Talk:List of wars between democracies

American Civil War

While worth mentioning, is it accurate to cite the US Civil War as a war between democracies when the subject of the war was whether the Confederate States were a legitimate government or merely states in rebellion to the democratic government? Considering that the Civil War is remembered in the US as a fight to end slavery, it isn't considered a war against a democracy, but an internal affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.239.51 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

War of 1812?

Pretty sure the monarchy was no democracy.

Yugoslav Wars

Slobodan Milosevic's rule was an autocracy[1][2]. It cannot be considered a democracy. It was therefore removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

More specific analysis say otherwise. All major parties involved in the Balkan Wars were formal democracies per cited sources, even if flawed ones or "iliberal" democracies per some authors (Tanzi), and your claim of "autocracy" is just a passing mention, not in-depth assessments like those of Antic and Tanzi. Darius (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Common sense says otherwise. Saying Slobodan Milosevic and his reign in Serbia was a democracy is like saying Vladimir Putin and his reign in Russia is a democracy. Several sources contradict you. Ronald Wintrobe, p. 3: "In the end, Milosevic can be viewed as a typical totalitarian dictator confronted with the collapse of the basis of his support; Vidosav Stevanovic, "Milosevic: The People's Tyrant", p. 1: "This is the story of Slobodan Milosevic, a lawyer by education, a politician, an anti-democrat, a semi-dictator"; Dusko Doder, Louise Branson, "Milosevic: Portrait of a Tyrant", p. 16: "By 1991, Milosevic could no longer take a walk in the streets of Belgrade: he was a hated dictator"; Lenard J. Cohen, "Post-Milosevic Serbia" "In October 2000, Slobodan Milosevic's 13-year old authoritarian regime collapsed" Kimberly L. Sullivan, "Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia", p. 9: "The international community, however, largely condemns Milosevic as a brutal dictator" [3]. These are six sources contradicting yours. I cannot believe that someone in 2024 in all honesty can actually push for the notion that Milosevic's Serbia was a democracy. Yugoslav Wars have to be excluded out of this list.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all: I have my own point of view on this issue, but I would not discuss it because this is Wikipedia, not a forum or something like that. According to sources, Milosevic won the Serbian presidential elections against oposition leaders (Draskovic, Panic) in 1990 and 1992. His party won the majority in parliament in 1990, 1992, but in 1993 they should form a coalition with the ultranationalist SRS in order to confront Draskovic (something hard to find in today's Russia, given your mention of Putin). Technically, all of this can be described as a working parliamentary democracy, in spite of all the crimes in which Milosevic was certainly involved. Furthermore, there are plenty of sources claiming he was not a dictator, but a hard-playing demagogue; [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Recent history shows a good number of democratic leaders involved in spying the oposition, lying to the people to wage war and even committing human right violations; their individual responsibility doesn't mean that their countries were not formal democracies.

Second point; the subject of this list is the issue of war between democracies and the scope of what is intended by "war" and "democracy", the lede is pretty clear. In any case, what matters in this discussion is the formal political systems of the warrying parties in the 1990 Balkan Wars, not the characterization of Milosevic.

P/S: Not the place to express personal believes, as I said above, but I want to make clear that I would never deny that Slobodan Milosevic was a war criminal, in spite of being a democratically elected leader.

Darius (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not if Milosevic is a war criminal, the issue is if he is a democratic politician or an autocratic / semi-dictator political figure. Considering his cult of personality, his overdominating role in the government that was marginalizing almost any other politician unless he was on board with his choices, his assassination of political rivals and jailing of journalists, his contempt for human rights, and that the end of his government is actually called Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević (imagine the end of Jacques Chirac's term being called "Overthrow of Jacques Chirac"), the conclusion is obvious. There is simply too much controversy and contradictions to include Serbia / Yugoslavia in this list with a clear conscience. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope. There is a cited source specifically dealing with the issue (I insist, not Milosevic, but the Balkan Wars) originated not from Milosevic's apologists, but from Croatian scholars of the University of Zagreb. Ray, whose work is also cited there, is one of the main authors cited in this article, as well as Tarzi. The English verb "overthrow" applies to both dictatorships and democratic rulers, that argument proves nothing. And in many cases it is a derogatory term for those who carried out the action. The cult of personality is usual in demagogues (like Milosevic), who, by the way, can take power in any democratic system as long as the people vote for them, there are recent examples of this even in Western countries.

