List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the claims of the^{[ – ]} democratic peace theory is the absence of war (usually defined as more than 1000 battle deaths per year^[][1]) between well-established (usually defined as older than 3 years^{[ – ]}) liberal democracies (electoral democracies granting also a substantial array of civil rights and freedoms).^{[ – ]} Regarding the franchise, one usual requirement is that at least 2/3 of the adult males can vote. Since some of the authors supporting democratic peace theory argue also (or instead) that war is less likely to happen between two electoral democracies, there may be some overlapping between the two terms in the following discussion. Furthermore, since not all researchers use the requirement that democracies must be well-established, wars between young democracies are included also.

Contents 1 Tribal/ancient 2 Modern 3 Ongoing 4 Notes

Tribal/ancient

Conflicts involving certain tribes. For example, Hurons vs. Iroquois.

Arguments for: Frequent raids on and eventual destruction of most of the Hurons by the Iroquois. Both had some democratic elements.

Arguments against: Were not liberal democratic states but rather tribes formed by the extended kinship group. The historian Spencer R. Weart argues that the most important difference to states was the lack effective control of personal raids against non-kinship groups which eventually escalated by involving relatives and friends to vendettas and wars.^[2] p. 253-254.

Wars involving the Athenian democracy. Most notable is the Sicilian Expedition - 415 BC-413 BC

Arguments for: Many of the city-states in Ancient Greece had democratic political systems. One researcher, Bruce Russet, finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs.

Athens, like other Greek democracies, was a direct democracy in which decisions on war and peace were taken by an Assembly of the people. Their chief advisors were ten (elected) generals, and orators who held no office, and were under "more direct and immediate control" by their constituents than modern statesmen. ^[3]

Regarding the supposed absence of natural rights, Athenian citizens had properly formalized rights, including political, legal, property rights and freedom of speech^[4]. Metics and immigrants had the right to own property (but not land except through a special permission), limited but considerable legal rights and protections, and freedom of speech^[5]. Female citizen had no political rights and were required to have a male "legal guardian", but could be appointed to religious offices and were guaranteed legal and property rights^[6]. Only slaves had little or no rights, and limited legal protection against being beaten or killed (even if according to Xenophon^[7] they had many privileges with respect to slaves in other countries in ancient times), but the same applies to slaves in the early United States.

More than 1000 battle deaths during the Sicilian Expedition.

Arguments against: Russett finds no wars between liberal democracies in modern times but uses different and less demanding definitions for democracy and war for Ancient Greece^{[ – ]} (p. 50). We have hardly any figures for battle deaths for antiquity, so Russert does not require them; but some of the wars in question were extremely bloody. Russett finds much textual evidence that democracies and oligarchies were reluctant to attack and frequently allied with states that had the same political arrangement (p. 59). He argues that some of the conflicts may have been caused by misperception regarding the political system caused by the poor communications (p. 55-56).^[8] p. 12, 15, 41-62.

The researcher James Lee Ray argues that these states had little resemblance to modern liberal democracies and did not fulfill the criteria above. The city states in Ancient Greece had large numbers of non-voting slaves and metics. At most half, and probably less, of the adult males in Athens could vote. He argues that in classical times the modern concept of liberties or natural rights did not exist. Various claims that other political systems are or were "really" more democratic than elected representative democracy he sees as unresolvable, instead simply stating that in his research he studies the peacefulness of this particular form of democracy. Decisions in these ancient city states were formed mainly either by leaders selected by allotment or by direct democracy. Both methods are very different from decisions made by leaders selected by elections and many of the proposed structural explanations for the peacefulness involve these elected leaders. Similarly to Russett regarding misperception, he notes that the historian Thucydides states that the Athenian Assembly when voting for war with Syracuse was "were for the most part ignorant of the size of the island and of the numbers of its inhabitants"^[9] p. 97, 103-105. ^[10]

The book Never at War instead argues that Athens was a borderline democracy but that the opposing states did not fulfill the criteria above or that the conflicts caused no or very few battle deaths.^[2] p. 24-37, 298-300.

Wars involving the Roman Republic. In particular, the Punic Wars - 264 BC-146 BC

Arguments for: The leaders in both Rome and Carthage were elected. More than 1000 battle deaths.

