Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another

by Spencer R. Weart

This lively book reveals a remarkable--and tremendously important--finding: fully democratic nations have never made war on other democracies. Furthermore, says the author, they probably never will. He analyzes for the first time every instance in history of a democracy confronting another with military force, from ancient Athens to modern America, and offers practical advice to ensure future peace.

Genres: History

430 pages, Hardcover

First published September 10, 1998

Reviews

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oddly enough, this remarkable book is not mentioned in What Do We Know About War? by John A. Vasquez which covers so many researchers on war. Weart focuses on the importance of democratic/republican political culture and its tolerance of opposition and open contestation of ideas. He uses a plethora of western historical examples to make his case. Even if it is not properly statistical enough for some readers, I still think its worth the read. I imagine that some may dispute how he categorizes his test cases. For example, in the 1846 crisis between the US and Oregon, he says Britain functioned as an oligarchic republic. But since the Southern states dominated federal policy and were of an oligarchic bent as well as the fact that the US president (Polk) owned a cotton plantation with slaves, he considers the conflict one between leaders of an "oligarchic bent." His analysis may well be right, but these sorts of details may just not be very useful for crisp statistical data. And that's exactly what the (apparantly) authoritative book by Vasquez emphasizes.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

This volume is so hilarious, and so tragic at the same time.

The tragic part: the school dropout waiting tables at a diner in the worse part of town might be smarter than this clown. It's all up to a gable: Weart had the chance of a family which could afford to keep him in school, and a Society so rich, it can afford the armies of useless bureaucrats generating inked papers in exchange for more than generous wages.

The hilarious part is the book. And all of Weart's fallacies start from the idea that ”true” democracies are as stated in the title. The moment democracies start fighting, the man, whose understanding of the world stopped around the 4th grade, will pick a team, and decree that is the ”true” democracy.

Some other parts that fly over Weart's head:
- given the definition of democracy as majority rule, no state is a democracy, even the US, France, or even the Swiss rarely go beyond 20% of the electorate to decide for a dictator. And that 20% of the electorate can be as low as 5% of the number of individuals living within those borders.
- at the same time, democracy as the will of the people, well, even the most atrocious regime is a democracy, not only reflected by the names (Democratic Republic of Korea), but also by the fact that the rulers rule with the consent of the people. The moment the majority is lost in one particular area the regime is changed, and the offending king is killed, like the French Revolution, or the Romanian Revolution. And the majority that changed the system turns out to be still a minority when seen at the scale of the king's lands.
- war is the lifeblood of the State. hence, any regime, no matter how benevolent will generate wars, wars that will be blamed on the devil, the Jews, the Capitalists, the Bankers, the Russians, whatever is the current boogie man.

[Jim · Rating 2 out of 5]

an interesting thesis supported by extensive analysis of history through a thousand mild lens. the theoretic constructs offered in support of the thesis are significantly less compelling, however.