User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another"

One of the disputed findings from the research on the Democratic peace theory is that there have been no wars between liberal democracies. Critics argue that here are many historic examples of wars between democracies. Supporters argue that closer examination shows that none of these conflicts were wars between democracies. These and other possible counter-examples have been discussed in great detail in the literature.

Definitions
War and liberal democracy can be defined in different ways. Quantitative research on international wars usually define war as a military conflict with more than 1000 killed in battle. This is the definition used in the Correlates of War Project which has also supplied the data for many studies on war.

The early researcher and political scientist R.J. Rummel in the book Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence states that "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights." "A well-established democracy is one for which enough time has passed since its inception for peace-sufficient democratic procedures to become accepted and democratic culture to settle in. Around three years seems to be enough for this."

The book Never at War by the historian Spencer R. Weart uses somewhat similar definitions. One difference is that Weart defines war as more than 200 battle deaths. This book also proposes a related peace between oligarchies.

In his book Grasping the Democratic Peace, political scientist Bruce Russett also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece.

Political scientist James Lee Ray, in his book Democracy and International Conflict, requires that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election.

A well-known critic is political scientist Joanne Gowa and her book Ballots and Bullets. Regarding possible exceptions, she finds two: The Spanish-American War and the Continuation War.

Note that the following article discusses specific conflicts that may be exceptions to the claim of no wars between liberal democracies. It does not discuss possible explanations for this peace, if the peace is statistically significant, or whether it is possible statistically to show support for causality between democracy and peace. Nor is other claims discussed, like that there are few Militarized Interstate Disputes between liberal democracies, that liberal democracies conduct diplomacy differently, or that liberal democracies have few civil wars.

Ancient

 * Wars involving the Athenian democracy. Most notable is the Sicilian Expedition (415 BC-413 BC).
 * Russett finds no wars between liberal democracies in modern times but uses different definitions for democracy and war for Ancient Greece. He finds several wars between Athens and other democracies. Still, he argues that some of these may have been caused by misperception caused by the poor communications. He also finds much textual evidence that democracies and oligarchies were reluctant to attack and frequently allied with states that had the same political arrangement.
 * The city states in Ancient Greece had large numbers of non-voting slaves and metics. At most half of the adult males in Athens could vote. Many of the government leaders in Athens were selected by allotment and thus did not have to worry about being elected or re-elected. Ray therefore argues that these states had little resemblance to modern liberal democracies and did not fulfill the criteria above.
 * Weart in his book Never at War instead argues that Athens was a borderline democracy but that the opposing states did not fulfill the criteria above or that the conflicts caused no or very few battle deaths.


 * Punic Wars (264 BC-146 BC) Both states usually considered oligarchies. The Roman Republic had large numbers of non-voting slaves, former slaves, Italian allies, and foreigners. Roman citizens had different political rights based on heredity and wealth. The Roman Senate had the real power and was dominated by noble families. See also the discussion in Never at War regarding whether there is enough information about Carthage to determine the exact form of government there at the start of each of these wars.

Modern

 * The frequent raids on and eventual destruction of most of the Hurons by the Iroquois. Both had some democratic elements such as voting and assemblies. Were not liberal democratic states but rather tribes formed by the extended kinship group. Weart argues that the most important difference to states was the lack effective control of personal raids against non-kinship groups which eventually escalated by involving relatives and friends to vendettas and wars.


 * American Revolutionary War (1775–1783). The United States can be considered a liberal democracy after the Continental Congress but was less than three years old. Only a few percent had the right to vote in the United Kingdom, many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in Parliament were appointed or openly bought from the owners of rotten boroughs, and the House of Lords could veto all laws. The monarchy under George III retained important powers, in particular regarding the appointment of colonial officials and the power to declare war.


 * Quasi-War (1798–1800). Far less than 1000 battle deaths. The franchise in the French Directory was restricted to a minority of wealthy Frenchmen. In 1797 there was a coup d'etat which used troops against the opposition, closed down opposing newspapers, cancelled election results, and condemned hundreds of opponents to exile or death.


