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?

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

[JamesJKirk]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 04-24-2001 10:01 AM 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.

Even so, this just proves that there aren't enough democracies in the world, and the ones that are there haven't been around long enough to prove anything about democratic peace. Isn't it conceivable that Russia could be a little expansionist against a democracy if the people were whipped up? Or that in the Falklands War never happened, and populist, democratically elected Argentine president could take a grab at them? Wouldn't India and Pakistan still be hated enemies regardless of how democratic they are? The same goes for Greece and Turkey. Not to mention the democracies that the US has simply overthrown: Iran 1953, Guatamala 1954, Chile 1973.

Hundreds of years ago the same things were said about monarchies, since they were guided by an well born and educated elite, and there was intermarriage and all things, and who would agree with this nowadays? The present theory about democratic peace revolves around the notion that the regular people are peace loving, and it's only elites and elitist governments cause wars. This couldn't be anywhere closer to misfounded logic. Typically elites are still in charge of the government in a democracy, there's just a choice of which elites are in power. Sometimes to gain support, the government will start a war to unite the people. It's entirely possible two democracies could do this against one another.

Oh, and I notice that the mention that Hitler was brought to power democratically challenged, but Slobodan Milosevic wasn't. Maybe that's because Serbia/Yugoslavia was and is a democracy. The Yugoslav media even reported antigovernment things during the war, The US press wouldn't even go as far as that. Also note that since Kostunica's been in power, the government is pretty much the same, no constitutional changes were necessary, and governing has just been done less heavy handed.

A final tidbit: Both of the proclaimed international relations majors have come out against democratic peace, shouldn't that say something? In fact as such majors I'm sure we'd probably agree that all IR theories are flawed, which is why there's still debate on the subjects and plenty of war, too
[This message has been edited by JamesJKirk (edited April 24, 2001).]

[me_irate]

Dont forget the war of 1812 (us vs britain) this was a war between democracies. Also wasn't italy a socialist democracy in ww2? I believe musolini was elected.

[Cyclotron]

Britain was a democracy in the war of 1812? I thought it was a parliamentary monarchy...

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

Whatever the historical accuracies are...The idea that democracies do not fight each other is flawed. This disregards the strength of propaganda, nationalism, and media control (democracy doesn't mean free press). Any Civ gov't should be able to war with any other gov't type. If history has shown us anything its that fact is stranger then fiction...Soviet Union and Nazi Germany allying at all, then the US and USSR allying afterwards. Common enemies make strange friends.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-24-2001 05:32 PM Britain was a democracy in the war of 1812? I thought it was a parliamentary monarchy...

It was then and is now a constitutional monarchy, and that constitution, though not a single piece of paper like the US one, is fundamentally democratic: the monarch undertakes to respect the elected representatives of the people in parliament, which means that he/she chooses the leader of the majority party as prime minister, and accepts all laws passed by them; in return parliament respects the institution of the monarchy by providing funding for it. In actual fact parliament could abolish the monarchy at any time: which underlines the fact that Britain is a true democracy. In earlier centuries the influence of the monarchy was a lot stronger than it is today, and this is what might lead people to think that the country was not truly democratic. But then, what is "truly democratic"? The idea has been evolving throughout recent history - as witness the fact that only 100 years ago women were unable to vote!

[me_irate]

As i recall the british call themselves the worlds oldest democracy. Since the us was in 1776 the british were democratic b4 that. Im not sure of the date. But it was when the power of parliament exceeded the power of the King.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Real democraties dont exist today. A real democratie means that everyone votes and decides on every matter. This was how Athens worked (even though only males were allowed) As far as a real modern day democratie in the true sense of the word, there isnt any. Rather, countries use Representative Democratie, also known as a Republic. A republic is where people vote for the people who represent them and supposedly vote what there voters want them too (fffeww)

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Bereta_Eder]

[quote]Originally posted by JamesJKirk on 04-24-2001 11:44 AM
Wouldn't India and Pakistan still be hated enemies regardless of how democratic they are? The same goes for Greece and Turkey. Not to mention the democracies that the US has simply overthrown: Iran 1953, Guatamala 1954, Chile 1973. [quote]

Sorry, but Turkey is not democratic. The turkish army has direct control of all aspects of both internal and external matters and has in the past and will be able in the future to impose its will on the political governemnt at any time.

That's actually the problem. You simply cannot have a valid dialogue with the turkish elected government because their true authority is very little and everything that is agreed can be thrown to the garbage the other day by the turkish military. Thsi has actually happened more times than I can count.

European Union, to say nothing of the «strategic ally» the USA, supports that status quo in Turkey and tolerates the military rule because the fundamental islamists of Turkey are always ready to take over the power.

In short, it's a drag. I'd prefer Sweden as my neighboor. Oh well...! I just hope Turkey will not disintegrate and force Greece to increase military spending (that benefits U S A war companies :P)

[Cyclotron]

But Lawrence, I think in Civ when they say "Democracy" they mean the American-style "democratic republic" as we know it. Don't get technical; it will and should remain a "Democracy" in name, since this is how it is popularly referred to and widely understood. Unless Civ3 plans to put in a "true" democracy, it should remain as it is for the sake of ease. A republic in Civ is representative of a very decentralized government with more autonomous city-states than the USA.

