Democratic peace theory Debate!

[frigidmagi]

Democratic Peace Theory states that Liberal Democracies will never go to war.

Now I would like your opinions. First I'll give you mine.

I think it's bullshit.

Now you may thinking "why would you think that magi?" Lucky for you, I'll tell ya.

My thought is this, Liberal Democracy is a new thing, only appearing in the late 20th century, yes even in the US. It still in my view has yet to reach it's mature form. Let us look at the world Liberal Democracy came into being in.

In the Late 20th century the Free World (that is the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe) were in direct conflict with forces that were utterly opposed to their very existence. Fighting each other was not only foolish but suicide! Add in the fact that every Liberal Democracy was either connected by intense cultural ties (Australia, New Zealand, US, Western Europe) or utterly dominated by a nation that had those ties (S. Korea, Japan).

Now it may be as Liberal Democracy develops in nations without those ties (possibly in the Ukraine for example... Maybe) we may see the truth of the matter.

But as it stands. Liberal Democracies are open to the will of the people and the will of people at times is war. I believe a world divided by Liberal Democracies will see less war (that and in of itself worth fighting and dying for) but it won't see the end of war.

Your turn.

[Norseman]

There's a quote I like about this: "Democracies represent the peoples' will, and we forget that the peoples' will is often for war." I can find the exact phrasing, but I must admit that I first found it in Twillight: 2000. I think it gets it right though, so far liberal democracies have either been rare or on the same side. This is changing now.

[SirNitram]

Neoliberal theory. Pour into a bucket, stir, and come back in thirty years and you get neocons, who believe that a democracy, no matter what, is immune to terrorism.

[General Havoc]

I have never heard of the theory that Democracies are immune to Terrorism, either from Neocons or anyone else, nor have I any idea what that has to do with the notion of the Democratic Peace Theory.

Now I don't agree with Frigid's analysis of the situation. Whether or not Liberal Democracies never go to war with one another, or simply almost never go to war with one another, I still believe the theory holds true, that the countries do not do so because they are Liberal Democracies, and not simply because of accidents of history and culture, or other factors unconnected with their form of government.

Obviously, while I would not say that Liberal Democracy came about only in the latter half of the 20th century (I believe it dates to an earlier point than that), the phenomenon is fairly recent, especially in South America, Eastern Europe, Southern Africa, and Eastern Asia. Furthermore, yes, it is true that the nations that have Liberal Democracies tend to have strong cultural ties to one another. My point though is that it's impossible to separate the two. The entire concept of Liberal Democracy is a product of Western culture and thought. It therefore stands to reason that nations that have adopted it, even ones that are not culturally Western, will have in doing so aligned themselves on a societal level with certain Western cultural mores. It therefore makes sense that their cultures, whatever their source, would come to find similarities with elements of American or British or Western European culture. Japan did not adopt Liberal Democracy because they were similar to the West culturally. They did so because we atomized their government and rebuilt it in our own image. And yet, having done so, the very notion of Japan engaging in war with either us, or their former enemies (themselves now Liberal Democracies) such as Taiwan or South Korea, is (presently) almost unthinkable. The same could be said for Germany.

Now, firstly, I understand that correlation is not causation, and merely citing examples does not vindicate the theory. Secondly, Germany and Japan (and the rest) have not existed in a vacuum. Much of the reason for their sudden quiescence can be attributed to A: US occupation and protectoratization (more particularly in Japan’s case), and B: The existence of powerful illiberal states against which the Liberal Democracies of the world have been forced to unite or be overwhelmed. These factors are unquestionably contributory (to say the least) to why Germany has stopped its continental adventures and Japan has not tried to reconquer the Co-Prosperity Sphere.

And yet, I don’t see how that alone debunks the theory. Britain and France had nearly a thousand years of constant antagonism behind them during the second millennium, and yet when finally both countries began to approximate liberal democracies (a point I’d place at around the 1880s), their antagonism devolved into bloodless colonial scuffles, then into mutual argument, and then finally into a fairly stable alliance against Germany. You can of course argue that they simply were practicing realpolitik, aligning themselves against a nation that threatened both of their interests, and they were. But I don’t think that disproves the theory at all. Liberal Democracies by definition hold certain values in common, individual rights, elected representation as the legitimizer of government power, and so on. Is it not natural that nations which hold such values in common will look upon nations that do not share those values with greater suspicion and worry? Is it not natural that Liberal Democracies will seek a common foe in the form of illiberal governments?

