Democratic Peace Theory

[Donkey]

I haven't studied DPT super extensively, but I'm relatively familiar with it. (Relative, not necessarily to this membership). What are people's thoughts on it?

I tend to be very anti-theory in international relations analysis in general, and this is not an exception for me. I personally believe DPT to be a load of bunk, or more specifically, assigning causality to a predictable correlation. I'll allow that countries that have functioning democracy may be less likely to go to war with one another, but I don't accept that it has really anything to do with their government structure.

Thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

[Non Sequitur]

It seems to me that if two countries are on a course for war the two countries being a democracy won't stop it.

on a more historical point, it seems to me that many of the democracies in the world are involved in permanent alliances left over from the Cold War and thus would not go to war.

[Daktoria]

...I personally believe DPT to be a load of bunk...

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way? Post hoc is usually proven from omitted variable bias since a third variable explains both the independent and dependent variables (so in this case, a third dimension would cause both democratic governance and peace), and the evidence correlating democracy with peace is extremely strong since (genuine) democracies NEVER go to war with each other while neighboring totalitarian governments are almost always ticking time bombs (such that even democratic mediation, at best, only lengthens the fuse).

Not a big fan of democracy in the name of peace over here, but DPT is still a valuable tool since it can also be used to show how democratic governments are poor at ethnic management since they sweep problems under the rug for the sake of stability rather than genuine justice and prosperity. If a society is built upon deceiving individuals into maturing into warrior-guardians who are never allowed to fight, then it isn't justified to defend the deceivers anymore than it is to oppress the warriors.

[Michael]

I tend to be very anti-theory in international relations analysis in general, and this is not an exception for me.
Hmmm... you've probably spent too many years reading my posts on international relations! :D

I personally believe DPT to be a load of bunk, or more specifically, assigning causality to a predictable correlation.
Very well put.

It does seems true that democratic nations have shown less likelihood to make war upon one another. At the same time, I see no reason for this to be considered a "rule" or to assert a "causal" relationship. It is at best, a vague general observation that appears to be true.

I see nothing intrinsic to democracy that would make this so. I do see several elements of 'elite-model' representative democracy that suggest that the rule could merely be a coincidence.

And I do like the "no true Scotsman" argument referenced in the Wiki article - I think that's highly relevant to judging examples of violations. ;)

[Donkey]

Donkey's thoughts before bed/necrothreading: if we allow that Democratic peace theory is true, it must then follow that the United States is not a democracy, given how violent of a country we are internationally. It must also follow that as democracy continues to be eroded (as it has been this week), we will become internationally more violent.



Goodnight!

[Margot]

Donkey's thoughts before bed/necrothreading: if we allow that Democratic peace theory is true, it must then follow that the United States is not a democracy, given how violent of a country we are internationally. It must also follow that as democracy continues to be eroded (as it has been this week), we will become internationally more violent.



Goodnight!

How many democracies have we gone into outright war with?

[Donkey]

How many democracies have we gone into outright war with?
Democracy and war are both relative terms.

[Margot]

Democracy and war are both relative terms.

Then your previous observation is pretty moot.

[Michael]

How many democracies have we gone into outright war with?
Britain, twice. Though, technically speaking, neither the USA nor Britain at that time were anything close to being democratic. :shrug:

Unfortunately, the structure of your question precludes almost every other possible war except WW1 and WW2.

The USA seems to have adopted a formal policy of never declaring formally declaring war except when it is declared against the US first - and only Germany and Japan maintain that honorable tradition.

[Margot]

Britain, twice. Though, technically speaking, neither the USA nor Britain at that time were anything close to being democratic. :shrug:

Unfortunately, the structure of your question precludes almost every other possible war except WW1 and WW2.

The USA seems to have adopted a formal policy of never declaring formally declaring war except when it is declared against the US first - and only Germany and Japan maintain that honorable tradition.

Precisely.

According to Wikipedia:
Democratic peace theory (or liberal democratic theory[1] or simply the democratic peace) holds that democracies, for some appropriate definition of democracy,[2] rarely go to war with one another.

By definition also rendering Donk's disquiet moot. Rarely do we go to war with other democracies.

[Michael]

Personally, I don't think there is much to this theory. Seems like it has the same intellectual weight as the 'McDonald's theory' which used to say the same thing until all the exceptions were pointed out.

Fact is, there is NOTHING that prevents democracies from going to war with each other. What the historical record may show is that democracies are less likely to go to war - period.

USA is of course an exception to this rule since the USA apparently has adopted 'permanent war' as the guiding principle of government.

