Thanas wrote:Popularity among idiots has never been a reason to dispute the worth or validity of theories. If it were, evolution should be considered the worst theory ever out there considering the amount of harm it caused due to people not understanding it (social darwinism, colonialism, civilization theory etc.)
You misunderstand. I think the theory is dubious for various reasons including a mixture of its proponents using a no true scotsman fallacy or having a small sample size. I think one of the reasons it persists despite being dubious is because its lends itself well (intentionally or not) as a justification for various actions, including imperialistic ones.
George Bush used almost everything out there and the kitchen sink to justify his politics, using theories he did not understand beyond some buzzwords and most likely he just namedropped them in a pathetic attempt to seem smart or justify his actions. Bush using a theory is the same as Hitler using survival of the fittest as justificaiton of the jews - it should be discounted as idiotic per se and not being considered a reflection of the theory.
In any case, even if we assume that this was his intent - to reduce war by turning Iraq into a democracy (which I don't believe a bit) - then he seriously failed to understand even the basic premise of the theory, that of discussion and exchange between nations. As a democratic Iraq would have been surrounded by autocracies I fail to see how that would have even been possible.
I suspected in his wettest dreams he didn't want to stop at Iraq, and anyone a democratic Iraq would naturally be friends with a democratic America.
Although again I wasn't discrediting the theory because Bush specifically used it per se, I am arguing it lends itself to be used. Whereas survival of the fitest was not meant to be an "ethical" theory, the link between the premise that "true democracies rarely wage war on each other" to the action of "promoting democracy" seems more obvious to me compared to the evolution example.
I would say that suspicion in general depends on a lot of factors, of which this theory might enhance some perceptions or not. After all, proponents of democracies have no qualms about dealing most dictatorships. Heck, not even Europeans are unwilling to deal with dictatorships. And just speaking from a personal point of view, I as a civilian would automatically be more wary of any state that is not accountable to its people simply because they might decide to disappear me without me having a say about it.
I would agree largely with your statement about a lot of factors and the theory enhancing some perceptions. Ultimately though, as someone who leans towards empirical evidence, I would judge behaviour more important than perception.
Besides, the theory is mainly a reflection of the fact that democracies have used treaties and diplomatic process to bury resentment and resolve territorial disputes, whereas dictatorships generally do not. Even "enlightened" dictatorships like China and Vietnam are currently involved in BS disputes about some islands instead of resolving the things through decades of rapproachment and conciliation. Dictatorships generally do not give up significant territorial claims like, say, Germany and France did with the Saarland and Alsace-Lorraine. Instead these are kept, like in the case of China and Vietnam.
I think you are being selective here. European democracies still have territorial disputes with each other, for example Gibraltar. Also the territorial disputes between China and Tajikistan was settled with China only gaining a fraction of the disputed territory. What they "gave up" was larger than territories involved with the current dispute it has with Vietnam. If I were tasked with trying to explain that, I would most likely go for pragmaticism as an explanation (ie China is more willing to make concessions when it has other concerns) rather than a democracy vs autocracy mindset. Even if my hypothesis is wrong, the Tajikistan issue would suggest its more complicated than democracies are more likely to negotiate and prefer non peaceful means.
I don't see this theory being that important in threat assesments. If it were, Europe would not be currently in talks with Asian dictatorships to expand their business. The chinese threat largely seems to exist in the mind of the USA as well and even then it is more the fear of losing regional supremacy than anything about a democracy. And quite frankly, I am pretty sure dictatorships have a much better propaganda apparatus to sow the fear of the west.
1. You're most probably right that its predominantly the US who thinks about a China threat in this manner. I will also admit the "they aren't a democracy" is most probably just another reason along with "we might lose our hegemony" as a justification in their minds for their fear.
2. Even if autocracies have better propaganda apparatus, its not really that relevant to my point.
Sure. That doesn't bode too well for China though, what with their internal and external wars. It bodes less well for the USA, but it is not as if one nation would get off squeaky clean here.
I would just like to add that this observation can be extended to various European nations. But I am going to hazard a guess that a lot of people don't think of European nations as most likely to start a war. They tend to like that Asian nation who hasn't fought one since 1979.
Do you consider Putin's Russia a democracy? I don't. I also probably would not count the Ukraine as a democracy right now.
Democracy is on a spectrum. Modern day Western democracies would more democratic than say the US at the time of the civil war, which in turn would be more democratic than classical Greece. I am no expert on Putin's Russia, but I would have thought since they allowed women to vote, they would be further along the spectrum than say 19th century USA.
However, I would disagree that if a democratic country breaks the premise of the theory then that it is not a true democracy. But no modern democracies have ever fought a war against each other, so at least the basic premise seems to be correct.
You already answered early to Metahive. But I also noted the case of US actions against Iran in the 1950s and Chile as well in the 1970s. I see this in some ways parallel to Athens destruction of Melos. A case where geopolitical alliances (Melos to Sparta, Chile leaning towards the second world) outweighing any shared supranational ideology (democracy).
I don't believe capital punishment is a human rights violation. Where have I said so? I have said I don't believe in it and consider it immoral, but last i checked being immoral =/= human rights violation.
I had mistakenly assumed since various human rights groups contend that capital punishment is a human rights violation that you had similar views. Thus I will withdraw this statement.
Thanas wrote:- while it is true that a democratic process can help states to become more friendly to each other, it might also have negative effects if populists get elected
Agreed.
- The time frame is too small and there are too many external and internal factors to really bookmark the impact of any factor, whether it be economic, political etc. to be declared more important.
- It is - as of now - unverifiable.
I would agree that if they are going to narrow the window so to speak to post WWII they have a really small sample size making it difficult to prove.
I would also add that if we take at face value their definition of democracy (quoted in the OP) then I can make a case that a lot of nations we consider democracies will not be considered so under such a definition. In effect making this theory even harder to prove because you further reduce the sample size.
- Democracies are not the only ones thriving for peace. Bismarck, an autocrat, always sought conciliatory war goals in those wars he did fight. After his victory over France, he alone kept the peace in Europe for close to 30 years whereas other (elected, if not democratic in the modern sense) leaders tried to entice another war.
Makes sense to me.
- Modern democracies of this day are so entangled in webs of alliances and mutual dependencies that one would be a great nutjob to start a war with another modern democracy.
A lot of modern democracies are also economically powerful, or allied to a powerful state. This also serves as a deterrent.