Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another Or Do They..?

I've witnessed this debate on Usenet several times, and it always follows the same pattern:

1. Somebody casually brings up the old factoid about how no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.
2. Somebody jumps in and lists a dozen or so wars which have been fought between democracies.
3. Somebody else points out that those countries weren't democratic, not really.
4. Everybody gets into arguments over who was or was not democratic.
5. The argument fizzles out except for two guys continuing to argue over whether the American Civil War was about slavery.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

But I think it is correct to say that war is less likely between two countries if they are both democratic. Democracies have a built-in check on their own leaders (elections) which makes war less likely.

The trick of war is mobilization of resources and people. Even small wars are expensive, and people balk at the cost in dollars even with a volunteer army. Only once the costs are presented against the causus belli does the built in check come into play.

So, as the neocon philosophers note, the trick is to mobilize a population that just doesn't understand the great game of war.

Lie about the reasons for war. Whip up fear and hatred. Borrow the money so that nobody pays dollars, at least not in an obvious way. Confine the deaths to a small sliver of the population that is prevented, by honor and law, from complaining that it didn't volunteer for THIS sort of war.

In other words, if you don't have WWII, then at least exaggerate the benefits, hide the costs, and use nationalism and patriotism and idealism just like a dictator would. Aside from killing the opposition, it's a matter of a degree of imitation of the non-democracy.

Bush's goals for the mobilization were puny and low. His strategy was to tell people that their contribution to the war would be to ignore it, to let him do whatever, and to "fight" the democrats at home. Indeed, "fighting the war" doesn't require more than squelching political opposition for 95% of Americans as a practical matter, as enlistment in the keyboard brigades somehow allows people to pretend to be equal to the members of the 101st. He was asking for passive acquiescence and domestic power. Maybe he thought the war would be so short he didn't need any more, but the method is still: Exaggerate benefits, hide costs, and lie lie lie.

... only 1 person has to be an asshole to start a war.

For democracies, a LOT of people have to be assholes to start a war.

Hence one would expect fewer wars involving democratic states, and even fewer still *between* democratic states.


The US, for example, has a lot of assholes.

the only two democracies in the world went to war with each other. The purpose of the war was conquest of territory.

And Hitler was elected.

And the 'real democracies' arguement is a varient on the 'no true Scotsman' arguement... a way to avoid facing a ugly truth, nothing more.

I've had many of these discussions (usually with a bong nearby) regarding the "ultimate" definition of what a democracy is as opposed to what a Republic is. This is an especially favorite arguement with a Repugnican. They'll always contend this is not a democracy but a Representative Republic...since there truly isn't a direct electoral system for our leaders and the original intent of the Constitution was not for everyone to have the right to vote, but only white male property holders.

This is similar to the arguement that there was a never true form of socialism or communism...that the "human condition" prevents a true, pure form of this type of governance. Instead we have varying degrees of nationalistic republics...partial individual participation (generally on a local level) where one's power up the ladder only grows with one's networth or other financial advantage. Human greed and it's territorial nature makes it difficult to truly share power or services thus why the history books are loaded with the endless struggles of the haves and have nots...and will continue.

I had a teacher in 7th grade who equated all wars with Nationalism. It's either a country trying to exploit another for economic gain or as a political diversion or a vain-glorious adventure by some meglo-maniac...but it's always fought about some ultimate power advantage, rarely, if ever about civil rights or "equality".

Cheers...