After writing over the years something like 500-600 blogs (See archive here), it is time to ask which of all these is most important.
I believe those are the blogs that present and underline that democracy (the democratic peace) is a solution to war, genocide and mass murder (I call democide) by governments. I prove this in my book.
But very few are aware of this solution -- even when two presidents, Clinton and George W. Bush realized it with regard to war and based their foreign policies on it.
For centuries mankind has sought a solution to war. Solutions have been proposed, such as international law, diplomacy, a balance of power, trade, and cultural exchange. Nothing has worked. But empirically and theoretically we know that historically no democracies have made war on each other. When living side by side, they promote cooperation, and peace with each other, and if perchance a crisis occurs, they manage to resolve it without violence. In a world where dictators murder their subjects by the hundreds, thousands, millions, and tens of millions, that democratic leaders murder near zero of their population is absolutely incredible.
The proofs for what I say are in my books Power Kills: Democracy As A Method Of Nonviolence, and Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. And see my websitefor the many books and documents providing further data, theory, and proofs.
An end to war and to democide! It is like the elimination of cancer or heart disease. This solution of the ages should be celebrated around the world. Not only does it fail to make the front pages, but is ignored by the commentariat. Ponder this for a moment. Why is this absolutely incredible and proven solution hidden, ignored, or missed?
Why is it ignored and missed? Because the mainstream media isn't interested in things that do not advance it's agenda. Supporting global growth of demoracy? Why that is "imperial" thinking. Admitting Bush was right? LOL It will never happen. That is the bad news. The good news, we don't need them anymore.
ReplyDeleteWhen you do Google searches on this topic, this comes up near the top http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm Although this was written some years ago on a scruffy website, it is quite well-argued. I was particularly interested in his note 9 where he suggests that Britain might have attacked Finnish ships in WWII after all. I think that you should do a full rebuttal to this page; I'm sure Matt White will not respond to you, but at least you'll respond to Google's promotion of this page.
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear lack of objective thinking in the world today.
ReplyDeleteUnder Clinton, many died under sanctions (the inflated morality rates put it at an extra 500,000 largely due to Saddam's neglect) but no one ever talks about that. No one ever talks about the death under Saddam's regime from genocide or his regional wars. Yet, Bush and his war which liberated this nation from this genocidal despot, are seen as some universal evil. Just recently, the Iraqis themselves admitted that around 85,000 died during the war (anyone remember Lancet and their number near 1 million?!) and this in a large part due to non allied actions. In fact, Iraqbodycount.org estimates that less than 500 per year died in the last few years as a result of allied fire. Liberating nations from tyanny cost lives. One should ask the french if their WW2 civilian losses were worth D-Day.
Still, I have real trouble understand HOW people can support the leftist cause. Why on earth are university, supposedly full of the best the brightest, so leftist leaning. Where did the rationale go?
Perhaps among of all the exceptions to the democratic peace that I have read in email to me, the one about Finland is the most popular, a close second to German in World War I being a democracy, and third to Hitler being democratically elected.All three exceptions are wrong. There was no violence between Finnish troops and the democratic allies (except for a bombing of a mine in Finland run by the Germans), Germany in the WWI was ruled in foreign and military policy by the Kaiser, and Hitler was not elected but appointed.
ReplyDeleteOn Finland I have responded many times to comments on Finland, and given citations to what books to look at that have covered it on the democracy question. And see my http://books.google.com/books?id=dyBwqI_6EOsC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=finland+rummel+democracy&source=bl&ots=FFE7TfTCZ3&sig=UR3iJ5-7nCz8XG1I6qoebJ7j1K8&hl=en&ei=TmjiSszXKKXWtAO0qf26Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
True, Finland was an ally of Germany during WWII, but no military action took place between Finland and Britain during the war. To be a war between two countries or military action, by definition nationals of the countries must be killed in combat. Britain did hit a camp under German operation in Northern Finland, but no Finns were attacked or died.
During the war the Finnish government did more than just temporarily cancel democratic elections. It turned authoritarian in spirit, favored the Nazis, and arrested leaders of the opposition and held them in a secret prison.
The question of Finland where two democracies were formally at war has been seriously studied by students of the democratic peace. Their conclusion is overwhelmingly that this is not a negative or disconfirming case. See for example, James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict, pp. 119-120. and Spencer R. Weart, Never at War, p. 313. Weart also deals with the question of Finland's authoritarianism during the war.
