Democracy.

This is coolbert:

"Pray tell, my brother,
Why do dictators kill
and make war?
Is it for glory; for things,
for beliefs, for hatred,
for power?
Yes, but more,
because they can"

“No War between democracies?”

"No sovereign states with democratic political systems have ever fought each other."

"virtually no military action between them."

Here from the Rudy Rummel web site, some extracts, Q&A by the Professor.

Professor Rudy Rummel, quite a remarkable figure. Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii, and a man who has been nominated FOR THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!!

A man who advocates and attempts to popularize the proposition that DEMOCRACY - - widespread throughout the world, those nations comprising the international order - - AND NOT totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorial, almost absolutely DO NOT engage in warfare or violence directed against one another.

"freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence"

WAR or the threat of war, not absolutely eliminated from the human condition, but greatly ameliorated!!

For the purposes of the Q&A, democracy and war are defined as:

A: "[an] electoral system through which people choose their representatives and leaders . . . regular elections for high office, a secret ballot, a franchise including nearly the whole adult population, and competitive elections" [democracy]

A: "I limit what is war to the international system and that fought between sovereign states that mutually recognize each other as a sovereign." [war]

That democracies as we understand them DO NOT fight war among themselves, is open to question? Certain historical examples seem to suggest that from time to time, democracies do engage in mutual warfare? As part of his Q&A, the Professor answers back:

1. War of 1812. USA versus Great Britain. Two democracies in conflict with one another?

A: "At the time of the War of 1812, Great Britain was not a democracy, regardless of the existence of a parliamentary government. Voting was not secret, the franchise was highly restricted to a small minority . . . only less than one-third of the Commons was properly elected . . . the House of Lords, an appointed body, had considerable power and could veto any general legislation the Commons passed."

2. American Civil War. Northern states forming the Union versus the southern states in rebellion, secession. Two democracies in conflict with one another?

A: "No. This was a civil war, not an international one. The South was not a sovereign democracy at that time . . . the franchise was limited to free males (which constituted about 35 to 40 percent of all males in the Confederacy), President Jefferson Davis was not elected, but appointed by representatives themselves selected by the Confederate states."

3. World War One. Germany versus France. Merely two of the combatants in the Great War. Nonetheless - - two democracies in conflict with one another?

A: "No. At the time of World War I Germany was not a full democracy. The Kaiser still had much power. He had control over the army, appointed and could dismiss the chancellor, and played a key role in foreign affairs. In effect, therefore, in foreign and military affairs, the German legislature had little control"

4. World War Two. Hitler, an elected leader, appointed chancellor of a democratic nation. Again, Germany and France, combatants during The Second World War. Two democracies in conflict with one another?

"A: Germany was not a democracy at the time it carried out its genocide and mass murder, and aggression. Nor was Hitler elected. Before then, he turned Germany into a dictatorship."

[Hitler was appointed Chancellor, NOT elected. He did have a plurality of the votes but not a majority!]

5. Wars fought between the various American Indian nations and the USA. The Iroquois and the Cherokee for instance, practiced a form of democracy perhaps even more "pure" than the form of republican democracy as found in the current USA. Democracies in conflict with one another?

A: "Now, while Indian tribes were truly independent, they were not part of an international legal system that recognized that independence, and, in fact, were seen as tribes of savages."

Widespread democracy will mean an end to war as fought on the international level? Rudy Rummel makes a good case that this will be so. That is not to say that all war or human conflict will be eliminated. But the types of war as fought in the 20th Century, war on a global between the various nation-states, will be lessened to a degree where the phenomenon will more or less disappear.

coolbert.