In addition, about the "democracies aren't democracies unless everyone is allowed to vote" thing, this is not entirely true. According to the laws of different countries, voting is given to citizens who have full privileges and protection under the law. This means that women, blacks, etc. simply were not regarded as true people and/or true citizens by the legal citizens (aka white males) at the time, and so were not legally entitled to the vote. Sufferage is the result of our expanding concept of who is and who is not a true human and a true citizen.

The above statement in no way represents any bigoted views of mine, I am simply stating the legal reason people over the centuries have been able to exclude people and still call themselves a democracy. That doesn't mean I agree with their thinking!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Demos=people
Cratie=governemnt
Democratie= government elected by the people
aristoc=the few
Cratie=government
aristoracy=governed by the few

See what i mean cyclotron? Democratie, the word when taken back to its roots, means a government elected by the people. I cant see how laws cant exclude people from being people.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 04-25-2001 12:18 AM Demos=people Cratie=governemnt Democratie= government elected by the people

Like I said, it depends on how you culture defines a person. Blacks were not considered people by many Americans and other whites for a few centuries. Notice Demos means people, not human beings. What's your definition of a person?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[JamesJKirk]

[This message has been edited by JamesJKirk (edited April 24, 2001).]

[Bereta_Eder]

As to wether real democracies exist today in contrast to the ancient world:

Athens was a true democracy. Yes slaves and women couldn't vote (the majority) but the decision for all aspects of policy was decided by all the male citizens in the agora. And Athens was not a peaceful city state.

Just a small example to demonstrate this and to prove that true democracy can be warlike and also can be VERY unstable (although I still belive it's the best form of governemnt ever discovered).

When the Athenian Supremacy over the Agean Archipelago was challenged by the Citizens of the island Milos who refused to pay their taxes to Athens what happened was this:

All male Athenians gathered as was the practice, in the agora (lose translation of agora in english would be: open market of discussion) to decide what will be done with the problem of Milos mutiny.

A lot of suggestions were proposed and finally the Athenians (who had complete control over the Agean thanks to the athenian war triremes) decided that Milos mutiny theatened their control over the Agean and should be brought back in line.

Having decided that, they discussed the way in which Milos should be broght back in line. They concluded that simply crashing the munitny is not enough and that Milos should also be made an example to avoid any future ideas of mutiny by other islands.

So they decided to sent their was triremes in Milos and massacre ALL the male population of the island so as to be an example of what happens when you disobey Athens. That proposal was voted upon and approved by the majority of Athenians in perfect democractic practise.

BUT, as the triremes had already salied from Peraeus and were heading for Milos to execute the orders of the Athenian Democracy, the Athenians decided that this form of punishment was harsh and inhumane and disproportinate to the offence theat Milos had done to Athens.

So they decided to abort the previous decision and to simply force Milos to pay the taxes.

They sent some very fast sail boats to meet with the triremes BEFORE these reach Milos in order to tell them the new decision.

And so it happened and the fast vessels actaully managed to reach the triremes in the middle of the sea and inform the captains of the new decision and the massacre was never performed. (That's also a small example of why Plato was pissed of by the Athenian Democracy and opted for Oligarchy but no one listened).

Even real democracies can be warlike altough they are perfect for the life of their civilians.

For example USA is hated by much of the rest of the world because of their practise to overthrow democracies and impose cruel dictatorships that massacre their own people. For example Chile and the continious starvation of Cuba by USA is very much frowned upon even today. Actually EU has different trade pacts with Cuba disrespecting the «western» front.

USA is a primitive democracy compared to the European ones (death sentences etc) but is still a democracy and still it is warlike. Britain and the Fokland wars are another example. And we are talking about democracies that's why I don't include crimes by Soviet Union etc etc.

I think what best describes this is a phrase by some ancient greek bastard who said: (I transalte to the best of my abilities: «A powerful empire is EXPECTED to be cruel and savage and unjust to the ones that are weaker than itself. But, a powerful empire is virtuous when it has the strenght to protect its interests by cruel means and yet decides not to». Such an Empire (democractic or otherwise) is still and Utopia.

[Cyclotron]

How do death sentences make the USA a "primitive democracy?" Isn't that just your biased opinion on a single issue?

In addition, Cuba starved itself... It is widely known that during the Cuban missile crisis Castro advised the USSR to use the nuclear weapons against us immediatly, and use his country as a martyr... we must protect ourselves, and if isolation from Cuba is they way to do it then this is the way it must be done! Would you greet somebody with open arms if they advocated nuking you?

Anyway, that's really kind of off-topic, let's keep the America-bashing in the OT.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

How are European democracies more refined? I seem to remember a few Euro democracies losing it a few times, Germany elected Hitler, Serbia elected Milosevic, France was run by Charles De Gaulle if he didn't get his way. You're personal opposition to the death penalty has no impact on how refined a democracy is, its a reflection of the people's desires, which in this country favor the death penalty (even if I don't) so by actually reflecting the people's desires, we're primitive? Bad arguement.

And Athens was not a true democracy, it was the most primitive, as less then 10% actually voted. It was more of an democratic oligarchy as only the rich could vote. But then it was glorified and made "classic" by the ages, Athens was far, far from perfect.