Question: Has a democratic nation ever declared war on another democratic nation?

[InvisibleChurch]

I'd heard somewhere that a country that has a democratically elected govt has never attacked another country with a democratically elected govt. Is this so? Or does this all depend on what the meaning of "democratically elected" is?

[hubbubhubbub]

We declared war on Mexico.

[A. Pole]

We declared war on Mexico.

But Mexico was less democratic and they had the land that we needed.

[Polybius]

In 1898, Spain was a Parliamentary monarchy that had had universal male suffrage since 1890.

[x]

Or does this all depend on what the meaning of "democratically elected" is?

It does. You can argue that nineteenth century monarchies with limited franchise parliamentary governments were democratic or undemocratic, depending on what you want to prove. Historically, most nations have had submerged populations that will allow you to argue that they weren't democratic when you want to.

The War of 1812 pitted two countries with elected government against each other. Arguably the American Civil War and the Boer War did the same (some will exclude civil wars and revolutionary wars from consideration). The First World War may also qualify. Germany and Austria certainly had elections. They weren't tyrannies or absolutist states.

The Straight Dope (not the best source) says that since 1945 Israel and Lebanon was the only possible case of a war between two democracies, but Lebanon was already embroiled in Civil War and may not even have had a true national government.

At heart the argument may be that in democracies people are too interested in their own well-being to start wars of conquest. Sanity and self-interest prevail over martial passions. Democracies will only go to war when they feel threatened, and the threat usually comes from non-democracies. You get things like "Cod Wars," but they stop short of real fighting.

It's certainly something to think seriously about. But it didn't keep the peace in 1812 or 1914. Nor did it prevent representative governments from fighting imperial wars against traditional tribal or monarchical states and peoples that hadn't yet developed democracies.

[Rockingham]

As a rule, democracies do not go to war with each other. Various writers have pointed this out, but Reagan era UN ambassador Jeanne Kilpatrick is usually credited as the first to widely promote it in the late 1970's. Systematic research confirms the point, with marginal academic quibbles over definitions, exceptions, and subsidiary issues.

The essential point is that nondemocratic governments tend to be unpopular, dysfunctional, and sometimes pathological, to generate real or perceived grounds for war, and find a sense of hostility toward other peoples a useful distraction for restive, resentful domestic populations. Under stress, nondemocratic governments can find that even the costs and risks of war are a rational choice for the sake of survival.

As for democracies, electorates rarely want to risk getting themselves and family members killed, so democracies tolerate or resolve their differences with other democracies peacefully. Moreover, in democracies, losing power does not mean the noose, and there is always the hope that the winners will be voted out at a later election.

The strongest arguable exception to the rule is the American Civil War, with both combatants being democracies. Of course, civil wars in a democracy are beyond the scope of the proposition and its focus on the risks of war to other nations.

[Age of Reason]

Has a democratic nation ever declared war on another democratic nation

That's like asking if a happy person was every unhappy.

1) When a democracy or republic becomes angry, it first changes its form of government, then goes to war.

2) And when attacked, a democracy or republic also become less so (the patriot act, for example or the Union during the civil war, etc.).

The kind of government doesn't matter--a nation will change its government with changing conditions.

And I guess that means you can no more force an unhappy nation to become a democracy than you can force an uphappy person to be happy.

[Age of Reason]

Of 116 major wars of 438 countries between 1789 and 1941 not one involved democracies on both sides

During those years, how many democracies existed at the same time?

And count us out--we're a republic.

[Age of Reason]

We declared war on Mexico.

Anyway, didn't we also declare war on Spain in 1898?

But we're a republic, anyway.

[Age of Reason]

As a rule, democracies do not go to war with each other.

Of course--such nations generally change their form of government, and then go to war.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Granted, that as representative forms of government expand in number, the chances of conflict between them could increase. By Democracy, IIRC, Rummel defines it as a representative government with over X amount of the population having the vote. It's not meant in the literal sense.

[Age of Reason]

My other posts immediately above might interest you.

[RightWhale]

Yeah, that assertion seems somewhat rhetorical. There are many gradations of democratic constitutions, some of which would allow for modern variants such as national socialism or fascism or even communism. All these are democracies, strictly speaking.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Thank you.

[RightWhale]

Republics are a modern variant of classical democracy.

[Age of Reason]

LHas a democratic nation ever declared war on another democratic nation?

Or to put what I'm saying another way, that's like asking if peaceful country ever declared war on another peaceful country.

To maintain a democracy you first need a fat and happy populace.

Or the people will fight among themselves until a strong leader rises to squash all internal opposition, establish a dictatorship, and unite his populace by identifying a foreign cause for their unhappiness.

[Age of Reason]

Republics are a modern variant of classical democracy.

Then has one republic ever declared war on another republic or on a democracy?

[Age of Reason]

By Democracy, IIRC, Rummel defines it as a representative government with over X amount of the population having the vote.

I seem to recall that many dictatorships had what must have been an over X amount of their citizens vote for their leader.

However, there was only one candidate in those elections.

Although these days here in America, it's getting harder and harder to tell our candidates apart.

[InvisibleChurch]

well, no, because I don't know hence the question ... it's been interesting to read what definitions of "democracy" are

[chudogg]

"The last king that believed Britain was a monarchy had the government disagree with him to the point where he lost his head over the issue." And that was in the 1600s. Since the revolution of 1688 Britian has been run by Parliment.

Eh, i wouldn't go that far. Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy and the King still held great influence, rather than the ceremonial role that would come later. Britain still had a ways to go to a fully parliamentary system at 1812.

[Cheburashka]

A trite variation is that "no two nations with McDonalds restaurants have ever gone to war with each other".

That's more believable, somehow.
---
There has been a McDonalds in Belgrade since 1988. So that goes out the window, thanks to Bubba's air war.