As to White, I have tried to make contact with him many times. All unsuccessful.
White's website is not updated anymore. Who knows what became of him?
ReplyDeleteAs regards Finland, a problem with the case is that most Finnish people regard the wartime leader, Risto Ryti, as a hero and do not believe that their country ceased to be a democracy at any point. Ryti came 2nd in a 2004 poll of "Greatest Finns". The post-war settlement on Finland was very harsh: Ryti and other leaders were imprisoned, and Finland was forced to pay large reparations to the USSR. This led to ill-will towards Britain, who had given into Stalin's demands over Finland.
I think that the examples of Germany in the two world wars are not serious challengers. In my view, the only other big problem for the theory is the Northern Ireland conflict, which depends on whether you call it a "war" or not.
Isn't it so that prosperity gives birth to some form of representative government, rather than the other way around? Most dictatorships where the people get it better than they must ponder on their immediate survival tend to eventually turn into democracies.
ReplyDeleteAnd, on the contrary. Economic hardships, rising inequality and fear tend to support the rise of dictatorships.
Democracy and dictatorships maybe are consequences of the socioeconomic situation? Not the other way around?
@Dimentio: I can see why you think that, but there are cases of poorer countries that have been stable democracies. When the Republic of Ireland became independent, it was just as poor as anywhere in Africa. A similar thing can be said about Malta, which has stayed democratic. Ghana has a fairly low GDP, but it's stayed democratic. India has been a democracy since independence except for a few periods of authoritarian interference.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that substituting a democratic political culture for an authoritarian takes a very long time.
If we look at where representative systems first took hold (I do not refer to representative systems as democracy as democracy to me means direct rule by the people, not by representatives of people), we could see that it was in countries where the people had a pretty equal socio-economic status and there were small class differences.
ReplyDeleteIn countries which have a history of communities of autonomous farmers, like England, Canada, the USA (at least the areas north of Maryland), and the Scandinavian countries, serfdom has been an exception.
Some of the worst despotisms are countries like Guatemala or El Salvador where literally all the countryside is carved up between a few rich farming families, leaving the people to live indebted and in squalor.
Representative systems established, usually are resting on a long domestic tradition of collective government through villages of self-managing farmers.
Most authoritarian societies usually have a history of brutal serfdom. The Biafran war for example was a conflict between the autonomous Biafran society built on self-managing communities, while the northern Nigerian society was more authoritarian, historically speaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY8GzNuz7I
I think that's a much better analysis. When certain people have all the power, it's extremely difficult to get it off them, especially once the elites get large weapons that the disempowered can never obtain. There are some countries that have gone from authoritarian to liberal-democratic in recent times: Indonesia, Serbia, Croatia. I suppose you can put the latter two down to intervention by NATO that pushed them towards liberal democracy and capitalism. As for Indonesia, the Economist did a big issue on its "miracle" recently. I hope other countries can change as quickly as it did.
ReplyDeleteIndonesia has a very special history. Don't know if it holds many land-owners. In some regions, for example Aceh, I think they have had some sort of nobility system. But in some parts, especially the "less developed islands", they have had a history of direct democratic village systems resembling those of the Polynesians. I hope Indonesia's experiment could survive and thrive, as the alternative could be devastating to all of South East Asia (17 000 islands and thousands of ethnicities).
ReplyDeleteIndonesia is really like the bumblebee. It is not supposed to fly, but is doing it nevertheless.
It's not totally ignored. That was the thesis of Natan Scharansky (which he may ahve gotten directly or indierectly from you) who wrote a book "The Case for Democracy" which greatly influenced President George W. Bush.
ReplyDeleteIt is kind of ignored because to say regime change is necessary for peace to some people sounds self-defeating. I mean after all we are tryiong to assure the government of North Korea, for instance that we mean them no harm. At least Obama is asort of trying to do that.
But it doesn't make sense.
The news report Breaking News: New decade brings new book: Democracy it Don't Come Easy can be found at http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4886830-breaking-news-new-decade-brings-new-book-democracy-it-dont-come-easy.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy reading this blog. Looking forward to more updates :)
ReplyDeletethank you for your wonderful works. Wishing you more heavenly wisdom.
ReplyDeleteRemain Blessed Professor.
Emmy Irobi
Poland