Arguments against: Both states usually considered oligarchies. The Roman Republic had large numbers of non-voting slaves, former slaves, Italian allies, and foreigners. Roman citizens had different political rights based on heredity and wealth. The Roman Senate had the real power and was dominated by noble families. See also the discussion in Never at War regarding whether there is enough information about Carthage to determine the exact form of government there at the start of each of these wars.^{[11][12][13][14]} "In practice, however, the constitution became an oligarchy."^[15]

Modern

American Revolutionary War - 1775–1783

Arguments for: More than 134 000 casualties. The United States and Great Britain were among the most democratic states in the world at the time of the war.

Arguments against: The United States can be considered a liberal democracy after the Continental Congress but was less than three years old. Only a few percent had the right to vote in Great Britain, many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in Parliament were appointed or openly bought from the owners of rotten boroughs, and the House of Lords could veto all laws. The monarchy under George III retained important powers, in particular regarding the appointment of colonial officials and the power to declare war. ^{[16] [17] [9]} p. 106-107. ^[2] p. 304-305. The US allowed slaveholding until American Civil War and while illegal in Britain it was allowed in the Empire until the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act.

Quasi-War - 1798–1800

Arguments for: The US and France were among the most democratic states in the world at this time.

Arguments against: Less than 1000 battle deaths: a few dozen. The franchise in the French Directory was restricted to a minority of wealthy Frenchmen. In 1797 there was a coup d'etat which used troops against the opposition, closed down opposing newspapers, cancelled election results, and condemned hundreds of opponents to exile or death. ^[2]p. 305-306. The US allowed slaveholding

War of 1812 - 1812-1815

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths. The US and the UK were among the most democratic states in the world at the time of the war.

Arguments against: Only a few percent had the right to vote in the United Kingdom, many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in Parliament were appointed or openly bought from the owners of rotten boroughs, and the House of Lords could veto all laws. The monarchy retained important powers. ^[16][17][9] p. 106-107. ^[2] p. 135-138, 184-186, 306. The US allowed slaveholding until American Civil War and while illegal in Britain it was allowed in the Empire until the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act.

Trail of Tears - 1838

Arguments for: The Cherokees had created a republican constitution in 1827. The US was an established democracy.

Arguments against: No battle deaths. The Cherokee nation allowed slaveholding and become increasingly authoritarian, in the end beating, censoring and even murdering those advocating a voluntary removal. The state of Georgia decreed that the government was dissolved in 1828 which was before three years had passed since the creation of the constitution. ^[2] p. 225-226, 306-7. The US allowed slaveholding.

Mexican-American War - 1846-1848

Arguments for: The war was ready to start between the United States and the Republic of Mexico when Mariano Paredes took power from president José Joaquín de Herrera, who had been democratically elected. Indeed, in the coup he used troops he had been given to reinforce the border between Mexico and Texas, which had been annexed by the United States in 1845, after gaining independence from Mexico^[18], p. 328.

Arguments against: That the war was ready to start means very little, since there have been many shows of military force in history which did not lead to a full scale war. It actually started under the rule of Mariano Paredes, who was a general that took power in a coup d'etat. Also note that the 1835-1845 Republic of Mexico is rated -3 on the Polity scale (mild autocracy) ^{[18] [19] [2]} p. 201-204, 207, 214. The US allowed slaveholding

Sonderbund War - 1847

Arguments for: A majority of males had the right to vote in most Cantons on both sides. The fact that the Catholic cantons refused to comply with the decisions of the Tagsatzung (federal parliament) simply means that from that point on they refuse to accept the federal authority and consider themselves as individual states with their own parliament: it's the start of the civil war.

Arguments against: Less than 1000 battle deaths: fewer than a hundred. Democracy was less than 3 years old in Zurich which was the leading Protestant Canton. The Catholic Cantons restricted the suffrage to Catholic men and in many also to a group that descended from the original inhabitants. The Protestants and liberals attempted a rebellion in Catholic Lucerne but were defeated. Some fled what they called a Catholic "reign of terror". Lucerne announced that Jesuits would be responsible for the higher education system. This was perceived by Protestants and liberals as evidence that Lucerne was now a regime under the thumb of the autocratic Pope. A private expedition of volunteers tried to "liberate" Lucerne but failed. The perceptions of nondemocracy was strengthened when the Catholic Cantons refused to comply with the majority of the Tagsatzung and turned for aid to foreign Catholic powers like the Habsburgs. ^[2] p. 26-27, 309-310. Switzerland had once gained independence from autocratic Habsburg rulers and had also later fought several wars with them.

