User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The book Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another by historian Spencer R. Weart is one of the scholarly works which support the theory. There are at now several hundred academic books and peer-reviewed papers on the theory.
The book Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another by historian Spencer R. Weart is one of the scholarly works which support the theory. There are at now several hundred academic books and peer-reviewed papers on the theory.[1]
The book Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace by political scientist Joanne Gowa is one of the scholarly works which are critical.
The book Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace by political scientist Joanne Gowa is one of the scholarly works which are critical.

One of the claims of the democratic peace theory is the absence of war (usually defined as more than 1000 battle deaths) 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 used 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.

Contents

[edit] Tribes/Ancient

Conflict Dates Arguments for being a war between well-established liberal democracies Arguments against being a war between well-established liberal democracies
Conflicts involving certain tribes. For example, Hurons vs. Iroquois. Frequent raids on and eventual destruction of most of the Hurons by the Iroquois. Both had some democratic elements. 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. Sicilian Expedition: 415 BC-413 BC Many of the city-states in Ancient Greece had elected leaders. 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. Russett finds no wars between liberal democracies in modern times but uses different definitions for democracy and war for Ancient Greece. Still, he argues that some of these may have been caused by misperception caused by the poor communications. He also finds much textual evidence that democracies and oligarchies were reluctant to attack and frequently allied with states that had the same political arrangement.

The city states in Ancient Greece had large numbers of non-voting slaves and metics. At most half of the adult males in Athens could vote. Many of the government leaders in Athens were selected by allotment and thus did not have to worry about being elected or re-elected. Ray argues that these states had little resemblance to modern liberal democracies and did not fulfill the criteria above.

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. [3] p. 41-62 [4] p. 103-105.[2] p. 24-37, 298-300.
Wars involving the Roman Republic. In particular, the Punic Wars. Punic Wars: 264 BC-146 BC The leaders in both Rome and Carthage were elected. 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. [5][6][7][8] "In practice, however, the constitution became an oligarchy."[9]


