"Wars between democracies? " Topic

I was watching 'QI' the other night, and it was remarked that the only war to be fought between two democracies was when Great Britain declared war on Finland in 1941. Nothing actually happened between them, but this was – allegedly – the only time two democracies have ever gone to war.

Is this true?

I suppose a major difficulty is what qualifies as a democracy – eg. was Hitler not democractically elected? The Boer Republics with whom Great Britain fought the Boer War held regular elections, though with very limited franchises. (similarly – was Apartheid-era South Africa a democracy? It held regular elections and there were various parties etc – but obviously a large percentage of the adult population was excluded from participation. Most would agree, therefore that this means they were not democracies, but the same logic is rarely applied to Switzerland, which only gave women the vote in 1971).

So are there any other cases of two 'democracies' going to war?

Athens went to war against a number of other democracies if they didn't do what Athens wanted.

Difficult question of public law anthropology. While I have no immediate answer to it (but you can find wars between "liberal" regimes), just want to point out that while A. Hitler was democratically elected, he abolished democratical institutions soon thereafter.

@ Pictors Studio. True, see the Delos league. But according to the questions of Bulldog69, you can hardly qualifie Athen as a "liberal" democracy.

What about the ACW ? As I recon, the North had elections ? What about the South (obviously both anti-liberal with the slave system and liberal with their secession dream) ?

I'm not sure the question asked about liberal democracies, just democracies.

Well, the author raised the question about liberal democracies with his Boer War example. Many ancient and tribal societies had some democratic institutions or assemblies, though less could choose their supreme leaders. If you narrow democracy to supreme leaders elected regime, you still have many ancient greek wars, Boer Wars, and probably also communal wars in medieval/renaissance Italy.

This is considered a truism in foreign relations research. It depends on how flexible you are about your definition of democracy.

For example, Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 was a clear war of conquest between two democracies. But to some extent, it hinges on whether Putin's Russia is considered a democracy. Despite some abuses of power and suppression of dissent, Putin was (and is) popularly elected and widely supported by the Russian people. (It's largely forgotten now, but Woodrow Wilson's America included a crackdown on political dissent after his entry into WWI, for example, but America was still clearly a democracy.)

Democracies are still fairly rare. Athenian democracy lasted only 250 or so years. The Roman Republic lasted longer, but was less democratic. Apart from that (and Iceland, of course) you've basically got only a razor-thin slice of history that features democracies compared to other forms of government, and even in those eras only a small minority of countries which actually have democratic governments. And they're mostly clustered into one technological era.

So the truism that democracies don't fight each other has to be taken with a very big grain of salt.

Yes – the ACW was one I was thinking of yesterday.

Re. democracies – I'm not sure how we can reasonably define one as 'liberal' or not: it's hard enough to agree if a nation can be counted as a democracy in the first place. For example, Great Britain prior to the First World War would not be considered a democracy by today's standards – the voting age was higher than it is today, women were denied the vote, some people had more than one vote etc. Add in the whole issue of an unelected House of Lords and it gets even more complex.

But by contemporary and 'reasonable' standards, I think we could consider it a democracy – at least of the purposes of this discussion.

Renaud – fair point, but I was really just trying to say that one man's democracy is another man's oligarchy, and using those as examples of what some might consider democracies, while others wouldn't. But you make an excellent point.

This fellow makes some very interesting points:

link

Very nice link, BullDog69.

Isn't any meaningful discussion on this topic going to be very much Blue Fez territory? Depends on political definitions – how democratic is the USA? how undemocratic are Iran or Russia? Realistically, most democracies have 2 parties – anyone outside those parties has very little/no chance of getting into power, even if they represent the views of more people than either of the two main parties – in the UK, for example, there are a number of issues where the majority of people have a set of beliefs that Government do not or cannot act upon.

I would hesitate to call any modern nation a democracy. Some certainly possess more democratic characteristics than others.

This assumes that democracy is a government type and is not used as an adjective to describe another government type.

Never believe anything Jeremy Clarkson tells you….

I would hesitate to call any modern nation a democracy.

I do either. Most are no more than an elective oligarchy, where people are called periodically to decide which one oligarchy will rule. No popular voice thereafter, no polls, no possibility to actually decide anything.