French Second Republic vs. Roman Republic - 1849

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths. The leaders of both states had been democratically elected. French Second Republic receives a +6 in the Polity scale (democratic) ^[19]. The Roman Republic lasted too little to be rated, but it approved a quite advanced constitution ^[20] which introduced universal suffrage, freedom of religion and, for the first time in the world, abolished death penalty. President Louis Napoleon was elected in a landslide victory with around 75% of votes. In the 1849 elections, the conservatives won a majority of popular vote and had over 200 seats more than the opposition. Both electoral results were unambiguous and undisputed. No significant popular uprising or repression happened in France from the election of Louis Napoleon to the final days of the war, reported incidents were before or after this time. In the Roman Republic, menace of excommunication appears to be irrelevant, since the Pope also declared excommunication on all voters or deputies in Italy from 1871 to 1905 (1913 regarding deputies) and on all voters of the Italian Communist Party from 1949 on. In France there was indeed an institutional conflict between the Legislative, represented by the Constitutional Assembly, which approved the expeditionary force believing it was a "peacekeeping" mission, and the Executive, represented by Prime Minister Odilion Barrot and President Louis Napoleon, who ordered hostile action towards the Roman Republic and essentially authorized General Oudinot to take its own decision regarding a possible occupation of Rome ("Occupy Civitavecchia even if you find armed resistance, but only enter Rome if there is danger of an imminent counter-revolution"), but the conflict was later resolved, since hostilities were interrupted by a ceasefire and negotiations when a direct deliberation of the Assembly ordered the Executive to do so, and were only restarted when a new Assembly was elected, with a a large conservative majority. As the new Assembly was installed Napoleon ordered reinforcements to Rome and put it under siege. The left opposition then asked impeachment of the President for violating the constitution which prohibited all wars, but the majority rejected the impeachment and approved "restoration of the Pope at all costs", thus effectively legitimating the ongoing attack. ^{[21][22] [23] [24] [25]}.

Arguments against: Less than 3 years has passed since the first democratic elections in both states. After the first elections in France, during the June Days of 1848 military troops killed more than a thousand of radicals in Paris and drove into exile thousands more. The French President Louis Napoleon (Emperor from 1852 on) needed support from the conservative Catholics and the military. They feared the Roman Republic where the leaders boasted that they would make the city a center for radicals and a revolution that would spread across Europe. During the 1849 Assembly elections Napoleon covertly instructed local officials to campaign for the conservatives. In Rome, the Pope had promised to excommunicate those that took part in the Roman elections and government, leaving only inexperienced and uncompromising radicals in the Roman government during the few months it existed. The Roman assembly shouted its defiance of the French, despite the several hostile armies from outright autocracies marching on Rome and the protection against which was one of the stated purposes of the French expedition. Many of the French army officers and diplomats on the scene, who had made their careers under the old Monarchy, distrusted democracy. After the negotiations failed during the ceasefire, Napoleon could still not order an outright attack according to the constitution and he did not dare a direct vote on the matter in the Assembly. However, he sent the army forward with ambiguous instructions and the army commanders, knowing what he wanted, attacked and conquered Rome. The news of the assault and conquest caused violent uprisings in France. The critics called the military repression of these "the Roman expedition into the interior". Napoleon's troops repressed in blood protests organized by his internal opponents while his troops conquered Rome. Again thousands of French radicals were jailed or driven into exile. ^[2] p. 156-160, 310-311.

American Civil War - 1861-1865

Arguments for: More than 210,000 battle deaths. Regarding the objection that there were no competitive presidential elections, the delegates from the six states at the Montgomery Convention in February 1861 informally discussed several possible presidential candidates before naming Jefferson Davis provisional president. Only the final votes, from approving documents to electing officers, were to be unanimous in order to impress the Union and the border states. ^[26]

Arguments against: The Confederate States of America was less than 3 months old at the start of the war. Less than 2/3 of the adult male population could vote in the Confederacy. The state was created in order to continue the suppression of the black slave population. Wealthy planters played on racial fears in order to avoid criticism from poor whites. Abolitionists were censored and imprisoned even before Abraham Lincoln was elected and he was not on the ballot in most parts of the South. In the 1861 Confederate presidential election, on November 6, there was no choice of candidates. Only in some districts were there two candidates for the Confederate Congress. ^[9] p. 110-111.^[2] p. 114-119, 311.

Ecuador vs. Colombia - 1863

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths. Both states had democratic constitutions.

Arguments against: Ecuadorian president Gabriel Garcia Moreno headed an autocratic regime. The regime in Colombia was less than three years old, Colombia had gained a new constitution after a revolution the same year as the war.^[8] p. 18.

