heh.

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??

Oh, btw, I'm the one that got the Democratic Peace included in 'The List' .

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

I am not bashing USA (that was certain social aspects that will take Europe decades or centuries to develop i.e. the irrelevance of ethnicity) I picked it because it is a country that is very well known. I couldn't even start telling about crimes commited by modern democracies in Europe, today's preconceptions in the Balkan countries that are still torturing their people etc. And to add to your argument Serapis, according to one theory the Nazi culture (anti-semitism, the Arian race etc)was actually a distorted version of the existing dominant and at the time legitimate horrific european culture.

The point that I'm trying to get across is that modern democracies are perfectly capable of crimes against humanity (and intra war) as were the ancient greek ones.

Now, Ancient Athens was far from perfect but it was a true democracy. The literal meaning of democracy is that people are the authority. (demos=people, cratia=authority, control). At the time, people were only the «free male men» something that is absolutely ridiculous today.

quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 04-24-2001 11:26 PM 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.

Well if the British call themselves that, they're mistaken, up through the early 20th century the US would have to be the "most democratic" nation in the world. Even after Britains big electoral reform act in 1832, still only about 5% or so of the adult population could vote, steady reform continued through the 19th century, and universal male sufferage was achieved in the early 20th century, decades after Imperial Germany even (which Bismarck made fairly progressive to remove the steam from the Social Democrats). Not until 1927, I believe, were women given equal voting status with men. If I substansial proportion of a country's population can't vote or be considered equal with the rest, than I wouldn't call it a democracy. That means the US wouldn't be one until either 1919, or the mid1960's, depending if you count the segregation as a block to representative democracy. Interestingly as well, throughout the 19th century in the US, the term democracy frightened the elite, since they took it's meaning to be the traditional Aristotle's sense that democracy was essential a "tyranny of the majority" and rights of property owners and minorities would be stomped on. And this was true whenever a populist came into power (typically the Democratic party). It wasn't until WWI when the US began to refer to itself as a democracy, and that was only to give a sense of a mission to Americans in WWI.

Paiktis- I know Turkey isn't a democracy, if you reread what I wrote, I implied that IF turkey was a democracy, there would still be tensions with Greece, and possibility of war, correct? And I'll give you that Athens was a true democracy in teh sense that the citizens voted themselves on things, but still, it isn't in the modern sense a democracy, since there wasn't a broad spectrum of people who could vote. Also, in many modern democracies people can submit and vote on referendum's, so that's somewhat democratic in the true meaning of the word (although one could pretty much buy the people's support of disapproval of an initiative or referendum, so it becomes a tool of lobbies and interest groups, like here in good old California!)

BTW: In my study, the criteria for democracy included free elections, democratic and respected constitution, as well as scoring at least 6 points on Polity II democracy scale. Basically, they were democracies under any reasonable definition.

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-24-2001 06:52 PM 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!

Prior to 1830 reform law most commons seats were "owned" by wealthy patrons usually aristocrats - system was perfected by Walpole.

Combination of unequal apportionment("Rotten boroughs"), open ballots, highly restircted electorates contributed to this. Pre-1830 britain is more or less completley controled by the the aristocracy.

1830 laws shifted seats from the boroughs to the counties, abolished some (but not all) rotten boroughs, and (IIRC) established secret ballot.
Restrictive property qualitfications remained in place. Britain from 1830 to 1868 was "bourgeois state" - power had been taken away from the aristos, but working class was still disenfranchised, leading to Chartist movement (the REAL democrats)

1868 reform law established near manhood suffrage, and made UK a democracy.

date of demo in US is matter of some controversy - property restrictions not abolished till 1830's (Age of Jacksonian democracy) - when white manhood suffrage became the rule (full manhood suffrage is not till post civil war, when negro suffrage passes) - some historians claim that property restirictions in US didnt matter much, most people had enough property to meet requirements, and so most states were demo from 1776 on.

LOTM

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-24-2001 02:18 AM Yes, Democracies don't go to war against each other.

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

Vitmore

Originally posted by paiktis22 on 04-25-2001 12:10 AM

LOTM - Direct control - thats not true - they will threaten a coup when red lines are crossed, as to the nature to the secular state - but not on other day to day matters - Turkish elections, party politics, and, IIUC changes in govt policiy in response to elections are quite vibrant. Does the ongoing role of the military in politics make turkey a notch less demo than other states, including Greece - maybe, but your charecterization is the kind of thing that makes the turks (rightly) resentful.

Maybe you don't realize that the difference between a military controled state and a democratic one in which the military has a say but only in matters that affect the security of the country.

A small example. In USA does everybody have the right to express his/her opinion freely and without fear of persecution? I think yes. Is the USA military against it? This is irrelevant.
In Turkey opinions other than those officialy expressed by the governemnt are deemed dangerous and are persecuted as high treason. Don't tell me that thiis is not the military behind that. I won;t accept that the governemnt of Turkey is so despotic.

LOTM There have been several coups - any in which a negotiated settlement with GReece was scuttled? i dont think so.

Proposal for a complete demilitarization of Cyprus. Not accepted by turkish military.

Agreement by both sides to remove all mines from the northen border of Greece and Turkey so as to minimize civilian casualties. Scuttled by turkish military 2 months later.

Agreement to explore for oil in the Aegean only within each country's teritorial waters. Not respected by turkish military. (this actually would have led to war because there was a showdown when greek ships intercepted turkish exploration ships accompanied with military ships in the Aegean).

Proposal to cut down on military spending. Not accepted my turkish military (now Turkey is obliged to do so because of financial crisis).
Both parlements were in favor of this.

The list goes on.

I see no evidence that they have shown less respect for prior govts treaty commitments than when one democratically elected govt succeeds another. (is greece no longer gonna negotiate with the US because Bush changed Clintons position on Kyoto?)

Actually the whole world should stop negotiating with USA because of it including the USA cittizens themselves.

LOTM - we supoport, among other things, the continued economic and social developement of Turkey, improved cultural and human rights for the Kurdish minority. We are concernd about the fundamentalists - arent you?

10 political prisoners die from hunger strikes in turkish prisons each month. Kurdish civilian population has been massacred for the last 20 years. The genocide of the Armenian people is now recognised officially by countries like France. Not by the USA I think.

You say that you support human rights in Turkey. That is a lie. You don't.
Actually you will do nothing to upset it and risk loosing your bases in Anatolia that are critical for your operations in the Middle East. These are your interests. You protect them. Simple.
The fundamentalists are there and they can be worst than today's military. Everybody is concerned. The thing is what you do about it.

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)