Many historians agree: the first TRUE democracy in the 'West' (term used loosely) was the Icelandic Althing. All freemen could vote. Granted, there were no women, but women could lock men out of the house and not feed the men if they didn't follow their will so the point is moot . Granted, slaves weren't allowed to vote. Well cry me a river, slaves wouldn't vote unless they were freed anyways. And then they were free. So that point is also moot. I mean, the slaves would vote "free the slaves!" and they really wouldn't much care about anything else because they'd move away anyways (Icelandic slaves usually weren't hereditary slaves).

Therefore, forget this Athens stuff (Greeks invented Democracy but didn't use it...their philosophers thought that the opportunities for corruption made it the WORST government). Forget the Britain stuff, forget the U.S. stuff.

That said, you have to remember: The Iroquois Confederacy did have a TRUE democracy (I guess Athens wasn't unique in it's weirdo DEMOCRACY idea, was it?). Nobody seems to care, though, because they were never politically powerful to the European-heritaged masses (self included).

United States isn't much of a democracy. I'm not bashing America, but a 2 party structure where voting for a third candidate is knocked is really not much, especially considering that as previously said, the only differences are abortion and speed of environmental decay. Also, whether you are a liberal or conservative (However that equates to the Democrat-Republican strata) voting somebody as stupid as Bush president can't be good. I mean, honestly: You can find things to bash all presidents, but he takes the cake. He has great quotes and he is going to start a war with China, you just watch . Okay, that's my rant, I just have to laugh at G.W.. I hope nobody goes online to defend him, because I refuse to defend my case. It's just too much work for no chance of convincing anybody.

------------------
Your.Master

High Lord of Good

I like to think that the United States is a republic in actual government pratice, but democratic in principles.

quote: India and Pakistan (the periods when Pakistan wasn't ruled by military dictatorship at least).

In all the wars between India and Pakistan, Pakistan was under a military dictatorship. Oh, btw, I'm Pakistani.. Hi .

I agree, in game terms it is hard to model. I suggested months ago to have significant effects if a Democracy declared war upon another Democracy.

Aha, it was Ryan and the question was (more of a statement really) that real democracies do not go to war.

Ok.

However if you put constraints on it, the limits being defined by the established realist theory then it holds up. You can use realism to explain why democracies haven't warred against each other in recent history. Mostly to do with economic interests. (Note we are talking about Great Powers here, since I'm sure minor conflicts between minor powers have already taken place.)

With the bounded theory, a democracy will fight with another democracy for the same reason a war occurs between any other two actors. Competing interests, shifts in the balance of power, conflicts between status quo powers and imperialist powers, etc.

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 04-25-2001 01:53 PM sorry it took a yank to explain brit political history

Well thanks for the lesson, but I think you missed the point I made at the end of my previous post, which others have mentioned as well: and that is, that the notion of "democracy" has been evolving for many centuries now. Even prior to 1830, Britain was a lot more 'democratic' than many of the other nations in Europe by the standards of the time, being the first European nation even to have such a thing as a parliament. You have to judge relative democracy by the prevailing norms in each historical period, as others have pointed out in this thread. And as JamesJKirk said, if you count segregation as an indicator of less-than-total democracy, the US wasn't fully 'democratic' till the mid-60's!

But there's little value in wrangling about "who's the most democratic"! The point that I agree with in this thread is that democracies (governments "of the people by the people", however you define that!) tend to be more peaceful toward one another than other forms of government; and this needs to be reflected in Civ.

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-26-2001 05:22 PM But there's little value in wrangling about "who's the most democratic"! The point that I agree with in this thread is that democracies (governments "of the people by the people", however you define that!) tend to be more peaceful toward one another than other forms of government; and this needs to be reflected in Civ. [This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 26, 2001).]

I don't agree, Ilkul. The ever-peaceful senate, high military fees, and instability of the Civ2 democracy make it a government that cannot take war lightly. I believe the only reason democracies do not go to war together very often is because the democratic countries are now the great powers in this world, and there would be severe (and with nuclear weapons, possibly world-ending) consequences. If democracy had developed in, say, 500 AD, there would be wars between democracies then.

You have a skewed vision of the "peaceful democracy" because most democracies were formed in the modern era where war is incredibly difficult, costly, and scorned by the world community. The peaceful democracy has more to do with the times now then with the idea of democracy itself.

quote: However if you put constraints on it, the limits being defined by the established realist theory then it holds up. You can use realism to explain why democracies haven't warred against each other in recent history. Mostly to do with economic interests. (Note we are talking about Great Powers here, since I'm sure minor conflicts between minor powers have already taken place.)

Actually that justification is strange. The economic interest rational is the Realist theory? No no no... Realism only considers power. Economics is a part of Liberal Theory and always has been. But on the dyadic level, economic interests have shown no deterrant.

quote: Actually that justification is strange. The economic interest rational is the Realist theory? No no no... Realism only considers power. Economics is a part of Liberal Theory and always has been. But on the dyadic level, economic interests have shown no deterrant.

Yes economic interests is rational in realist theory, well not part of it explicitly, but I am referring to economics as a component of power. Since the trade is benefiting the particular actor, the actor takes the possible effects of disruption of that economic tie into account when formulating it's policy.

For a pure realist point of view however, there hasn't really been a situation where two democratic Great Powers have had a conflict of interests that was so serious that it could lead to war. Also take in to account that all actors when formulating policy tend to conduct diplomacy so that things don't end in war, unless said actor WANTS to go to war.

Also there has never been a situation when a democratic dominant status quo power has been challenged by an imperialist democratic actor seeking to change the status quo in such a way that the status quo power would use force to stop it.

BTW are you an expert or a student in IR? If so I would love to discuss with you a little IR discussion I was having earlier about the current situation with China.