Paris Commune vs. Third French Republic - 1871

Arguments for: The leaders of both the Paris Commune and the Third French Republic were elected by all adult males. More than 1000 battle deaths.

Arguments against: Less than 3 years had passed since the first elections after the end of the Second French Empire. The French National Assembly was elected on February 8th 1871, monarchists gaining the majority, but the 500,000 French POWs could not participate, the German militay influenced the election in the large parts of France that was under German occupation, and soon after the election several popular left-wing newspapers were banned. The first hostilities occurred before the Paris Municipal election, when the National Assembly tried to disarm the Paris militia of its cannons. In February 1870 (during the Empire before the war) there were 485,569 registered voters in Paris, fewer than half of whom (229,167) participated in the 1871 Municipal election on March 26th. Around 300,000 had participated in the election to the National Assembly, 1.5 months earlier, and critics argued that those critical to the Commune had fled or did not participate in the Municipal election.^[27]

War of the Pacific - 1879-1884

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths. The leaders of both Chile and Peru had been elected.

Arguments against: Only one man in fifty could vote in Peru. ^[2] p. 67. In Chile, male literate suffrage was introduced in 1874 ^[28]. However, literacy in Chile is estimated to have been around 25% at this time ^[29]. Final voters in 1876 elections including turnout represented 7.8% of voting age population ^[30].

First Boer War - 1880-1881

Arguments for: The leaders of both the Boer states and Britain had been elected.

Arguments against: Britain was not a liberal democracy before the Representation of the People Act 1884. The new Boer state was less than 3 years old and the black population was excluded from the franchise. Less than 1000 battle deaths: several hundred. ^[2] p. 307-308.

Spanish-American War - 1898

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths. The US was an established democracy. In Spain male universal suffrage was introduced in 1890 and the constitution in theory protected many civil liberties. Spain receives a score of 6 out of 10 for democracy in the Polity data set which in this data set is categorized as "democratic". ^[31] p. 50. ^[19]

Arguments against: Politics was dominated by the Turno system, in which corrupt officials manipulated the elections in multiple ways to alternatively give a majority of seats to either of the two dominant parties, conservative or liberal, which had agreed to this compromise. This pattern can be clearly seen in the election results[4]. Dissidents could be jailed. Results were often published in the press before the elections. One quarter of the members of the Cortes were appointed by the King or had hereditary positions. The monarchy retained important powers, like appointing the ministry. A military coup d'etat was feared if Spain would compromise in the negotiations. ^[9] p. 111-115.^[2] p. 141-2, 204-205, 311. ^[8] p. 19. According to Fukuyama Spain was non democratic in this period ^[32].

Philippine-American War - 1899–1913

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths. The Malolos Congress in the Philippines had created a democratic constitution. The US was an established democracy.

Arguments against: The Philippine regime was less than 3 years old. Nearly all foreign observers saw no chance for genuine self-government, but only different regional groups and bandits. There were never any democratic elections. One group proclaimed Emilio Aguinaldo, who was suspected of killing two of his main political rivals, to be president with dictatorial powers without any elections. US president William McKinley stated that it would be immoral to withdraw and leave the Filipinos to fight one another or be occupied by a European power or Japan. ^[2] p. 207-210, 308-309.

Second Boer War - 1899–1902

Arguments against: More than 1000 battle deaths. The leaders on both sides had been chosen in free and fair elections. Great Britain was a democratic state. Orange free state, one of the two Boer states, receives a 7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/autocracy in the polity scale, which means it is considered to be at least partly democratic^[19].

Arguments against: Only males from the minority white population had the right to vote in the Boer states. White Uitlanders were excluded from the franchise in Transvaal. ^[2] p. 124-128, 308. ^[33] According to Tatu Vanhanen, no African state was democratic in this period, or long after ^[34].

World War I - 1914-1918

Arguments for: The German Reichstag was elected by all adult males and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war. For comparison, the United Kingdom is often considered a liberal democracy at this time but only approximately 60% of British males could vote. The British Monarch and the House of Lords were not democratically elected. In France, the Third Republic was at the time a moderately stable parliamentary democracy.

Arguments against: The German Kaiser retained most of the power. All the appointments to the bureaucracy, the armed forces, and the diplomatic forces were made at his sole discretion. It was common knowledge that the army strongly supported him and would arrest his opponents if he so desired. Open criticisms could and was punished as lese majesty. The German Chancellor in 1913 ignored a vote of no confidence, explaining that he served at the discretion of the Kaiser alone. The Reichstag was not consulted regarding the declaration of war, but only informed after the fact that its support was required to approve the allocation of funds for the defense against the Tsarist Russia. ^[2] p. 142-145, 191-195, 311-312.