[Daktoria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

Democracy not only unlocks ethnic pacificism when stretched across political lines, but it also encourages the spreading and mixing of ethnicities due to liberal tolerance for civil liberties and population movement.

[Michael]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

Democracy not only unlocks ethnic pacificism when stretched across political lines, but it also encourages the spreading and mixing of ethnicities due to liberal tolerance for civil liberties and population movement.

So what you are saying is that it isn't actually democracy that accounts for this effect but rather it is liberalism that is the operative element here.

Democracies that are more conservative are thus likely to have less of this effect.

Or to put it another way, a liberal monarchy is more peaceful than a conservative democracy?

[Donkey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

Democracy not only unlocks ethnic pacificism when stretched across political lines, but it also encourages the spreading and mixing of ethnicities due to liberal tolerance for civil liberties and population movement.
Unlocks ethnic pacifism? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Because often "democracy" can explode a tense situation between two ethnicities, where one is in the clear majority.

[Daktoria]

So what you are saying is that it isn't actually democracy that accounts for this effect but rather it is liberalism that is the operative element here.

Democracies that are more conservative are thus likely to have less of this effect.

Or to put it another way, a liberal monarchy is more peaceful than a conservative democracy?

No, it's democracy that has the effect because its through democracy that different ethnicities directly participate in government (and have a say over policies such as declarations of war). It's arguable that social and people's democracies are more emphatic at this than liberal democracies as well, at least over the short term until totalitarian regimes take over through nationalist and socialist guises.

[Daktoria]

Unlocks ethnic pacifism? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Because often "democracy" can explode a tense situation between two ethnicities, where one is in the clear majority.

Check out the link for the different ways that ethnic conflict can be resolved peacefully.

[Donkey]

Check out the link for the different ways that ethnic conflict can be resolved peacefully.
What,

Integration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_integration) and/or assimilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation) or Consociationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism) or power-sharing?

Neither of those come from democracy; indeed, functioning democracy is arguably dependent on those prior to the implementation of a democratic government... otherwise imposing a democratic system on an ethnically divided country (say Iraq, or Afghanistan), should have worked just dandily.

[Daktoria]

They're all democratic processes.

[Michael]

They're all democratic processes.
None of them are integral to democracy.

Democracy can be conservative, oligarchic, tribalistic and/or dogmatic if that's what the voters prefer. Democracy doesn't work very well with these features, but that's beside the point.

The elements you are praising are all products of liberalism, not democracy. It just so happens that most democracies are dominated by liberalism, thus the apparent confusion.

It is indeed possible to have integration and/or assimilation or Consociationalism or power-sharing with a non-democratic government regime (not likely, but technically possible).

[Daktoria]

Liberal tolerance occurs because when multiple ethnicities are involved in multiple governments, an extensive amount of power sharing occurs and information flow checks and balances get established. Democracy (even heterogeneous democracy) can exist without some of these processes, but it cannot last without any of these processes.

[Michael]

Liberal tolerance occurs because when multiple ethnicities are involved in multiple governments, an extensive amount of power sharing occurs and information flow checks and balances get established. Democracy (even heterogeneous democracy) can exist without some of these processes, but it cannot last without any of these processes.

Once again you are pretending that rule by elite representatives with periodic expressions of manufactured consent from the governed is the definition of democracy - which is nonsense (popular nonsense I'll admit).

Pure democracy is the ancient Athenian variety. If any element is necessary or integral to democracy, it must by definition be present in the ancient Athenian model. And ancient Athenian democracy had no liberalism, no pluralism, no integration and no assimilation.

Modern representative pseudo-democracy isn't very democratic at all. Looks and acts a lot like benign despotism or enlightened monarchism in actual practice. Modern pseudo-democracy is all about creating the appearance of engagement without the content. This falls under the rubrik of 'manufacturing consent' rather than actual democracy.

[Daktoria]

What I'm describing isn't a matter of elites, aristocracy, republicanism, etc. It's just a matter of people getting involved.

Compared to modern governments and constituencies, Athens was a homogeneous polity, so I don't see how its analogous. What other democracies did Athens declare war on anyway?

[Donkey]

My interpretation of what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a democratic system can lead to a peaceful society. If that is the case, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

[Michael]

What I'm describing isn't a matter of elites, aristocracy, republicanism, etc. It's just a matter of people getting involved.

But you are arguing that this is integral to democracy and I'm saying it has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with liberalism.

Indeed, if you review the full historical record, I think you might find that our pre-modern governmental systems actually engaged the citizenry to a greater extent than our modern pseudo-democracies do.

