Dean's World

Every time I've mentioned the Democratic Peace Theory, a certain argument comes up. It is a rational argument and deserves to be considered, and it boils down to, "how do you define 'democracy' and 'war?'"

Now I must note that when I've debated this, I've been linking to one of the world's foremost political scientists, and if you follow the links I provide you will generally find that he references peer-reviewed papers that have been published in journals of political science. It's important that you understand the significance of that: a paper in a peeer-reviewed journal is not Gospel, but it is written by a respected researcher and, before it's published, it undergoes a lengthy process where other qualified researchers in the field review it carefully, point out possible flaws or objections, challenge his references, and give the author a chance to meet their objections and/or clarify his reasoning before publication.

In other words, while a peer-reviewed paper may be wrong about something, it is extraordinarily arrogant to think you can just skim it and toss off a casual dismissal. You need to respect the material, and that means that before you spout about it you read it carefully and think about it, under the assumption that someone who's quite smart and quite well-informed wrote it, and that other people who are quite smart and well-informed reviewed it before it got published.

Okay, so, recently a commenter here pointed to this detailed critique of the Democratic Peace Theory. Although I believe this critique has some serious deficiencies, it raises enough strong points that I thought I'd bring it to Dr. Rummel's attention. Rudy responded respectfully and with further references.

When I first read Rudy's response it didn't seem very clear to me. It appeared that he wasn't supporting his argument all that vigorously. But I was wrong. I looked through the materials he linked in reference, and there is more than adequate representation there.

The most important document he linked to my mind was this 1998 paper by James Lee Ray from the Annual Review of Political Science. In it, Ray notes that the Democratic Peace Theory--the notion that democracy in and of itself is a potent force for peace, and that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other--is the best-supported theory in political science today. It reviews exhaustively all the arguments for and against the theory, and gives dissenters their due.

The paper is heavy reading, but completely worth it if you want to understand this theory.

The main section of the paper to draw my attention was the part that addresses the most common objection raised by Dean's World readers: that it's difficult to define "democracy." This is fully laid to rest in Ray's paper. While acknowledging that there is always some imprecision in these things, a working definition accepted by political scientists who endorse the Democratic Peace Theory amounts to (assuming I'm reading it properly):

1) The nation must hold competitive elections. To be defined as competitive, there must be at least two formally independent political parties (or similar groups).

2) 50% or more of the adult population must be allowed to vote.

3) Those in legislative and executive power must have been put into place by said elections.

4) There must have been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of power between independent political parties.

Nations which do not meet all four conditions might be considered proto-democracies or emerging democracies or republics, but would not be considered democracies until they met all four conditions.

This is fairly stringent, but quite workable. It fits most of the nations we typically consider democracies--Canada, the U.S., India, Japan, most European nations, Australia, Brazil, Chile, and so on. It would also exclude nations that most people would recognize as "debateable," including Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestine. These could be considered proto-democracies or emerging democracies, but they have not yet proven themselves truly to be democracies. It would also completely rule out places like Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

Note that it would also allow us to easily tell the difference between democracy and liberal democracy, for to be considered a liberal democracy the vasty majority of adults must be eligible to vote, and freedom of political speech and press must be enshrined in the system of law. Thus the United States, for example, would not have qualified for "liberal democracy" status until the 19th amendment was ratified to give women the vote (and it didn't fully meet the promises of liberal democracy until it guaranteed the franchise to blacks some 40 years ago).

Note also that Ray gives a commonly-accepted poli-sci definition of "war"--an armed conflict with at least 1,000 people killed in battle. Some would object to this, but the fact is that you have to choose your definitions somewhere if you're going to quantify an argument. This is what the political scientists use, and so we use it here.

Ray notes, as do Rummel and many others, that if you accept those two definitions, then there has never been a war between two democracies. Sporadic violence, yes, but surprisingly little even of that. But war? It's never happened.

Ever.

Rummel, Ray, and others also note that statistically, the odds are astronomically against the notion that this is mere coincidence. Again, I suggest you read the materials I've linked before dismissing this: according to their calculations, the odds are literally billions to one against.

Those of you who wish to disagree with the definitions given here are free to to so. Just be aware that political scientists aren't obligated to accept your definitions--and since what we are discussing here is a Theory of Political Science, one which a great many political scientists respect and use, please try to check your arrogance at the door if you decide to disagree. Or just read Ray's paper thoroughly, which examines these questions in great detail, while acknowledging the dissenters and giving them their due.

Read it, and then you'll at least be able to raise your objections intelligently.