The comparison to the United Kingdom ignores that the House of Lords and the Monarchy had lost most real power during the previous century. The Parliament Act 1911 limited the powers of the House of Lords to reject bills, less than three years before the outbreak of war.

Irish War of Independence - 1919-1921

Arguments against: More than 1000 battle deaths. The Irish parliament which declared independence, the First Dáil, was formed by the majority of the MPs elected in Irish constituencies in the Irish (UK) general election, 1918. One study ^[35] estimates the true support for the Sinn Féin in these elections to have been at least 53%.

Arguments against: The Irish state was less than 3 years old. The initial violence involved rebels acting on their own outside democratic control or approval. Later democratic control of the Irish Republican Army was doubtful and immediately after the war one part of the IRA tried to overthrow the government in the Irish Civil War. ^[2] p. 312.

Polish-Lithuanian War - 1920

Arguments for: 1000 estimated battle deaths.^[36] In both states elections had been held with universal suffrage. In the polity scale, Poland receives a +8 rating in combined democracy/autocracy, while Lithuania receives a 7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/autocracy. Huntington ^[37] considers both states as democratized in the '20s.

Arguments against: Democracy less than 3 years old in Poland. In Lithuania, only the constituent assembly had been elected a few months before, and the constitution was promulgated only in 1922, so it is dubious that one can speak of a democracy anyway; in any case it would be less than 1 year old. Probably less than 1000 battle deaths.

Continuation War - 1941-1944

Arguments for: The United Kingdom and Finland were established democracies. The United Kingdom issued a formal declaration of war on Finland. Finnish territory was bombed. Another argument is that Finland lost 69 merchant ships outside the Baltic Sea. ^[38] The United Kingdom also supported materially Soviet Union in the war effort.

Arguments against: Five months after the start of the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom reluctantly declared war on Finland due to pressure from Soviet Union. However, the United Kingdom's only significant act of war happened prior to the declaration, a Royal Air Force raid on German-run mining operations. The British were not attacking Finns. The formal declaration meant nothing but some financial restrictions and the seizure of shipping. ^[2] p. 313. ^[31] p. 48. Neutral Sweden lost 200 merchant ships outside the Baltic Sea. ^[39] The Western powers sent the Soviet Union substantial material aid with the intention to bolster the war against Nazi Germany, not the war with Finland. Finland spent WWII fighting a totalitarian opponent, the Soviet Union, who had previously attacked the nation. Using a formal declaration of war as the definition of war would mean that there have been very few wars after WWII. For example, there has been no declaration of war by the United States since WWII despite involvement in several large scale conflicts causing many battle deaths.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 - 1947-1948

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths. The first national assemblies in both states were formed by members of the elected Constituent Assembly of India.

Arguments against: Both states less than 3 years old. Poorly functioning democracy in Pakistan Neither nations's national assembly had been chosen on the basis of universal suffrage. ^[9] p. 120.

1948 Arab-Israeli War - 1947-1949

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths on the Syria-Israel side.^[36] In Syria, president Shukri al-Kuwatli had been democratically elected in 1943, in election described by international observers as "the fairest under French mandate" ^[40] p. 249. , although with universal male suffrage only. Syria receives a +5 in the Polity scale^[19], meaning "partly democratic". Also, Lebanon sent troops to aid the Arab side and its president had been elected with universal male suffrage too. The United Kingdom was officially neutral but gave some unofficial support to the Arab side.

Arguments against: The Israeli state was less than 3 years old and had never had a democratic election. In Syria, the two stage electoral process of list selection virtually assured the exclusion of opposition parties; furthermore, due mostly to perceived political corruption, the election turnout was only 31% of eligible voters, which combined with only males being eligible makes for an extremely poor electoral base. Lebanon was also only formally democratic, and even more so than Syria. Only one quarter of the members of the parliament were members of a political party, most being relatives or clients of politic bosses. Less than 1000 battle deaths between Lebanon and Israel: 129 Israelis and probably at least as many Lebanese. The only direct combat action involving the UK was when Israel shot down five Royal Air force Spitfires on a reconnaissance mission. ^[40] p.248-250. ^[9] p. 120. ^[2] p. 313-314

Operation Ajax - 1953

Arguments for: Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was democratically elected. Britain and the US were established democracies. Ex US president Bill Clinton recently stated that deposing Mossadegh, who was "an elected parliamentary democrat", was a grave mistake which "got rid of the parliamentary democracy [in Iran] back in the '50s". ^[41]

Arguments against: British and US supported coup d'etat. No battle between armies from different nations. Less than 1000 battle deaths in the coup. Iran was perceived by the US and the UK at the time as turning into a Communist dictatorship. The Shah retained important powers.^[42]

Operation Pbsuccess - 1954

Arguments for: President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán was democratically elected. The US was an established democracy.

