Skip to main content

Can Democracies Fight Each Other?

I was surfing the net the other day when a short-minded argument caught me off guard in a laughing fit:
Democracies don't fight each other.
It was based, supposedly, on a theory proposed by German philosopher Emmanuel Kant, but this guy goes way back in the beginnings... before the founding of modern democracy as we know it. The idea is based on the same line as Wafa' Sultan's baseless remarks on Islam and the so-called "Clash of Civilizations". She argued that civilizations "compete" and that "there is no clash of civilizations". She furthermore claimed that the gap between what she refers to as "barbarity" and "civilization" causes such clashes, with the "barbarians" on the attacking front.

This assumption is as childish as the "jealousy breeds contention" theory, along with the "they hate us for our freedoms" clause used by rightwingers quite often in the media. This is also based on the idea that the only viable form of democracy or government is the one representative in their states. That is, they claim they represent "democracy", while their enemies are "dictatorships".

To look at it from a material perspective, we can see that there have been tensions between several democracies in the past and present. For example, we have the rising tensions between the democratically-elected South American leftist governments such as those of Chavez and Morales. There is also the nuclear debate between the U.S. and Iran, which had a leader who was democratically elected, as well as the decades-long conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, who supposedly both have democratically-elected governments. This, of course, nullifies the above statement in a material way.

Let's go back in time, and assume that "civilization", according to Wafa Sultan, is the best form of state. We know of the great tensions between Troy and Greece, as well as the battles fought between two great civilizations: that of Alexander of Macedonia and that of Darius III of Persia. However, regarding "civilization" and "barbarity", Sultan's view is nullified with the fact that the war between the "barbaric" Britons and the "civilized" Romans was started by the Romans themselves, in which they were the aggressors.

Now, let's take a look at it from a philosophical point of view. Democracy is a political product. Therefore, it is an intra-specific factor in the state, and only determines how a state governs its own people, not how it influences relations between two states. Relations are determined by international affairs, not political affairs within the nation. That being said, relations can get heated between nations, and this can lead to the nations battling it out in an open conflict if the condition becomes necessary.

Don't make silly assumptions like this, people. Governments can fight each other and have fought each other regardless of how they rule their people.

So, yeah, Democracies can fight each other.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...