 * War of 1812 (1812-1815). Only a few percent had the right to vote in the United Kingdom, many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in Parliament were appointed or openly bought from the owners of rotten boroughs, and the House of Lords could veto all laws. The monarchy retained important powers.


 * Trail of Tears (1838). The Cherokees had created a republican constitution in 1827 that in theory had many democratic rights. However, the nation allowed slaveholding and become increasingly authoritarian, in the end beating, censoring and even murdering those advocating a voluntary removal. The state of Georgia decreed that the government was dissolved in 1828 which was before three years had passed since the creation of the constitution. No battle deaths.


 * Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Mexican President Mariano Paredes was a general that took power in a coup d'etat.


 * Sonderbund War (1847). Far less than 1000 battle deaths. Democracy was less than 3 years old in Zurich which was the leading Protestant Canton. The Catholic Cantons restricted the suffrage to Catholic men and in many also to a group that descended from the original inhabitants. Still, a majority of the males had the vote in some of them. The Protestants and liberals attempted a rebellion in Catholic Lucerne but were defeated. Some fled what they called a Catholic "reign of terror". Lucerne announced that Jesuits would be responsible for the educational system. This was perceived as evidence that Lucerne was now a regime under the thumb of the autocratic Pope. A private expedition of volunteers tried to "liberate" Lucerne but failed. The perceptions of nondemocracy was strengthened when the Catholic Cantons refused to comply with the majority of the Swiss Federal Council and turned for aid to foreign Catholic powers like the Habsburgs. Switzerland had once gained independence from autocratic Habsburg rulers and had also later fought several wars with them.


 * The war between the French Second Republic and the Roman Republic (19th century) (1849). Both young democracies less than 3 years old where the leaders were not accustomed to compromise. The Pope had promised to excommunicate those that took part in the elections, leaving only inexperienced radicals in the Roman government during the few months it existed. The French President and later Emperor Louis Napoleon needed support from the conservative Catholics and the military. The young French assembly was led to believe that the French expedition was a simple police action in order to restore order in a chaotic regime and to protect Rome from foreign monarchies that planned an intervention. The army officers on the scene distrusted everything republican and despite the unexpected resistance launched an attack and conquered Rome without a mandate from the French assembly. The news of this caused violent uprisings in France. The critics called the military repression of these the "the Roman expedition into the interior".


 * American Civil War (1861-1865). Weart argues that the Confederate States of America was less than 3 years old at the start of the war. Less than 2/3 of the adult male population could vote in the Confederacy. The state was created in order to continue the suppression of the black slave population. Wealthy planters played on racial fears in order to avoid criticism from poor whites. Abolitionists were censored and imprisoned even before Lincoln was elected and he was not on the ballot in most parts of the South. In the first elections in the confederacy, voters in many areas again had no choice of candidates.


 * Ray argues that there was never a competitive presidential election in the confederacy. There was no choice of candidates in the 1861 presidential election. Only in some districts were there two candidates for the Confederate Congress. On the other hand, the delegates from the six states at the Montgomery Convention discussed other presidential candidates. All final votes, from approving documents to electing officers, were to be unanimous in order to impress the Union and the border states.


 * War of the Pacific (1879-1884). Only one man in fifty could vote in Chile and Peru.


 * First Boer War (1880-1881). Britan was not a liberal democracy before the Representation of the People Act 1884. The new Boer state was less than 3 years old and the Black population was excluded from the franchise. Less than 1000 battle deaths.


 * Fashoda Incident (1898). No battle deaths.


