Democracy vs Realpolitik: Where do you stand?

[Minotzia]

1992 War of Transnistria (Russia v. Moldova)
1995 Cenepa War (Peru v. Ecuador)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 1996 (Israel v. Lebanon)
1998 Kosovo War (Kosovo v. Yugoslavia)
1999 Kargil War (India v. Pakistan)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 2006 (Israel v. Lebanon)
2008 South Ossetia War (Russia v. Georgia)

And these are but a few in the last two decades.

None of those are democracies; they aren't even republics.

They are (authoritarian) constituional aristocracies pretending to be democratic or republics.

Okay so you actually mean that only Western states can be "real" democracies... Eurocentrism much?

There is no reason for advanced Western nations to go to war with each other because it would serve no purpose. If it did, then we would see war.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

No...answer. Fine.

The goal of the state is to advance it's own power and secure it's prosperity. Mindlessly slaving itslef to an idealogy will run counter productive to that. Therefore I would ally myself with states that share a common enemy, and would avoid allying with stronger states than my own.

[Volnotova]

Okay so you actually mean that only Western states can be "real" democracies... Eurocentrism much?

There is no reason for advanced Western nations to go to war with each other because it would serve no purpose. If it did, then we would see war.

Don't jump to conclusions, read my posts on the pevrious page.

[Minotzia]

Okay so you actually mean that only Western states can be "real" democracies... Eurocentrism much?

There is no reason for advanced Western nations to go to war with each other because it would serve no purpose. If it did, then we would see war.

Don't jump to conclusions, read my posts on the pevrious page.

Democracy - people rule (power)

Three major forms:
Direct
Representative
Republic

All nations meet criterion.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A fully democratic multiparty state with free, fair, frequent, and open elections and incredibly well protected civil rights, but which is one step short of being at war with your own country.

This one because the war is unlikely to ever happen.

[Glen-Rhodes]

1992 War of Transnistria (Russia v. Moldova)
1995 Cenepa War (Peru v. Ecuador)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 1996 (Israel v. Lebanon)
1998 Kosovo War (Kosovo v. Yugoslavia)
1999 Kargil War (India v. Pakistan)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 2006 (Israel v. Lebanon)
2008 South Ossetia War (Russia v. Georgia)

And these are but a few in the last two decades.

Democratic Peace Theory requires both nations to be liberal democracies.* I'd hardly call Russia a liberal democracy even today. The same goes for Ecuador, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, and Georgia, and probably Moldova but I don't even know where that is on a map.

*At least, dyadic effects are what most scholars will argue. There are a shrinking few who believe monadic effects exist.

[Volnotova]

Democracy - people rule (power)

Three major forms:
Direct
Representative
Republic

All nations meet criterion.

And there you prove you have not read anything I wrote down, instead you just (mindlessly) write down a few definitions without elaborating and putting it into context.

*sigh*

[Minotzia]

Democracy - people rule (power)

Three major forms:
Direct
Representative
Republic

All nations meet criterion.

And there you prove you have not read anything I wrote down, instead you just (mindlessly) write down a few definitions without elaborating and putting it into context.

*sigh*

Israel and Lebanon are both democratic nations; Russia and Moldova are both democratic; India and Pakistan are both democratic. The others are also democratic but have been under power of autocrats in the past, as in before the war, so they too should meet your criterion.

[Wamitoria]

And there you prove you have not read anything I wrote down, instead you just (mindlessly) write down a few definitions without elaborating and putting it into context.

*sigh*

Israel and Lebanon are both democratic nations; Russia and Moldova are both democratic; India and Pakistan are both democratic. The others are also democratic but have been under power of autocrats in the past, as in before the war, so they too should meet your criterion.

Other than Israel and India, all of those are illiberal democracies. They vote, but they aren't really free countries.

[Minotzia]

Israel and Lebanon are both democratic nations; Russia and Moldova are both democratic; India and Pakistan are both democratic. The others are also democratic but have been under power of autocrats in the past, as in before the war, so they too should meet your criterion.

Other than Israel and India, all of those are illiberal democracies. They vote, but they aren't really free countries.

Liberal being a biased term. So you mean, of course, only Western democracies are REAL democracies because those other countries are backwards and lower.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Other than Israel and India, all of those are illiberal democracies. They vote, but they aren't really free countries.

Liberal being a biased term. So you mean, of course, only Western democracies are REAL democracies because those other countries are backwards and lower.

Liberal democracies are representative democracies with high levels of civil rights and political freedoms. Just because they have not yet taken hold in 'Eastern' parts of the world does not make the term discriminatory. It's not as if the definition would change if China suddenly qualified.

[Minotzia]

Liberal being a biased term. So you mean, of course, only Western democracies are REAL democracies because those other countries are backwards and lower.

Liberal democracies are representative democracies with high levels of civil rights and political freedoms. Just because they have not yet taken hold in 'Eastern' parts of the world does not make the term discriminatory. It's not as if the definition would change if China suddenly qualified.