[edit] Modern

Conflict Dates Arguments for being a war between well-established liberal democracies Arguments against being a war between well-established liberal democracies
American Revolutionary War 1775–1783 More than 1000 battle deaths. The US and the UK were among of the most democratic states in the world at the time of the war. 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 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 under George III retained important powers, in particular regarding the appointment of colonial officials and the power to declare war. [10] [11] [4] p. 106-107. [2] p. 304-305.
Quasi-War 1798–1800 The US and France were among the most most democratic states in the world at this time. 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.
War of 1812 1812-1815 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. 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. [10][11][4] p. 106-107. [2] p. 135-138, 184-186, 306.
Trail of Tears 1838 The Cherokees had created a republican constitution in 1827. 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.
Mexican-American War 1846-1848 Mexican President Mariano Paredes was a general that took power in a coup d'etat. [2] p. 201-204, 207, 214.
Sonderbund War 1847 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. 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 (19th century) 1849 More than 1000 battle deaths. The leaders of both states had been democratically elected. Less than 3 years has passed since the first democratic elections in both states. The French President and later Emperor Louis Napoleon needed support from the conservative Catholics and the military. The young French assembly was led to believe that the French expedition was a simple police action in order to restore order in a chaotic regime and to protect Rome from foreign monarchies that planned an intervention. In Rome, the Pope had promised to excommunicate those that took part in the Roman elections, leaving only inexperienced radicals in the Roman government during the few months it existed. They refused to compromise and were ready to be martyrs for the revolutionary cause. The French army officers on the scene distrusted everything republican and despite the unexpected resistance launched an attack and conquered Rome without a mandate from the French assembly. The news of this caused violent uprisings in France. The critics called the military repression of these "the Roman expedition into the interior". Napoleon shot, jailed, or sent into exile thousands of his opponents. [2] p. 156-160, 310-311.
American Civil War 1861-1865 More than 1000 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. [12] The Confederate States of America was less than 3 years 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. There was never a competitive presidential election in the confederacy. In the 1861 presidential election, on November 6, there was no choice of candidates. Only in some districts were there two candidates for the Confederate Congress. [4] p. 110-111.[2] p. 114-119, 311.
Ecuador vs. Colombia 1863 More than 1000 battle deaths. Both states had democratic constitutions. Ecuadorian presidet 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.[3] p. 18.
War of the Pacific 1879-1884 More than 1000 battle deaths. The leaders of both Chile and Peru had been elected. Only one man in fifty could vote in Chile and Peru. [2] p. 67.
First Boer War 1880-1881 The leaders of both the Boer states and Britain had been elected. Britan 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.
Fashoda Incident 1898 The United Kingdom and France were democratic states. No battle deaths. [2] p. 311.
Spanish-American War 1898 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". [13] p. 50. [14]. 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. [4] p. 111-115.[2] p. 141-2, 204-205, 311. [3] p. 19. According to Fukuyama Spain was non democratic in this period [15].
Philippine-American War 1899–1913 More than 1000 battle deaths. The Malolos Congress in the Philippines had created a democratic constitution. The US was an established democracy. 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 electrons. 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 an European power or Japan. [2] p. 207-210, 308-309.
Second Boer War 1899–1902 More than 1000 battle deaths. More than 50,000. 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[14]. 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. [16] According to Vanhanen, no african state has been democratic in this period, and long after [17].
World War I 1914-1918 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. 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 defence 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.
Irish War of Independence 1919-1921 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. Regarding the representativity of the secessionist parliament, it must be noted that in 25 seats the Sinn Féin candidate was uncontested by opponent parties, so no elections were held. One study [18] estimates the true support for the Sinn Féin in these elections to have been at least 53%. 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. The MPs of First Dáil may not have represented a majority of the Irish voters due to the first-past-the-post system. Officially, they received 47% of the votes in the election.
Polish-Lithuanian War 1920 1000 estimated battle deaths according to [19]. In both states elections had been held with universal suffrage. In the polity scale, Poland receives a +8 score in combined democracy/authocracy, while Lithuania receives a 7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/authocracy. Huntington [20] considers both states as democratized in the '20s. 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.
Occupation of the Ruhr 1923-1924 The Weimer republic and France were democracies. No battle deaths. [2] p. 164-171, 312-313.
World War II 1939-1945 More than 1000 battle deaths. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Adolf Hitler lost the 1932 presidential election to Paul von Hindenburg. The Nazis gained the largest minority vote in the 1933 Reichstag election after the Reichstag fire, the Reichstag Fire Decree, and an election campaign where the Nazis used threats and violence. A voting coalition with the DNVP allowed them to pass the Enabling Act. Thereafter they ruled by decree and all political parties except the NSDAP were dissolved. There were no free elections and civil liberties were ignored.
Continuation War 1941-1944 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. [21] Five months after the start of the war, the United Kingdom reluctantly declared war 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. [13] p. 48. Neutral Sweden lost 200 merchant ships outside the Baltic Sea. [22] 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 The first national assemblies in both states were formed by members of the elected Constituent Assembly of India. Both states less than 3 years old. Poorly functioning democracy in Pakistan. [4] p. 120.
1948 Arab-Israeli War 1947-1949 More than 1000 battle deaths on the Syria-Israel side according to [19]. In Syria, president Shukri al-Kuwatli had been democratically elected in 1943, in election described by international observers as "the fairest under French mandate" [23] p. 249. , although with universal male suffrage only. Syria receives a +5 in the Polity scale[14], 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. 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. [23] p.248-250. [4] p. 120. [2] p. 313-314
Operation Ajax 1953 Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was democratically elected. 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". [24] British and US supported coup d'etat. No battle between armies from different natons. Less than 1000 battle deaths in the coup. Iran was perceived as turning into a Communist dictatorship.
Operation Pbsuccess 1954 President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán was democratically elected. United States supported coup d'etat. No battle between armies from different natons. Less than 1000 battle deaths in the coup: less than a hundred. The United States perceived Guatemala as a nascent Communist dictatorship. [2] p. 221-224, 314.
Cod Wars 1958-1976 Iceland and the United Kingdom were democracies. No battle deaths. [2] p. 315.
Operation Power Pack 1965 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. 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. [25]
Six-Day War 1967 Israel was an established democracy. Lebanon, which had a democratic system, sent jets into Israel at beginning of the war. No battle deaths. Poorly functioning democracy in Lebanon. [4] p. 120. [3] p. 18.
Chilean coup of 1973 1973 President Salvador Allende was democratically elected. The United States tried to undermine Salvador Allende's regime but was not directly involved in the coup d'etat. Chile was perceived as turning into a Communist dictatorship.[2] p. 227-228. Far less than 1000 battle deaths in the coup.
Turkish Invasion of Cyprus 1974 The leaders in Turkey were democratically elected. There was a coup d'etat in Cyprus before the war but the democratic constitution was restored during the invasion. Less than 1000 battle deaths: a few hundred. Initial hostilities after a bloody coup d'etat in Cyprus. Both the later formally democratic regime in Cyprus and that in Turkey was less than 3 years old. The military retained significant influence in both nations. [4] p. 120-121. [2] 314-315.
Paquisha War 1981 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"[14]. 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 Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia, won several elections. The NATO nations participating in Operation Allied Force were democratic. Serbia did not fulfill the criteria for a liberal democracy. Frequent and arbitrary changes of election laws and districts, 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", organised 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 fulfil the legal requirements for the validity of the elections. [26]