Oh, and unlike Ancient Athens, no courtly responsibility for lies, breaches and so.

Ancient Athens had more of democracy than many democracies of to-day.

Was the USA or the CSA a democracy? IMHO they were Republics, on the path to democracy but not there yet – certainly a lot of Southern Leaders would have been insulted by the suggestion that it was a Democracy.

Pat

eg. was Hitler not democractically elected?

Sort of (if you ignore the Reichstag opportunism, intimidation and violence against opposition parties and supporters).

But the NSDAP only took 43% of the vote in 1933 and had to go into coalition. It was the 'Centre Party' who helped them turn the flawed democracy into a dictatorship by passing the Enabling Act, allowing Hitler to rule by decree. So no Germany was no longer a democracy in 1939.

BullDog,
something DID happen after Britain declared war to Finland:

link

Blatant imperialist aggression towards our preaceful nation, I tell you! :P

I think the acid test for any modern democracy (even if most of them are representative democracies where we elect people to govern us and do not vote directly on stuff) is whether:

i) elections are free.
ii) if the existing government loses and actually accepts the result and steps down.

Putins antics suggets he neither does (i) not (ii).

I would also humbly submit that a civil war within a democracy does not represent a war between democracies, as only one can validly claim to be a representative state until the result of the struggle is determined.

Britain vs. USA. War of 1812.

Margard

That is one that crops up when you Google the question, though many posters claim that Great Britain was not a democracy at that stage – ie. no votes for females etc. On the other hand, I would agree with you that, by the standards of the time, it was a war between two democracies.

Lonkka1Actual

I stand corrected! As kreoseus2 sagely tells us, that will teach me to listen to a word Clarkson says!

I've heard another such claim that no two nations which both have a McDonalds have ever been to war. Perhaps the youth of such nations are too obese and aflicted with ADD to make decent soldiers?

GarrisonMiniatures

Yes – it's certainly going to end up in a heated discussion somewhere along the line. I remember reading somewhere or other than a nation was not considered a democracy (presumably by the UN or something) until it had enjoyed a peaceful change of government by means of an election. By this standard, virtually no countries in Africa are democracies, including South Africa.
In the case of South Africa, people speak of 'democracy' starting in 1994 when the ANC were elected (amid mass violence and the very real prospect of civil war / genocide) in the country's first 'free and fair elections'… but as they have not yet had to give up power, South Africa is technically not a democracy – no one quite knows what will happen if and when they do lose an election.
Similarly, the same party (indeed, pretty much the same family – father and son) has governed Botswana since independence from Great Britain 50 years ago.

Depends on what you call a democracy. Germany was not a Republic in 1914 but it was not dictatorship, the parliament had important power.

Gwydion

All good points.

Interestingly, however, Tony Blair's Labour party also only got 43% of the vote in his 'landslide' victory of 1997.

That is one that crops up when you Google the question, though many posters claim that Great Britain was not a democracy at that stage – ie. no votes for females etc.

If votes for women is a criteria that excludes the USA too. The 19th Amendment not coming into force until 1920 granting universal suffrage to women. And of course it wasn't until 1965 that blacks finally got full rights to vote by outlawing literacy tests which had been used to get round the 15th Amendment.

Fred Cartwright

Similarly, the practice of 'University Constituencies' (ie. some people got two votes: one in their home constituency, and one for their university seat) was only abolished in Great Britain in 1950 – and I think the practice survived even longer (late 60's?) in Ulster.

That is one that crops up when you Google the question, though many posters claim that Great Britain was not a democracy at that stage – ie. no votes for females etc.

Universal suffrage is historically not a requirement for democracy according to the definition of the word.

Indeed universal suffrage for men aged 21 plus in the UK did not become law until 1918.
link
link

Women did not get the vote in the US until 1920 (Nineteenth Amendment).

> Great Britain was not a democracy at that stage – ie. no votes for females etc

To continue on Fred's point, ONLY landed gentry could vote, women, blacks (any non-white), or those who did not own land were out.

As for the US or Britain not being democracies but rather republics, when talking of democracies in the sense we are republics ARE democracies for all intents and purposes – any attempt to say they are not is piffle. (don't bring up some tin pan dictatorship that claims to be a republic as a counter example either, double piffle

Finally to the larger point, there have been so few democracies through history that it is only normal that they would appear to have fewer wars.