Pakistan is a perfect example of a democracy that represents the values of its people and has fair and open elective processes. Just because they don't take kindly to insulting Mohammed doesn't mean that they aren't an advanced democracy.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Liberal democracies are representative democracies with high levels of civil rights and political freedoms. Just because they have not yet taken hold in 'Eastern' parts of the world does not make the term discriminatory. It's not as if the definition would change if China suddenly qualified.

Pakistan is a perfect example of a democracy that represents the values of its people and has fair and open elective processes. Just because they don't take kindly to insulting Mohammed doesn't mean that they aren't an advanced democracy.

Please approach a citizen of Pakistan and make that statement, I will give you money if he/she does not burst out laughing.

Most liberal democracies are in the west, there is nothing bigoted about stating that fact.

And before you call me Euro-centric, I am from the Maldives, which is in South Asia. One of the few real democracies in the Muslim world as of 2008. I would not call it a liberal democracy as such, but we can get there if the Islamists don't ruin my country.

[Minotzia]

Pakistan is a perfect example of a democracy that represents the values of its people and has fair and open elective processes. Just because they don't take kindly to insulting Mohammed doesn't mean that they aren't an advanced democracy.

Please approach a citizen of Pakistan and make that statement, I will give you money if he/she does not burst out laughing.

Most liberal democracies are in the west, there is nothing bigoted about stating that fact.

And before you call me Euro-centric, I am from the Maldives, which is in South Asia. One of the few real democracies in the Muslim world as of 2008. I would not call it a liberal democracy as such, but we can get there if the Islamists don't ruin my country.

Liberality doesn't come into the equation. Democracies grant power to their citizens, and what results will reflect the wants of the voters. Just as the poll states, this can create situations where a society can be very democratic and not hold the same values as other advanced democracies. Just because you don't agree with their policies doesn't make them any less democratic.

[Georgism]

As I said, that is called a republic.

The UK isn't a republic by the definition I use (we have a monarch)

A representative democracy is a contradictio interminis if you define democracy as being ncompatible with authoritarianism.

I don't.

Although really it's all just arguing over semantics anyway. The systems are the same no matter what we call them. We could rename 'anarchy' 'totalitarian space lizard dictatorship' and it'd be the same thing.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Please approach a citizen of Pakistan and make that statement, I will give you money if he/she does not burst out laughing.

Most liberal democracies are in the west, there is nothing bigoted about stating that fact.

And before you call me Euro-centric, I am from the Maldives, which is in South Asia. One of the few real democracies in the Muslim world as of 2008. I would not call it a liberal democracy as such, but we can get there if the Islamists don't ruin my country.

Liberality doesn't come into the equation. Democracies grant power to their citizens, and what results will reflect the wants of the voters. Just as the poll states, this can create situations where a society can be very democratic and not hold the same values as other advanced democracies. Just because you don't agree with their policies doesn't make them any less democratic.

It does when it pertains to the democratic peace thesis. According to which liberal democracies are much less likely to go to war with one another.

Besides, I am not particularly in favour of democracy for countries without a stable middle class and civil society, and are superstitious enough to vote for apostasy/blasphemy laws, but that's just a personal preference that's neither here nor there.

[Minotzia]

Liberality doesn't come into the equation. Democracies grant power to their citizens, and what results will reflect the wants of the voters. Just as the poll states, this can create situations where a society can be very democratic and not hold the same values as other advanced democracies. Just because you don't agree with their policies doesn't make them any less democratic.

It does when it pertains to the democratic peace thesis. According to which liberal democracies are much less likely to go to war with one another.

Besides, I am not particularly in favour of democracy for countries without a stable middle class and civil society, and are superstitious enough to vote for apostasy/blasphemy laws, but that's just a personal preference that's neither here nor there.

So it's BS to claim democracies don't go to war with each other. "Liberal" Western democracies haven't yet and likely won't, but democracy itself isn't the reason why.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

So if your neighbour started calling for your country to be invaded, you wouldn't feel that you needed to intervene - or even concerned?

We are friendly with our neighbors. If that changes, we would change our policy toward them, but not by threatening their democratic institutions. Democracies rarely go to war with other democracies in an existential way, generally only to settle disputes.

This is the only reason to go to war in the first place, derp.

[EnragedMaldivians]

It does when it pertains to the democratic peace thesis. According to which liberal democracies are much less likely to go to war with one another.

Besides, I am not particularly in favour of democracy for countries without a stable middle class and civil society, and are superstitious enough to vote for apostasy/blasphemy laws, but that's just a personal preference that's neither here nor there.

So it's BS to claim democracies don't go to war with each other. "Liberal" Western democracies haven't yet and likely won't, but democracy itself isn't the reason why.

I didn't say I agreed with it. I have not yet studied it in enough depth to have an informed opinion on it - but it's taken as quite a serious challenge to the neo-realist perspective that has traditionally dominated International Relations. On the grounds that war is more in the interests of Kings and tyrants, whereas the population itself, who would derive less benefit from it, would have less incentive to go to war.