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.
Cenepa War 1995 Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori and the Ecuadorian President were democratically elected. Alberto Fujimori had made an auto-coup in 1992 and took on dictatorial powers. [27] Less than 1000 battle deaths.
Eritrean-Ethiopian War 1998-2000 No elections in Eritrea before the war. Authoritarian regime not respecting civil and political liberties. Poorly functioning democracy in Ethiopia. [28] [29]
Kargil War 1999 More than 1000 battle deaths. India was an established democracy. Pakistan had returned to democracy in 1988 [20] and had had only civilian governments since then. The Sharif government of Pakistan receives a score of +7 on a scale from +10 (high democracy) to -10 (high autocracy) for combined democracy/autocracy in the Polity data set[14], comparable to the level of democracy on this scale of Great Britain in 1900 (considered democratic by all major authors). Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was democratically elected with a large majority. He could pass constitutional amendments because he had enough seats in the parliament to do so, according to the same constitution. Regarding civil rights and freedom of press violations, it must be considered that war, its preparation, or its perceived proximity, have often led to restrictive measures even in more democratic states (e.g. McCarthyism). 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) [30] is significantly less negative than the 1999 report (the year of the war, which started in may)[31] . Freedom House rates Pakistan as "partly free", (so, not a liberal democracy in its view) but does not dispute it being an electoral democracy. Freedom House did not consider Pakistan to be a liberal democracy during the 90s.[32] Nawaz Sharif's government suppressed opposition-led demonstrations, arrested opposition activists, curtailed civil liberties, and persecuted independent NGOs and journalists. Many of the above events happened well before the war [30]. 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. [31][33][34]

On the other hand, 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"[35] If correct, then the Pakistani military invaded India without informing the elected Pakistani government.

[edit] Ongoing

Conflict Dates Arguments for being a war between well-established liberal democracies Arguments against being a war between well-established liberal democracies
Burundi Civil War 1993- The democracy was less than 3 years old when the elected leaders were killed in an attempted military coup d'etat a few months after the first democratic election in 1993. Followed by ethnic massacres and civil war. New elections in 2005. Still some fighting from a guerilla group that tried to disrupt the elections. [36][37]
Al-Aqsa Intifada 2000- Yasser Arafat was elected president in 1996. Since 2005, an elected Hamas government. New elections were postponed in 1998. The Infifada started in 2000. Arafat's regime ignored many civil liberties and ruled autocratically. [38] Elections in 2005 and 2006 following Arafat's death but the new regime is less than 3 years old.
Waziristan War 2004- In Waziristan many decisions in tribal life are made by a Jirga of elders. The current conflict started before 3 years had passed since the first elections after Pervez Musharraf's coup d'etat. Democracy still functions poorly in Pakistan. [39] Frequent blood feuds and vendettas. Not a liberal democratic state but rather tribes having some similarity to the earlier mentioned Iroquois and Hurons.
2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis 2006- Israel is an estabilished democracy. Lebanon has had a democractic system since at least 1992. Lebanon is not a liberal democracy according to Freedom House in its 2006 report (for the year 2005). Syria controlled much the politics in Lebanon until the Cedar Revolution in 2005. The organization Hezbollah exerts control over the southern part of Lebanon.

