Is it true that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other? | Notes and Queries

Categories
Nooks and crannies
Yesteryear
Semantic enigmas
The body beautiful
Red tape, white lies
Speculative science
This sceptred isle
Root of all evil
Ethical conundrums
This sporting life
Stage and screen
Birds and the bees

NOOKS AND CRANNIES

Is it true that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other?

Proponents of the so-called "Democratic Peace" thesis would like to think so. They argue that when the interests of two democratic states clash, the existence of democratic norms of accommodation and the dispersal of decision-making authority on both sides creates a cooling-off period, where an impetuous dictator on one side might plunge the international system into war. The paradigmatic case is the Fashoda Crisis of 1898 where democratic norms and institutions permitted a peaceful resolution of the standoff between Britain and France. Exceptions to the democratic peace can be explained away and largely prove the rule. For example, with the Anglo-American War of 1812 (Notes & Queries, August 26), Britain's limited franchise pushes it outside the definition of democracy. During the second world war, Finland fought against the Allies, but understandably its paramount concern was Soviet imperialism. To find an example of war between democracies we must go back to the Peloponnesian War. Athens's attack on Syracuse refutes the hypothesis, yet it is questionable whether the Athenians knew that Syracuse possessed a democratic polity or whether the rule of democratic peace applies to ancient warlike republics. Sceptics raise four concerns: 1. Given that states generally fight with their neighbours, the fact that few democracies existed before 1945 presents few historical opportunities for democratic war. 2. Because the rule holds between occidental democracies does not mean the same will be true for non-western states. While nominally democratic, the absence of liberal political cultures and the existence of more paternalistic systems of governance might render the thesis inapplicable. All eyes on India and Pakistan. 3. Although democracies don't war with each other, they are statistically just as war-prone as other systems of government, which the democracies often feel almost duty-bound to war against. Witness the campaigns against Saddam and Milosevic. 4. States undergoing a difficult transition towards democracy (and a market economy) might in fact be more war-prone than average, as international ambitions create a diversion from domestic woes. The best book-length study is Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace.
Steven Curtis, School of International Studies Coventry University

The first thing countries do when preparing to go to war is to denigrate the opposition. It's therefore unlikely that two democracies contemplating war would recognise or describe their opponents as such.
Graham Parker, London

In his answer, Steven Curtis mentions Milosevic, and refers to his government as non-democratic. It is worth remembering that he was, in fact, elected. Come to that, so was Hitler, which would make WWII a war between two democratically elected countries. The idea that democracies don't go to war is stupid. The average member of the public likes a good war, hence will vote for one.
Joe Reeves, Glasgow

Nominally democracies, the Union and the Confederacy fought for four years, 1861-65 with greater bloodshed than the United States has since suffered. One might also consider Peru and Ecuador in their recent settlement of a long-standing "border war."
C Harrison, Chestertown, USA

What about the Boer War? Weren't the Boer Republics democracies?
Keith Mills, Alne, Yorks

It seems that historically whoever wins a war is then in the position to label the losing side as 'undemocratic'. It is the winners that write the history books. So no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other because the winning side tends to be seen as an autonomous nation, joined by public opinion and imbued with national pride. Whereas the losing nation is depicted as divided and the people at loggerheads with their leaders.
Asif Afridi, Birmingham

Keith Mills asks if the Boer Republics were democracies. No. They were slave states. They were founded for that purpose. The Boers left Cape Colony and Natal in the Great Trek as a response to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. All the slaves were liberated by the British victory in the war. Of course, the British colonies themselves had a restricted franchise, based on property ownership. Few black people could vote in Cape Colony or Natal, but the franchise was not specifically based on race until after the union of the British and Boer colonies. After the union black property owners had their voting rights stripped from them by the Boer-majority electorate.
Quentin Langley, Woking UK

Add your answer