 * Spanish-American War (1898). This is one of Gowa's two claimed exceptions to the democratic peace. She notes that Spain received a score of 6 out of 10 for democracy in the Polity data set which in this data set is categorized as "democratic". Ray and Weart argue that Spain was not a liberal democracy. In Spain all males could vote and the constitution in theory protected many civil liberties. However, there was the Turno system where corrupt officials manipulated the elections to return to office as many of their own party as they wished, dissidents were jailed, 1/4 of the members of the Cortes were appointed by the King or had hereditary positions, the monarchy retained important powers, and a military coup d'etat was feared if Spain would compromise in the negotiations. Another argument for Spain being a democracy may be that the failed war caused a change in leadership. But this has happened in undisputed dictatorships, like in Argentina that was ruled by a military junta before the unsuccessful Falklands war.


 * Philippine-American War (1899–1913). No democratic elections in the Philippines. The Philippine regime was less than 3 years old. One group of Filipinos had proclaimed a constitution which explicitly gave the power to a small group of landowners and professionals. Emilio Aguinaldo was declared president without elections. He was suspected of killing two of his main political rivals and nearly all foreign observers saw no chance for genuine self-government, but only different regional groups and bandits. US president William McKinley stated that it would be immoral to withdraw and leave the Filipinos to fight one another or be occupied by an European power or Japan.


 * Second Boer War (1899–1902). Only males from the minority White population had the right to vote in the Boer states. White Uitlanders were excluded from the franchise in Transvaal.


 * World War I (1914-1918). The German Reichstag was elected by all adult males and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war. However, the German Kaiser retained most of the power. All the appointments to the bureaucracy, the armed forces, and the diplomatic forces were made at his sole discretion. It was common knowledge that the army strongly supported him and would would arrest his opponents if he so desired. Open criticisms could and was punished as lese majesty. The German Chancellor in 1913 ignored a vote of no confidence, explaining that he served at the discretion of the Kaiser alone. The Reichstag was not consulted regarding the declaration of war, but only informed after the fact that its support was required to approve the allocation of funds for the defence against the Tsarist Russia.


 * One argument against the above is claiming that Germany was every bit as democratic as the United Kingdom. Only approximately 60% of British males could vote and the House of Lords was (and is) not democratically elected. However, this ignores that the House of Lords and the Monarchy had lost most real power during the previous century. The Parliament Act 1911 limited the powers of the House of Lords to reject bills. Also, if the United Kingdom was not a liberal democracy at this time, then this is another reason for WWI not being a war between democracies.


 * Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921). The Irish state was less than 3 years old. The initial violence involved rebels acting on their own outside democratic control. Later democratic control of the Irish Republican Army was doubtful and immediately after the war one part of the IRA tried to overthrow the government in the Irish Civil War.


 * Occupation of the Ruhr (1923-1924). No battle deaths.


 * World War II (1939-1945). Adolf Hitler lost the 1932 presidential election to Paul von Hindenburg. The Nazis gained the largest minority vote in the 1933 Reichstag election after the Reichstag fire, the Reichstag Fire Decree, and an election campaign where the Nazis used threats and violence. A voting coalition with the DNVP allowed them to pass the Enabling Act. Thereafter they ruled by decree and all political parties except the NSDAP were dissolved. There were no free elections and civil liberties were ignored.


 * Continuation War (1941-1944). This is one of Gowa's two claimed exceptions to the democratic peace. Five months after the start of the war, the United Kingdom reluctantly issued a formal declaration of war on Finland due to pressure from Soviet Union. However, the United Kingdom's only significant act of war happened prior to the declaration, a Royal Air Force raid on German-run mining operations. The British were not attacking Finns. The formal declaration meant nothing but some financial restrictions and the seizure of shipping. Another argument is that Finland lost 69 merchant ships outside the Baltic Sea. But neutral Sweden lost 200. Finland spent WWII fighting a totalitarian opponent, the Soviet Union, who had previously attacked the nation. Using a formal declaration of war as the definition of war would mean that there have been very few wars after WWII. For example, there has been no declaration of war by the United States since WWII despite involvement in several large scale conflicts causing many battle deaths.


 * Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Both states less than 3 years old. Poorly functioning democracy in Pakistan.


 * Operation Ajax (1953). British and US supported coup d'etat. Less than 1000 battle deaths. Iran was perceived as turning into a Communist dictatorship.