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Rummel, R.J. Democratic Peace Bibliography Version 3.0. Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War. Retrieved on July 15, 2006.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300070179. 
  3. ^ a b c d Russett, Bruce (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691033463. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Ray, James Lee (1995). Democracy and International Conflict. University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 1570030413. 
  5. ^ ;McManus, Barbara F. Social Classes in the Late Republic
  6. ^ UNRV, Roman Slavery
  7. ^ kondrat/Rome Government
  8. ^ Pennell, Robert F. Ancient Rome
  9. ^ Gowen, H, Hannibal Barca and the Punic Wars
  10. ^ a b The Struggle for Democracy. The National Archives. Retrieved on February 14, 2006.
  11. ^ a b The U.K. Parliament. The United Kingdom Parliament. Retrieved on February 14, 2006.
  12. ^ Creating the Anti-United States. American Heritage. Retrieved on March 4, 2006.
  13. ^ a b Gowa, Joanne (1999). Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratice Peace. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691002568. 
  14. ^ a b c d e Polity IV Project. Retrieved on March 4, 2006.
  15. ^ Fukuyama, Francis (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. ISBN 0029109752. 
  16. ^ "Orange Free State and Transvaal". Encyclopedia Britannica (11). (1911).
  17. ^ Vanhanen, Tatu (1984). The Emergence of Democracy: A Comparative Study of 119 States, 1850-1979. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. ISBN 9516531229. 
  18. ^ The Irish Election of 1918. Social & Political archive, Northern Ireland. Retrieved on July 20, 2006.
  19. ^ a b Correlates of War. Retrieved on July 20, 2006.
  20. ^ a b Huntington, Samuel P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series, Vol 4). University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0806125160. 
  21. ^ Auxiliary vessels and trade protection, Ed. Aromaa
  22. ^ Vallerö, Rolf (1963). "Svenska handelsflottans krigsförluster under det andra världskriget". Statens offentliga utredningar (1963:60).  [1]
  23. ^ a b Thompson, Elizabeth. (1999). Colonial Citizens: Republican Rights, Paternal Privilege, and Gender in French Syria and Lebanon, (online version requires free instant subscription), Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231106602. 
  24. ^ President Clinton Tells Some Useful Truths. Executive Intelligence Review. Retrieved on July 17, 2006.
  25. ^ Country Studies: Dominican Republic. Library of Congress. Retrieved on March 31, 2006.
  26. ^ Nedovic, Slobodanka, et al. (2000). "Guide Through Electoral Controverseries in Serbia". Centar Za Slobodne Izobre I Demoratiju.
  27. ^ World Report 1994 : Peru. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved on March 27, 2006.
  28. ^ Country Report 2002 : Eritrea. Freedom House. Retrieved on March 5, 2006.
  29. ^ Country Report 2002 : Ethiopia. Freedom House. Retrieved on March 7, 2006.
  30. ^ a b World Report 1998 : Pakistan. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved on July 17, 2006.
  31. ^ a b World Report 1999 : Pakistan. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved on February 14, 2006.
  32. ^ [2]
  33. ^ Pakistan: Feudalism: root cause of Pakistan’s malaise. News Weekly. Retrieved on February 14, 2006.
  34. ^ Wayman, Frank (2002). "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002.
  35. ^ [3]
  36. ^ World Report 1995 : Burundi. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved on March 4, 2006.
  37. ^ World Report 2006 : Burundi. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved on March 4, 2006.
  38. ^ Country Report 2002 : Israeli-Occupied Territories. Freedom House. Retrieved on March 4, 2006.
  39. ^ Country Report 2005 : Pakistan. Freedom House. Retrieved on March 4, 2006.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/l/User%7ESalix_alba_History_of_conflict_between_democracies_47f8.html"