Take fault with it if you want - I am not somone who think democracy is a magic pill anyway. But If you are interested in reading their arguement, I would reccomend Bruce Russet's "grasping the democratic peace", and works by Michael Doyle.

Incidentally, If you think Pakistans military alliance with the US is representative of its peoples will, you are completely insane.

And do you think Pakistan has consistently voted to inflate its military budget/Nuclear Weapons over civilian needs - because that's what the people want?

This is the only reason to go to war in the first place, derp.

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

[FREEaquaticdancelesson]

I would overthrow a small tribe and force them to work hours on end at a desk job in a sea of cubicles, crunching numbers and organizing files for over 60 years! They would have to travel miles each and every day through congested traffic, and if they're even seconds late they would be yelled at.
They would have to wear the same damn business attire every day where when the slightest bit of individuality shows they are instantly referred to a manager and disciplined.
There cubicles would be full of pictures from their old tribe, and jungle like locations, with bobble heads of their old chief (who's now district manager of the northeastern region due to leadership skills) and would be forced to make small talk at a water cooler about pointless occurances in their daily lives!

[Glen-Rhodes]

Liberality doesn't come into the equation.

It does when you're talking about the Democratic Peace Theory. Sniped!

So it's BS to claim democracies don't go to war with each other. "Liberal" Western democracies haven't yet and likely won't, but democracy itself isn't the reason why.

Nobody has said that 'democracies' don't go to war with each other. Liberal democracies have a far less chance of going to war with each other, based on a number of factors, of which liberal democratic norms is one.

[Minotzia]

Liberality doesn't come into the equation.

It does when you're talking about the Democratic Peace Theory. Sniped!

So it's BS to claim democracies don't go to war with each other. "Liberal" Western democracies haven't yet and likely won't, but democracy itself isn't the reason why.

Nobody has said that 'democracies' don't go to war with each other. Liberal democracies have a far less chance of going to war with each other, based on a number of factors, of which liberal democratic norms is one.

Someone did say that democracies don't go to war with each other:

Perhaps the history buffs could provide a list of wars where two democracies go to war with each other.

I then responded with such a list, which has led to this nonsense where you back a position I've not attacked but instead use as offense against my original claim.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I then responded with such a list, which has led to this nonsense where you back a position I've not attacked but instead use as offense against my original claim.

You've been responding to people who actually understand democratic peace in a way to suggest that you're trying to refute what we've been saying. If you are saying that 'democracy' alone doesn't correlate with peace, then we're in agreement.

But you've also responded to those people who are accurately describing the theory with claims that's it's "BS." For example, you responded to one of my posts, which clearly explained the difference between democracy and liberal democracy as it applies to the theory, with the Pakistan example.

So, if you agree that liberal democracies aren't likely to go to war with each other, then this back-and-forth is silly. But you keep trying to refute our arguments by giving examples of illiberal democracies that have gone to war with each other.

[Minotzia]

I then responded with such a list, which has led to this nonsense where you back a position I've not attacked but instead use as offense against my original claim.

You've been responding to people who actually understand democratic peace in a way to suggest that you're trying to refute what we've been saying. If you are saying that 'democracy' alone doesn't correlate with peace, then we're in agreement.

But you've also responded to those people who are accurately describing the theory with claims that's it's "BS." For example, you responded to one of my posts, which clearly explained the difference between democracy and liberal democracy as it applies to the theory, with the Pakistan example.

So, if you agree that liberal democracies aren't likely to go to war with each other, then this back-and-forth is silly. But you keep trying to refute our arguments by giving examples of illiberal democracies that have gone to war with each other.

My list was attacked because the countries listed were said to be "fake" democracies because they weren't "liberal." It's stupid to argue that a democracy must be liberal in order to be a democracy.

I think the only reason that Democratic Peace Theory holds any water is due to the fact that all of the "liberal" democracies happen to be Western at the moment. Peace between the US, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and European nations has a lot more to do with economic, political, and historical factors than to do with the fact that the people in these societies are given lots of freedoms.

[Glen-Rhodes]

My list was attacked because the countries listed were said to be "fake" democracies because they weren't "liberal." It's stupid to argue that a democracy must be liberal in order to be a democracy.

I don't think anybody is saying that illiberal democracies are 'fake' democracies. They're certainly not ideal and it's certainly reasonable to say that an elected government is not the only requirement for a democracy to be considered a 'real' democracy. North Korea can and does hold frequent elections, for example.

I think the only reason that Democratic Peace Theory holds any water is due to the fact that all of the "liberal" democracies happen to be Western at the moment. Peace between the US, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and European nations has a lot more to do with economic, political, and historical factors than to do with the fact that the people in these societies are given lots of freedoms.

The idea is that liberal democracies are more likely to develop economic interdependence, join in cooperative institutions (the UN, WTO, etc.), and identify positively with each other (due to liberal democratic normative factors). It's not that the domestic institution as an object is what causes the decreased likelihood of war.