Compared to modern governments and constituencies, Athens was a homogeneous polity, so I don't see how its analogous. What other democracies did Athens declare war on anyway?
Athens homogeneous? It was the most multicultural city of its day and famous for that fact. The Pireus was famous for hearing a polyglot of languages.

The only thing that was homogeneous was the citizenry - and they represented a minority of the population of the city.

As for Athens and war, they declared war on just about everyone. That suggests to me that there is nothing even remotely 'peaceful' about democracies, qua democracies.

Modern nations tend to avoid war and that is due to liberalism, not democracy (since modern nations aren't democratic anyway).

[Daktoria]

But you are arguing that this is integral to democracy and I'm saying it has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with liberalism.

Indeed, if you review the full historical record, I think you might find that our pre-modern governmental systems actually engaged the citizenry to a greater extent than our modern pseudo-democracies do.

What examples do you want to consider?

Athens homogeneous? It was the most multicultural city of its day and famous for that fact. The Pireus was famous for hearing a polyglot of languages.

The only thing that was homogeneous was the citizenry - and they represented a minority of the population of the city.

As for Athens and war, they declared war on just about everyone. That suggests to me that there is nothing even remotely 'peaceful' about democracies, qua democracies.

Modern nations tend to avoid war and that is due to liberalism, not democracy (since modern nations aren't democratic anyway).

The cultural variety within the ancient western world was far slimmer than the cultural variety we experience today; it would be radically far-stretched to equate the degrees from both.

Assessments of polities beyond Athens being democratic are exceptionally vague as well, and Athens is always highlighted as the superior of its time which wasn't as democratic as today's democracies either. Suffrage, for example, as you admitted, was far from universal and slavery still existed. Even the assessment of Syracuse being a democracy relies solely on the Athenian History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides.

[Michael]

What examples do you want to consider?
British Parliament.

I'd say the voter engagement level was greater prior to 1830.

With a limited franchise, there was a far higher level of engagement from individual voters. Once the franchise was thrown wide open, engagement from individual voters is no longer the norm. In a modern perspective, unless you are part of an activist interest group, you are not engaged with government at all.

[Daktoria]

I'm not sure if that's a useful example because I don't believe there were many (sizeable) democracies around at the time for Britain to avoid going to war with. America had a similar republican aristocracy, and France bounced back and forth between royal dynasties (with the exception of Bonaparte's Empire) such that the estates had no de facto power. Additionally, Britain proper was not particularly multicultural, and it did go to war plenty of times.

[Daktoria]

Actually, now that I think about it some more, the little multiculturalism that did exist was primarily with the Dutch and Germans; both of them were allies with the British in their wars, never enemies; and they both had similarly budding democratic systems coming about. Note that I'm excluding the Anglo-Dutch Wars here because those occurred prior of the establishment of Great Britain.

[Michael]

I'm not sure if that's a useful example because I don't believe there were many (sizeable) democracies around at the time for Britain to avoid going to war with. America had a similar republican aristocracy, and France bounced back and forth between royal dynasties (with the exception of Bonaparte's Empire) such that the estates had no de facto power. Additionally, Britain proper was not particularly multicultural, and it did go to war plenty of times.
Bemused giggles. You seem to be forgetting that I'm the one rejecting this democratic peace theory. :D

I'm too much a student of war to consider such a simplistic theory based on so little data. If one studies the history of war itself, it plainly obvious why large advanced states tend to avoid war in the post-1945 period. Democracy is superfluous to that development. The argument applies equally to totalitarian monstrosities like the USSR or China.

[Daktoria]

Michael, you were the one who suggested examining Pre-Victorian Great Britain, yet despite the little amount of data available, I still made the effort to show how Britain maintained peaceful relations with the democracies of the time.

As for the USSR and PRC, neither of those countries were either liberal or democratic, so they don't really apply, yet they both had considerable warmongering histories.

[Donkey]

Michael, you were the one who suggested examining Pre-Victorian Great Britain, yet despite the little amount of data available, I still made the effort to show how Britain maintained peaceful relations with the democracies of the time.

As for the USSR and PRC, neither of those countries were either liberal or democratic, so they don't really apply, yet they both had considerable warmongering histories.
They were neither liberal nor democratic but they were/are certainly, in Michael's words, "large advanced states." And they did seek to avoid outright war (i.e. war with each other, or war with the US and NATO).

They were no more war-mongering than the United States during the cold war. And as far as democracy is concerned, the US waged a non-stop war on democracy in central and south America for the entire cold war (and afterward, one could/should argue).