 * Operation Pbsuccess (1954). United States supported coup d'etat. Far less than 1000 battle deaths. The United States perceived Guatemala as a nascent Communist dictatorship.
 * Cod Wars (1958-1976). No battle deaths.


 * Operation Power Pack (1965). Military coup d'etat in 1963 in the Dominican Republic took power from Juan Bosch. An uprising in 1965 seized the presidential palace and installed a provisional president, Rafael Molina Ureña. Followed by civil war. The new regime was less than 3 years old and not democratically elected when the United States intervened, fearing a Communist takeover.


 * Six-Day War (1967). Lebanon sent jets into Israel at beginning of the war. No battle deaths. Poorly functioning democracy in Lebanon.


 * Chilean coup of 1973. The United States tried to undermine Salvador Allende's regime but was not directly involved in the coup d'etat. Chile was perceived as turning into a Communist dictatorship. Far less than 1000 battle deaths.


 * Turkish Invasion of Cyprus (1974). Initial hostilities after a coup d'etat in Cyprus. Both the later formally democratic regime in Cyprus and that in Turkey was less than 3 years old. The military retained significant influence in both. Less than 1000 battle deaths.


 * Paquisha Incident (1981). Far less than 1000 battle deaths. Both young democracies less than 3 years old. Lacking democratic control over the military on both nations.


 * Yugoslav Wars (1991-1999). Serbia did not fulfill the criteria for a liberal democracy. Frequent and arbitrary changes of election laws and districts, even retroactively after elections. Press freedom greatly restricted. Slobodan Milosevic's regime controlled the state television and radio broadcasts. Electoral manipulation including: massive double voting, "voting" of persons being permanently absent or deceased, the pressure on employees by the management of "socially owned companies", organised planting of already prepared voting ballots into the polling boxes, forging of electoral records and election board records, alteration of the election results made by electoral commissions, the large-scale annulment of the election results by courts rulings, and changing the number of participating voters in order to fulfil the legal requirements for the validity of the elections.


 * In addition, the Ten-Day War and the War in Croatia would be excluded as both sides were less than 3 years old. Also, Croatia was not a liberal democracy for similar reasons as those mentioned for Serbia.


 * Cenepa War (1995). Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori had made an auto-coup in 1992 and took on dictatorial powers. Less than 1000 battle deaths.


 * Eritrean-Ethiopian War (1998-2000). No elections in Eritrea before the war. Authoritarian regime not respecting civil and political liberties. Poorly functioning democracy in Ethiopia.


 * Kargil War (1999). Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan at the time of the Kargil War, suppressed opposition-led demonstrations, arrested opposition activists, curtailed civil liberties, and persecuted independent NGOs and journalists. The judiciary at first tried to check the Sharif, but later gave up. His supporters stormed the Supreme Court of Pakistan and he forced the Chief Justice out of office. He also passed laws removing the legal possibilities to dismiss him from office and stating that party leaders could dismiss any of their legislators if they failed to vote as they were told.

Ongoing

 * Burundi Civil War (1993-). The democracy was less than 3 years old when the elected leaders were killed in an attempted military coup d'etat a few months after the first democratic election in 1993. Followed by ethnic massacres and civil war. New elections in 2005. Still some fighting from a guerilla group that tried to disrupt the elections.


 * Al-Aqsa Intifada (2000-). Yasser Arafat was elected president in 1996 but new elections were postponed in 1998. The Infifada started in 2000. Arafat's regime ignored many civil liberties and ruled autocratically. Elections in 2005 and 2006 following Arafat's death but the new regime is less than 3 years old.


 * Waziristan War (2004-). The current conflict started before 3 years had passed since the first elections after Pervez Musharraf's coup d'etat. Democracy still functions poorly in Pakistan. In Waziristan many decisions in tribal life are made by a Jirga of elders. Frequent blood feuds and vendettas. Not a liberal democratic state but rather tribes having some similarity to the earlier mentioned Iroquois and Hurons.