Arguments against: United States supported coup d'etat. No battle between armies from different nations. Less than 1000 battle deaths in the coup: less than a hundred. The United States wrongly perceived Guatemala as a nascent Communist dictatorship. ^[2] p. 221-224, 314.

Operation Power Pack - 1965

Arguments for: Military coup d'etat in 1963 in the Dominican Republic took power from the democratically elected Juan Bosch. The democratic constitution was restored in 1965. Followed by a military intervention by the democratic United States.

Arguments against: The uprising in 1965 seized the presidential palace and installed a provisional president, Rafael Molina Ureña. Followed by civil war. The new regime was less than 3 years old and not democratically elected when the United States intervened, fearing a Communist takeover. ^[43]

Six-Day War - 1967

Arguments for: Israel was an established democracy. Lebanon, which had a democratic system, sent jets into Israel at beginning of the war. More than 20,000 battle deaths.

Arguments against: Poorly functioning democracy in Lebanon. No battle deaths between Lebanon and Israel.^[9] p. 120. ^[8] p. 18.

1973 Chilean coup d'état - 1973

Arguments for: President Salvador Allende was democratically elected.Over 1000 battle deaths in the coup.

Arguments against: The United States used a number of different methods to undermine Salvador Allende's regime but was not directly involved in the coup d'etat or conflict.

Turkish invasion of Cyprus - 1974

Arguments for: More than 1000 battle deaths.^[36] The leaders in Turkey were democratically elected. Pre-war Turkey receives a +9 in the polity scale (full democracy); pre-war (and pre-coup) Cyprus receives a +7 (democracy). There was a coup d'etat in Cyprus 5 days before the invasion but it only lasted 8 days, after which the democratic constitution was restored, while hostilities continued for almost a month. Since the elected President Makarios had fled to London, and did not feel confident to return for security reasons and for internationally securing the Cypriot case ^[44], the president of the chamber of deputies Klerides was appointed as temporary acting president for 5 months following the constitutional provisions ^[45]. Reportedly, Klerides still consulted Makarios on most important matters ^[44], ^[46] and Makarios publicly thanked Klerides for the task he had performed during these months. From here on, Cyprus starts being rated +10 on the Polity scale (high democracy) ^[19].

Arguments against: Less than 1000 battle deaths after the formal return to democracy: a few hundred. The war started after a bloody coup d'etat in Cyprus and when Cyprus thus was a nondemocracy. Both the later formally democratic regime in Cyprus and that in Turkey was less than 3 years old. The new Cyprus cabinet retained many of the coup leaders and there was a temporary, not elected president during the rest of the war. The military retained significant influence in both nations. ^[9] p. 120-121. ^[2] 314-315. ^[46]

Contras War - 1979-1988

Arguments for: The Sandinistas in Nicaragua won the 1984 election which many external observers described as fair and free. 75% of the registered voters participated. The Contras, supported by the United States, tried to overthrow the elected government.

Arguments against: The conflict started while Nicaragua was ruled by the not elected Junta of National Reconstruction. No battle between armies from different nations. The United States government perceived Nicaragua as turning into a Communist dictatorship. Several opposition parties boycotted the election, arguing that the Sandinistas were manipulating the electoral process and their domination of government organs, mass organizations groups, and much of the media created a climate of intimidation. After the election several civil liberties were suspended. The US stopped all military aid to the Contras in 1987, within 3 years of the election. ^[47]

Paquisha War - 1981

Arguments for: The leaders of Ecuador and Peru had been democratically elected. Ecuador receives a rating of +9 in the polity scale of combined democracy/autocracy, while Peru receives a +7, meaning that both countries are classified as democratic, and Ecuador even as "very democratic"^[19].

Arguments against: Less than 1000 battle deaths: as high as two hundred. Both young democracies less than 3 years old. Less than 1 year old in Peru. Lacking democratic control over the military on both nations. ^[2] p. 70, 316.