"Britain vs. USA. War of 1812"

Also wondered about that one as well.

And why not the Chaco War 1932-35 between Bolivia and Paraguay, both nominally democratic governments at the time.

Whole thing hinges on the definition of democracy as others have pointed out.

How 'democratic' was Finland in 1941? Universal suffrage (including ladies) for those over 18 or 21?

Maybe that is the distinction that causes people to focus on that conflict?

I thought both Democracies had to have a McDonald's to make that "axiom" true.

The idea that democracies would never fight is an enduring part of the fantasy world occupied by idealists and tenured professors

The idea about what constitutes a democracy is an interesting one – if it simply means you get a vote, there are lots of them, including Iran, Russia and lots of places that people might not think of as being democratic

I suspect the ancient Greeks would laugh themselves stupid over some of the things we call democracy

Now – if you made the case that a liberal democracy would not fight another liberal democracy – maybe

That being said, there are many more forces in place that keep big countries from fighting each other – such as the fact that fighting big wars has become somewhat of a zero sum proposition in terms of national interest

There are some interesting notes in this in the "Dictator's Handbook" link

Interestingly, however, Tony Blair's Labour party also only got 43% of the vote in his 'landslide' victory of 1997

?

I must have missed the New Labour 'Enabling Act' that prevented future elections.

Frederick

Yes, good point. It strikes one as being somewhat idealistic, as though wars would never happen but for the meddling of a few naughty rascals at the top. The reality is probably harder to accept.
Take the Falklands War of 1982 for example – sure, Argentina was not a democracy at the time, but I have never seen anything to suggest that an overwhelming majority of Argentinians didn't approve of the invasion.
The junta didn't fall because people disapproved of the invasion… but because they lost.

Gwydion

Not at all – I was just pointing out that gaining power after getting 'only' 43% of the vote is by no means remarkable.
Which doesn't seem quite right.

Democracy is obviously a term of comparison, like bigger or smaller, not a description or classification like ‘a mile square'. Only very small groups can achieve anything close to rule by majority vote and even then there are always those in the group who frame the decisions to be made.

Ancient Athens had a number of undemocratic elements besides not allowing women, children, slaves or resident aliens (despite having lived there for generations) to serve on council or vote. For one thing they divided the populace into regions, as most ‘Democracies' still do, this introduces a host of undemocratic effects. They also selected their ruling assembly at random, not exactly a voting process.

There is a reason why no one since the Athenians has tried radical Democracy and what happened to the admirals after Arginousae or the entire male population of Melos pretty much sums it up. No one wants to have his person and property at the disposal of the temporary whim of 51% of his fellows. Radical Democracy amounts to Ochlocracy.

So what you get mostly are Republics where the laws rather than the people rule. The people can amend the law but not overthrow it on a whim. This amounts to an Oligarchy in which groups attempt to use the power vested in the people for their own advantage because manipulation of the law is something not everyone has the ability, time or inclination to do. Some nations have written Constitutions of law some merely traditions and precedents, some recognize unalienable rights, others no theoretical limit to the power of law. Nations can be Democratic (or Socialist) in one way and not in another so it's impossible to say definitively if one is ‘more Democratic' than another. Like a lot of political terms the meaning give a strong impression which melts away when you take a hard look at it.

Of course democracies have fought each other. The real question is indeed the "McDonald's Question," which really comes down to whether countries that engage in Free Trade fight wars with each other. If two countries find trade with each other to be mutually beneficial to the populace (and thus to the governments, regardless of structure), I suspect that the likelihood of war dwindles considerably. You don't kill your customers (well, not deliberately).

Like most stupid truisms, it's patently false.

To make it true, you have to define "democracies" absurdly narrowly… you might as well say "no two unicorns have ever gone to war with each other".
-Kle.

Which doesn't seem quite right.

In modern democratic republics people generally don't vote for someone or something so much as against the other guy or side. If everyone only voted for someone or some thing they unequivocally supported there would be several million candidates and the one that got the most votes would probably be a celebrity who's winning qualification would be sexual attractiveness.

