point under discussion to be cherry picking. It's the very definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Dave1001]

Not really. The definition of "theocratic" and "fascist" are both extremely restrictive; "democracy" less so, precisely because of several hundred years of deliberate blurring on the part of self-identified "democracies."

Basically, lots of people want to be democracies, and are willing to expand the definition of "democracy" in order to encompass themselves. (I already listed some examples of the expansion). On the other hand, even other right-wing authoritarian governments (e.g. Nazi Germany, Peronist Argentina, &c.) have been very direct in distinguishing themselves from "Fascism."

It's the difference between saying that I drive a "rice-burner" and a Honda.

My point is that if one argues that there has never been a war between islamic theocracies because islamic theocracies are historically rare, a similar point can be made about "genuine democracies": that they have been historically rare.

 

[Dave1001]

I'll agree with you conditioned on the definition of monarchy. If monarchy is defined as rule by a single individual, then yes. If it also entails heretary rule then I'm not so sure. Dictatorships and other despotisms seem more numerous now and previously to me.

Of course, it's also a matter of how you measure. Does China count only as a single monarchy for thousands of years, wheras some African nation counts a zillion times as different dictatorships with military coup after military coup?

A more rational measurement (to me) would seem to be weighted by longevity, and perhaps even by population as well.

Aaron

By any of those measures or weightings "genuine democracies" have been a relatively rare form of government.

 

[HeavyAaron]

By any of those measures or weightings "genuine democracies" have been a relatively rare form of government.

No doubt. For those suffraged, I think Athens counts and that's it for "genuine democracies." I welcome correction, however.

Aaron

 

[Dave1001]

No doubt. For those suffraged, I think Athens counts and that's it for "genuine democracies." I welcome correction, however.

Aaron

Egads -and Athens had slavery, among other things.

 

[JamesDillon]

Excellent posts, drkitten. It seems that everyone now must accept either that the statement "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies" is historically false, or that genuine democracies (defined, it seems, in a rather cherry-picking manner) have been so rare that the fact that they have never fought each other is inconclusive.

 

[Dave1001]

Excellent posts, drkitten. It seems that everyone now must accept either that the statement "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies" is historically false, or that genuine democracies (defined, it seems, in a rather cherry-picking manner) have been so rare that the fact that they have never fought each other is inconclusive.

I agree. Well done drkitten!