Yugoslav Wars - 1991-1999

Arguments for: Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia, won several elections. The NATO nations participating in Operation Allied Force were democratic. At time of Kosovo War, Milosevic's party was in a coalition with two others, and the Serbian Parliament contained a broader range of political parties than is common in nations such as America, Britain and Japan.^[48] The government had invited the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe into Serbia to judge on 1996 election fraud, and had accepted its rulings even though they went against Milosevic's party.^[49] Milosevic had made election of Yugoslav president into a ballot by the whole electorate rather than just by the legislature.^[50]

As the opposition to Milosevic in Serbia in this period was often composed of extreme nationalists (such as the Serbian Renewal Movement that organized the March 9, 1991 protest, the Serbian Radical Party and the Democratic Party of Serbia), it is hard to decide what restrictions on the opposition were legitimate. Many human rights groups, including Amnesty International, believe that neo-fascist groups should have special restrictions on their activity. The fact that the vast majority of convictions under the Law on Information were for the opposition may not necessarily demonstrate undemocratic exercise of power.

Kostunica, who replaced Milosevic, was a member of the Democratic Party of Serbia, which had split from the Democratic Party (Serbia) on the grounds that the latter was insufficiently nationalistic.

Regarding the media supporting nationalism, that would depend on how the word is defined. Serbian state media was certainly patriotic and derogatory towards other Balkan nations, but this was always done in traditional language of anti-fascism; the Croats were often referred to as "the Ustasha forces". Defenders of Milosevic claim that his speeches were anti-racist and anti-nationalist, and that the Western media has often misrepresented their content[5].

Peter Singer and Leif Wenar both believe that the war in Kosovo is a serious problem for the theory. ^[51] Slobodan Milosevic had won three elections - twice as President of Serbia and once as President of Yugoslavia - and it is clear that he had widespread support in the country during this period. Singer admits that Yugoslavia still had limits to its openness and freedom, but these limits were not thought to be more extensive than those found in several Western countries that are considered to be "democracies".

Arguments against: Serbia did not fulfill the criteria for a liberal democracy. Frequent and arbitrary changes of election laws and districts occurred, even retroactively after elections. Press freedom greatly restricted. Slobodan Milosevic's regime controlled the state television and radio broadcasts. Electoral manipulation including: massive double voting, "voting" of persons being permanently absent or deceased, the pressure on employees by the management of ";socially owned companies", organized planting of already prepared voting ballots into the polling boxes, forging of electoral records and election board records, alteration of the election results made by electoral commissions, the large-scale annulment of the election results by courts rulings, and changing the number of participating voters in order to fulfill the legal requirements for the validity of the elections. ^[52]

Regarding the general nationalism, the state controlled media supported this and there were often wars, explaining why also the opposition parties appealed to patriotic feelings. When Milosevic was finally ousted, he was replaced by a candidate having broad support from numerous political parties in the Democratic Opposition of Serbia.

In addition, the Ten-Day War and the War in Croatia would be excluded as both sides were less than 3 years old. Also, Croatia was not a liberal democracy for similar reasons as those mentioned for Serbia. ^[2] p. 316-318.

The Polity scale gives Yugoslavia under Milosevic a score of 0 out 10 for democracy and -5 to -7 for combined democracy/autocracy.^[19]

Cenepa War - 1995

Arguments for: Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori and the Ecuadorian President were democratically elected.

Arguments against: Alberto Fujimori had made an auto-coup in 1992 and took on dictatorial powers. ^[53] Less than 1000 battle deaths.

Kargil War - 1999

Arguments for: According to Page Fortna^[54] and Muppidi^[55], this is the most straightforward exception to democratic peace. More than 1000 battle deaths. India was an established democracy. Pakistan had returned to democracy in 1988 ^[37] and had had only civilian governments since then. The Sharif government of Pakistan receives a Polity rating of +7 (democratic) on a scale from +10 to -10 for combined democracy/autocracy^[19], comparable to the level of democracy on this scale of Great Britain in 1900 (considered democratic by all major authors). India is rated +9. Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was democratically elected with a large majority. He was able to pass constitutional amendments because he had enough seats in the parliament to do so, according to the constitution itself. Regarding civil rights and freedom of press violations, it must be considered that war or its immediate danger have often led to restrictive measures even in more democratic states (see, for example, First Red Scare, Second Red Scare, Martial Law). Although it is impossible to tell which actions by the Sharif government were taken for such reasons, it's worth noting that the human rights report for 1998 (before the war) ^[56] is significantly less negative than the 1999 report (the year of the war, which started in may. There was also a military coup in October, to make things worse, but coming late in the year, is only briefly treated in the first paragraphs)^[57]. Regarding Freedom House, it rates Pakistan as "partly free", (so, not a liberal democracy in its view) but does not dispute it being an electoral democracy^[58].