I insist with what the intro of this article says about the threshold for a government system to be rated as democratic or not, and for a conflict to be be consider or not a war. Almost all the items in this list are debatable; being one of them a multinational conflict involving several parliamentary multiparty republics, at least in paper, namely the Yugoslav Wars. Controversy and contradictions don't overcome reliable sources.Darius (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the six sources I provided that contradict everything you wrote. Here is a seventh source,Freedom House report 1996, p. 497, where it lists Yugoslavia as "Not Free", and writes: "In 1993, Milosevic purged several leading Belgrade intellectuals from government institutions, harassed oppositionists, and moved against Seselj after the SRSled ouster of FRY President Dobrica Cosic", "In October, Milosevic dissolved the 250-member Serbian parliament", "Milosevic appoints the president and prime minister", "Milosevic's control of the media, particularly state television, effectively excludes opposition views and access", "State radio and television are subservient to Milosevic and the SPS, and staffed by Milosevic loyalists". Doesn't sound like a democracy, does it? Even the source you provided from the University of Zagreb is dubious and questionable: for instance, it contains this quote "According to Przeworski’s definition, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina did fulfil, prior to the war, the main criterion for democracy – change in power as a result of elections. However, Serbia and Montenegro did not" (p. 64). It also erroneously brings up the misspelled term "Great Serbia" when it means "Greater Serbia". Can you please provide an article that mentions an overthrow of a democratic leader through elections? Read Wikipedia's own article Slobodan Milošević where it says "Milošević's rule has been described as authoritarian or autocratic, as well as kleptocratic, with accusations of electoral fraud, assassinations, suppression of press freedom, and police brutality". Considering all these strong counterarguments, which you failed to take into consideration, the most reasonable conclusion would be that there is no Wikipedia:consensus to include Yugoslav Wars in the list of wars between democracies and should therefore be excluded. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Boring of a discussion that walks on the edge of breaching WP:NOTFORUM. Regarding "overthrow", it was you who use the verb for a case of a leader brought to power by popular vote and outsted also by popular vote, so the trick that Milosevic attempted to remain in power was not more serious that Trump's sympathizers assaulting the Congress. The question of the free press is put in doubt by at least one of the sources I provided. As for Milosevic "appointing the president and prime minister" in October 1993 it was the right thing to do as per as the Serbian Constitution of the time, since the ruling coalition had broken down, just like in any parlamentary system. Seems that you forget to mention the Milosevic also called to new elections immediatly. The elections were held in December, and the SPS was forced to make an alliance with a splinter faction of DEPOS, a liberal party. Dobrica was not "ousted" by a personal decision of Milosevic; he was actually replaced for Zoran Lilic by vote of both chambers of the Yugoslav Parliament (see [10]). Frankly I have no data for Serbia regarding freedom of speech, but back to 1991-1992 I remember press conferences by Draskovic and Panic in Belgrade talking freely about the misdeeds of Milosevic and the need of achieve peace in the region. Montenegro (part of Yugoslavia) at the time had at least one media outlet (Monitor), which was fiercly opposed to the invasion of Dubrovnik. No censorship fell upon them.

The Yugoslav Wars, despite being a contested issue, especially given the corruption and demagogy of Milosevic government (yes, corruption and demagogy can pervade a formal democratic system. Nixon, L.B. Johnson, Trump) are worth to be included because all the parties involved (even Serbia) were formally constitucional parliamentary republics and multiparty democracies. Every member of the main organs of government were elected by people. Were they actually working democracies? Well, that is within the scope of the blurred inclusion criteria: "For many of these entries, whether there has been a war, or a democracy, is a debatable question; all significant views should be given". Feel free to add the portrait of Milosevic as an "autocrat" citing your sources, but don't remove the well documented statement about the formal democratic status of the republics involved in the war.

P/S: Don´t cite´´Milosevic: Portrait of a Tyrant´´ because it is a manifest partisan source.

Darius (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to quit the discussion, since you failed to undeniably dispute the contentious choice of including Milosevic here. The sources you provided did not make my sources undeniably irrelevant nor were they undeniably annulled. Long story short, one cannot include the Yugoslav Wars beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore there is no Wikipedia:Consensus. If there is no agreement, a contentious claim must go.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not "including Milosevic" in this list, I (and others with me) included the constitutional multiparty system that allowed him to take power by the vote of the people and keep his party as the main party in Serbia (in coalition with other forces) as an example that young, feeble democracies, like those post-Yugoslav republics, could resort to war. Whether or not he abused of the flaws of the system, or if that system is dubbed an "iliberal democracy" by some authors is another matter; technically, all the parts involved in the Balkan Wars were ruled by democratic constitutions. Keep in mind that this list also included WWI on the basis that the German Empire, not a full democracy itself, had some degree of control of the military power through the multiparty Reichstag. You are failing to grasp that almost all the cases listing in the article are somehow controversial but worth of being mentioned here as counterexamples of the so call "democratic peace theory". I am not defending the demagogue and criminal Milosevic, I am only preserving the principle of respecting what reliable sources say. And I will not quit the discussion. Darius (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your sources say one thing, my sources say the exact opposite. There is no Wikipedia:Consensus on this and thus it cannot be included. A country can have elections, and the elected politician can still become an autocratic ruler and thus subvert the entire democratic process. The 1996 Freedom House report describes Yugoslavia as "Not Free". You can disagree that Milosevic was a dictator, but you cannot disagree that he was an autocrat, which his own article here confirms. You can also pretend that Serbia / Yugoslavia in the 90s was somehow separate from Milosevic himself, but when an autocratic ruler becomes part of the government, one cannot say these are two separate categories that have no relation with each other. There is no consesus.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Canovist Spain was not a democracy

Spain during the so-called Canovism or Borbonic Restauration was not a democracy and there are endless reputable sources that support this. Check, for instance, [1][2] and [3] in this article of the Spanish Wikipedia es:Resultados de las elecciones generales de España durante la Restauración. The fact that sham elections with prearranged results were regularly held does not make a regime democratic.

In the reference provided in this article, the author – who, in her own words, is used to receiving bad reviews – seems to begin her argument from the conviction that "wars between democracies were common except during the Cold War era" and proceeds to provide seemingly weak arguments by claiming that this or that government could technically be considered a democracy or technically a war between the democracies – on such claim is her claim of the co-belligerence of democratic Finland and Germany against the Soviet Union, who was allied with the democratic British and American governments. Given that democratic governments were rare until modern times, making an exception for the Cold War is making an exception for a significant part of the history of democracy.

As such, per WP:FRINGE, I have removed all references to the Spanish-American War in this article. 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Schweinchen (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Britain vs White Finland (1918-1920)?

I hope not to break talk pages guidelines, but an interesting case to focus on would be the campaign fought by British Forces between 1918 and 1920 on the Russian-Finnish border during the North Russia Intervention against independent Finland, a parlamentary democracy. According to the main authors dealing with the subject (White and Kingvig) of the British intervention, there were several minor battles and skirmishes involving British army soldiers and marines, who even assisted Bolshevik Russia against White Finnish. Can anybody search for sources to shed light on this issue? Darius (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)