I believe that it is only natural that Liberal Democracies should find common foes, should band together in some form or another against the illiberal regimes of the world. There may (and will) be sound political reasons for such unification, but I don’t think that invalidates the theory. Whether they’re specifically allied because they are democracies or for completely circumstantial reasons, the tendency does seem to be there. Liberal Democracy is a reasonably new phenomenon, but not so new and so rare that no occasions for conflict have come up.

What happens if (assuming this is even possible) Liberal Democracies come to be the only form of government on Earth? I don’t know. I do not believe in the “End of Historyâ€

[Rogue 9]

Liberal democracy is, to sound completely culturally arrogant, a product of Western political liberalism, as espoused by Locke, Mill, et al. A state that adopts liberal democracy as a form of government almost must, perforce, share Western liberal values, or it would not have taken on that form of government in the first place. The shared philosophy involved is a bit more specific than general "Western values," which of course includes everything from Rome onward, but rather specifically classical political liberalism.

Liberal democracies don't go to war with each other not simply because they share a government form (dictatorships, monarchies, and hell, even early republics in the case of the United and Confederate States did and still do go to war with each other all the time), but because the government form they share is unique to a political theory that limits government power, encourages the citizenry to think in terms of human rights including self-determination (note how, with the rise of liberal democracy, outright conquest has become politically unacceptable, in stark contrast to just a hundred years ago), and in the case of many of the philosophy's founding theorists, promotes trade as a means of resource growth rather than war. In the event of resource scarcity war may be forced, it's true, but I think it's also likely that liberal democracy (though perhaps not democracy or republicanism in general) would collapse as that point approached.

[frigidmagi]

And yet we see Liberal Democracies that do not share that Cultural tie. Both in East Asia (Japan, S Korea, Taiwan) and Eastern Europe who do not have Locke, Mill, or the others among their foundations.

Liberal Democracy to be blunt isn't just a western game anymore.

[Batman]

And yet we see Liberal Democracies that do not share that Cultural tie. Both in East Asia (Japan, S Korea, Taiwan) and Eastern Europe who do not have Locke, Mill, or the others among their foundations.
Liberal Democracy to be blunt isn't just a western game anymore.

All of the above though adopted the idea after considerable exposure TO western political liberalism, and Japan for all practical purposes had the idea FORCED upon them.

[Rogue 9]

All those countries are greatly influenced by the West, especially Japan, whose government was, as pointed out, completely dismantled and directly rebuilt by the United States. Liberal democracy by definition cannot exist without politically liberal ideas; the names of the philosophers are unimportant as long as the ideas are present. Countries needn't share every aspect of Western culture to be liberal democracies. They merely need to share the ideas of limited government and human rights, which naturally gravitate towards not making war in cases where the war would threaten those ideas, which any war against another liberal democracy would do. This is why almost all the wars the United States has been involved in over the course of the latter half of the 20th century have had to be sold, at least in part, on grounds of liberation. That's easy to do when you're attacking a third world dictatorial shithole or a Communist state, but imagine trying to convince the American people that invading, say, Britain would be an act of liberation. The idea is absurd.

[frigidmagi]

All of the above though adopted the idea after considerable exposure TO western political liberalism,

Exposure is not the same as being part of the cultural group. The fact that these either are or are becoming liberal democracies while being of a different cultural group remains.

and Japan for all practical purposes had the idea FORCED upon them.

So what? The average Japanese is quite happy and willing to defend the current set up, therefore the fact that it was imposed by bayonet point is irreverent.

Countries needn't share every aspect of Western culture to be liberal democracies. They merely need to share the ideas of limited government and human rights, which naturally gravitate towards not making war in cases where the war would threaten those ideas, which any war against another liberal democracy would do.

You are forgetting there are other reasons for war. Self Defense for example. Those same Human Rights can impel one towards violence and warfare. To presume simply because of an agreement on the rights of individuals and the role of government (which frankly I think you carry to far, the US and Europe do not agree on the role of government in quite a few ways) will stop any violence in it's tracks is Utopian.

In a democracy all you need do is convince a large enough people that the war is necessary and it can be done. We've all seen this happened.