Arguments against: Freedom House did not consider Pakistan to be a liberal democracy during the 90s.^[59] Nawaz Sharif's government suppressed opposition-led demonstrations, arrested opposition activists, curtailed civil liberties, and persecuted independent NGOs and journalists. The judiciary at first tried to check Sharif's actions, but later gave up. His supporters stormed the Supreme Court of Pakistan and he forced the Chief Justice out of office. He also passed laws removing the legal possibilities to dismiss him from office before the end of his term and stating that party leaders could dismiss any of their legislators if they failed to vote as they were told. ^[57][60][61] There is no evidence that these restrictions increased just before the war or that Sharif's government was preparing for a war. Even if these actions were preparations for a war, that would not make them more democratic.

Nawaz Sharif has stated that he was unaware of the invasion, and it was an urgent phone call from Atal Bihari Vajpayee, his counterpart in India, that informed him about the situation. He has attributed the invasion plan on Chief of Army Staff and later dictator Pervez Musharraf and "just two or three of his cronies"^[62] If correct, then the Pakistani military invaded India without informing the elected Pakistani government.

2006 Lebanon War - 2006

Arguments for: More than 1000 deaths including civilians. Israel is an established democracy. Lebanon has had a democratic system since its independence. The Lebanese general election, 2005 has been described as free, credible, fair, well managed and peaceful by United Nations observers and its Security Council. The electoral law was accepted by all major parties, although there is also agreement that it needs to be reformed. ^[63]. Allocation of parliamentary seats according to faith is in accordance with the principals of consociationalist democracy as advocated by Arend Lijphart.

Arguments against: Less than 1000 military deaths. Lebanon is not a liberal democracy according to Freedom House in its 2006 report (for the year 2005). The last available Polity ranking for the year 2003 states "Foreign occupation". Syria controlled much of the politics in Lebanon until the Cedar Revolution in 2005 and regime after that is less than 3 years old. The Lebanese general election, 2005 after the Cedar Revolution has been described as "free but not fair" by the newspaper Washington Post. The different religious groups are allocated parliamentary seats not proportionate to the number of voters. The whole public sector is similarly divided. Everyone from the President and the Speaker of Parliament down to police and college professors are chosen according to the individual's faith.^[64]

Israel battled the organization Hezbollah, which exerted control over the southern part of Lebanon, and not the Lebanese army. The UN notes that "a group engaged in the democratic political process of opinion formation and decision-making cannot simultaneously possess an autonomous armed operational capacity outside the authority of the State. More broadly, the existence of armed groups defying the control of the legitimate Government, which by definition is vested with a monopoly on the use of force throughout its territory, is incompatible with the restoration and full respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of the country."

Ongoing

Al-Aqsa Intifada - 2000-

Arguments for: Yasser Arafat was elected president in 1996. Since 2005, an elected Hamas government.

Arguments against: New elections were postponed in 1998. The Infifada started in 2000. Arafat's regime ignored many civil liberties and ruled autocratically. ^[65] Elections in 2005 and 2006 following Arafat's death but the new regime is less than 3 years old. Neither the Palestinian Authority Administered Areas or the Israeli-Occupied Territories in the West Bank and Gaza are liberal democratic according to Freedom House in its 2006 report (for the year 2005).

Waziristan War - 2004-

Arguments for: In Waziristan many decisions in tribal life are made by a Jirga of elders. Pakistan had returned to democracy.

Arguments against: The current conflict started before 3 years had passed since the first elections after Pervez Musharraf's coup d'etat. Freedom House lists Pakistan as "Not Free". ^[66] Frequent blood feuds and vendettas in Waziristan. Not a liberal democratic state but rather tribes having some similarity to the earlier mentioned Iroquois and Hurons.

2008 South Ossetia War - 2008-

Arguments for: Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia have all had democratically elected governments for more than 5 years. Polity IV Project ranks both Georgia and Russia as 7, fully democratic, on their scale of -10 to +10.^[67]

Arguments against: May not involve 1000 battle deaths - numbers of civilian casualties is in dispute. Freedom House ranks Russia as "Not Free" and states "Russia does not have a democratic political system". ^[68] Freedom House ranked Georgia as "partly free" at the end of 2007. Its ranking had been declining and in the year leading up to the conflict opposition protests and media in Georgia had been suppressed, opposition leaders arrested and the president re-elected in a disputed elections. ^[69]

Notes