I think you'd find if you asked people of that 43% compromise, equivocation, hostility to and fear of some other outcome is what made them pull the lever. Not more than a couple percent really support the positions of the party they elect. So what difference does it make if it's 51, 43 or even some lower number?

It is so easy to reject any country as a "democracy" that this becomes meaningless.
No nation is a democracy in the strict definition of the term. In a democracy, the electors vote directly on everything. The United States, is a republic, in which we elect representatives to determinre whatever it is thatthey decide.

Article IV, section 4 guarantees to each state "a republican form of government."
I don't think that the word "democracy" come up once.

"I was just pointing out that gaining power after getting 'only' 43% of the vote is by no means remarkable. "

The purpose of the first past the post voting system is to produce strong governments. The purpose of proportional representation is to produce weak coalition governments.

Either of these may be desirable depending on your pov.

Without fptp we'd not have the NHS, but equally we'd not have had Thatcherism. Again either of these may be desirable depending on your pov

I don't think that the word "democracy" come up once

It doesn't.

When the ACW was waged several states selected their Senators and their electoral college – Hardly a democratic idea. Toombes and Yancey both made speeches decrying the encroachment of 'Democratic' mobocracy in the North as one reason for a split.

Pat

The purpose of…

I think effect would be a better word. These systems are not so much designed as evolved.

As a practical matter the more democracy the more power is devolved onto demagogues. The more republicanism the more onto lawyers. The more socialism the more onto bureaucrats.

In the modern 'Democracies' these three struggle buoyed by interests who see advantage in the triumph of one or the other. This is extremely wasteful of course and it's only the great wealth produced by capitalist industrial society which can afford such extravagance.

Problems with a solution which produces a generally desirable outcome get solved quickly and without much fuss, the contentious and difficult problems are those where all the solutions create new problems which a substantial number of people think are at least as bad if not worse than the original.

Wikipedia has a very common sense description as for what counts as a democracy that I feel works well for this discussion

"While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[7] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[8] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution"

The notion that wars between democracies have been rare is meant I think to demonstrate the belief that when the people who have to actually bear the cost of a war are asked to decide, they tend not to be in favor of it.

equality and freedom

If you think democracy is hard to define, just have a go at 'freedom'.

all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.

So they're saying there is no such thing in real life?

demonstrate the belief that when the people who have to actually bear the cost of a war are asked to decide, they tend not to be in favor of it

I think the enthusiasm with which the U.S. went to war against the Spanish or the massively enthusiastic response to war of the peoples of the various European nations in WWI make that assertion absurd.

People are complicated, in an age of potential nuclear annihilation they are a bit cowed but as long as somebody else or their child is going to be the one likely to stop a bullet they will consider shelling out for national pride, or justice or potential gain. People, even in the aggregate are not microorganisms responding only to the simple stimulus of wealth. Indeed most people only want wealth to satisfy some other desire and the few who want wealth solely for material comfort generally never accumulate much of it. Most people who acquire even a modest pile do so for the security, status, the self and social respect it gives them. These same people will gladly spend on a war which gives them that same feeling of moral worth or status or they believe secures them against a threat.

certainly a lot of Southern Leaders would have been insulted by the suggestion that it was a Democracy.

Hardly. They almost all belonged to what we now call the "Democratic Party," but then styled itself "The Democracy." So they would not have been insulted by the label. They would, however, have been appalled at the idea of letting women, "poor white trash" and, worst of all, black people vote!

BullDog,
something DID happen after Britain declared war to Finland:

link

Actually, that event happened four months before UK formally declared war on Finland in December 1941.

However, once the war was declared, a number of Finnish citizens who happened to be in Britain (or British colonies) ended up getting interned for the duration of the "hostilities". Not sure how many persons were effected by this.

How 'democratic' was Finland in 1941? Universal suffrage (including ladies) for those over 18 or 21?

Finland had sported universal suffrage in national parliamentary elections from 1906 onwards and in local communal elections from 1917 onwards.

In 1941 the age limit for voting was 24 years in parliamentary elections and 21 in communal elections.

"I've heard another such claim that no two nations which both have a McDonalds have ever been to war."

This was true up until the U.S./NATO bombed Serbia in 1999.