Gordon Tullock explores the democratic peace:
Apparently many political scientists feel insecure in their teaching that democracy is the best form of government. Thus recently there has been quite a fad in political science arguing that democracies are one way or another peaceful. It’s hard to argue that the Roman Republic was a peaceful conqueror, and the Athenian democracy was hardly reluctant to get into wars. It could of course be argued that these are long ago and that maybe they’re not true democracies. I suspect, however, that they are left out simply because most modern political scientists know little about them. A classical education is no longer part of the normal background of a scholar.
Since democracies undeniably were involved in two major wars in the 20th century and United States succeeded in having a major war that was entirely internal in the 19th century, this contention seems hard to support. It has then been gradually modified in order to bring it into accord with the average political scientist’s gradually growing historical knowledge. The first step was to allege that democracies did not engage in aggressive wars. After this argument had gotten into print, somebody read a little bit about the 19th century in which European democracies seized much of the world by a series of aggressive wars. Thus that particular argument had to be abandoned. I should perhaps say that in no case did anyone say that the previous argument was in error, they just stopped using it.
This leads us to the final version, which is that democracies do not fight with each other. It is to
this myth that this paper is devoted. The two largest wars in recent times were the two world wars. In each of these there were democracies on both sides. This will surprise the average reader since the standard history in United States and England claims that our opponents were dictatorships. Indeed we normally call all of our opponents dictatorships. In essence the wars became virtuous because the democracies fought with, and in fact, defeated dictatorships.Let us start with World War I. On one side was a German Empire that was a constitutional monarchy with an elected legislature that had the power of the purse. In fact it had a large number of socialist members in that legislature. Criticism of this from those who are proponents of the Democratic peace hypothesis normally point out that the upper house was elected by a method which permitted people of upper incomes to have somewhat more votes than the poor. This was true, but consider the upper house in England, which was hereditary. It is true that its powers had been somewhat restricted, but it still could exercise in almost completely effective veto.
Germany had permitted women to vote from well before the beginning of the war. England did not finish making women eligible to vote until 1931. Indeed during World War I there were many males who could not vote until the passage of the representation of the people act in 1918. The United States of course did not permit blacks living in the South to vote. I suppose it could perhaps be argued that this war does not contradict the thesis that democracies do not fight with each other because it could be argued that there were no true democracies on either side.
World War II raises somewhat the same problems in that Japan also had an elected legislature with a responsible cabinet and the power of the purse held by the legislature. The upper house was to some extent hereditary. The Peers elected some among their number to that house. The English legislature still had an hereditary upper house, but it’s power had been severely restricted.
During the war I used to annoy people by asking them the name of the Japanese dictator. Sometimes they replied ‘the Emperor” which simply showed hopeless ignorance of the Japanese system. He was greatly respected but with rare exceptions (one of which was the decision to surrender) respected his Cabinet’s advice. Even on the decision to surrender he did not go against his Cabinet, he merely introduced the surrender and might well have given up had the Cabinet objected.
A second potential dictator of Japan was the prime minister. Inconveniently, for people who favored this particular view there is the fact that right in the middle of the war he was replaced. That doesn’t happen to dictators. I have occasionally encountered people who say that the military class was the dictator. This involves a peculiar usage of terms, but I suppose it could be argued that it was an oligarchy rather than a democracy. So far as I know there are no studies of how the military controlled the government if it did. Thus I have produced two wars with democracies on both sides. The second I agree is a little shaky but the first is clear.
The political scientists will have to find another argument for democracy. Fortunately such other arguments are easy to come upon. The real issue here is why this rather peculiar and new argument was ever introduced.
I object to implying democratic peace arguments are being made with an iota of good faith or due diligence.
Good post. Why was this argument produced? Just off the top of my head:
1. Whistling in the dark or wishful thinking.
2. America and NATO were involved in things like bombing Serbia, and we wanted to seize the moral high ground and provide a reason that Milosevic should be replaced.
3. Intuitive grappling toward the Kantian or Hegelian Permanent Peace that perhaps we can reach just as soon as every country is a democracy.
4. Following from Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society, there is a lot of intellectual brainpower out there just waiting to pounce on any broad argument and support one side — never mind the “mundane specifics.” Knowledge of Rome and Athens takes some time to learn–but many intellectuals like to argue on general principles, especially if they think they are arguing for the correct and progressive side — the side that will make the world a better place.
5. The Peace Dividend sounds like a great thing to emerge from the end of the Cold War — it’s easier to argue for it if you think that democracies will never fight each other.
6. Support for the proposition can be drafted on an afternoon deadline — and op ed columns must be written on something. I recall Tom Friedman arguing that countries that both had McDonald’s franchises rarely if ever fought each other.
You have to be really careful when you speak of representative government in ancient Rome or Greece. About 80 percent of the population in both cases were slaves.
Sure, but in Athens the assembly voting for war were citizens, and they were the ones who had to man the phalanx. Republican Roman legions were also filled with citizens. Slaves didn’t normally have to fight.
“Slaves were normally disarmed, tortured, and generally enslaved” does not equal “Slaves didn’t normally have to fight.” Henry James left America to dodge the Civil War draft so he didn’t have to fight. Didn’t make him a slave.
I’m not sure how the Henry James anecdote or any other reference to the American Civil War is relevant.
I was merely pointing out that the decision for war in Athens was being made by the core group that would have to fight in it, in the context of a discussion on whether or not “democratic” governments are or are not likely to choose war. Nothing more.
In Athens, the democratic system they claimed to have often chose war, and in a discussion of this topic it is relevant that:
1) an assembly that was representative of the people who claimed to be citizens often voted for war; it almost doesn’t matter how narrow the franchise was, insofar as it was at least much, much larger that any viable definition of an oligarchy. More than the membership of Congress or any parliament, or the senior leadership of any executive branch in any modern state. Do 30,000 men have a vote for war in America today? Or even 1,500?
2) the men voting, save the oldest, would be called on to shoulder arms they had paid for themselves in the phalanx and do the work. Also unlike modern society.
All that to say that, however undemocratic the state might have been by modern standards [narrower franchise contrasted with more direct engagement in decision-making by those who held the franchise, Athens took decisions for war by vote among far more voters than is now the case. Put it this way- the society may have been undemocratic, but the decision to choose war was much more democratic than today.
“Slaves were normally disarmed, tortured, and generally enslaved”
You forgot to mention castration — balls alone, balls & penis, penis alone, which was the most degrading but not actually castration. This is why the ancients so often charged into battle chanting, “Death before Dishonor.”
“I was merely pointing out that the decision for war in Athens was made by the core group that would have to fight in it.”
That’s an important point. So is my point: slaves were not excused from fighting. They were prevented from acting for their common defence and general welfare; the rights and duties of a citizen. Slaves were enslaved.
But your point is important. I doubt either of us would have minded seeing Hillary Clinton go to Benghazi and dismiss her security. Or going to Benghazi with enough troops to establish order, but still sharing the risks of her troops.