Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

[jmm99]

put Algeria ? Part of France - not part of French Union colonial structure - which was a democracy. Easy enough to explain it away since the democratic standards applied to Paris did not apply to Algiers, etc., etc. But, the result was secession.

PS: the topic seems OK - and, in the examples, the term "quasi-democracy" would fit many (IMO); thus, slanting the playing field in favor of insurgency "winning". Maybe there are two questions:

1. Why are there insurgencies in democracies ? E.g., Why the War of Northern Agression ?

2. Why are those insurgencies unsuccessful, etc. ?

[Starbuck]

Does the money play a role? I was reading something from Fareed Zakaria the other day regarding liberal democracies, and he stated that they tend to occur (and become stable) when the per capita income exceeds a certain point. If that's the cases, then people feel less likely to wage war against the government if they have money, property and thus, something to lose.

A democracy also gives the violent minority a voice in the government, a chance to elect people to advance their agenda, whereas non-democratic nations do not. Exceptions should be made in cases like Israel, where a minority group is not represented in the government, and experiences a very low standard of living, and thus, we might not call it a "true" democracy.

Furthermore, I would expect that most democracies would be more likely to reach a political settlement in the face of a protracted conflict, as democracies tend to not settle for protracted wars. Or am I just looking at this from a Western American point of view (Phillipines, Eastern Europe, etc).

[Cavguy]

Does the money play a role? I was reading something from Fareed Zakaria the other day regarding liberal democracies, and he stated that they tend to occur (and become stable) when the per capita income exceeds a certain point. If that's the cases, then people feel less likely to wage war against the government if they have money, property and thus, something to lose.

Starbuck - welcome to the board. Please introduce yourself here. Like the BSG handle.

My first thought was that it involved money, but the "democratic insurgencies" span the gamut from extremely poor to rich on a relatively even bell curve - take the UK/Northern Ireland example. For example Uruguay and Senegal are on there, hardly economic powerhouses then or now.

A democracy also gives the violent minority a voice in the government, a chance to elect people to advance their agenda, whereas non-democratic nations do not. Exceptions should be made in cases like Israel, where a minority group is not represented in the government, and experiences a very low standard of living, and thus, we might not call it a "true" democracy.

The RAND set calls this an anocracy, which accounts for Israel, South Africa, and the French (Algeria) case. Rule by minority or small majority (often democratic), but without universal suffrage for a significant portion of the electorate.

Furthermore, I would expect that most democracies would be more likely to reach a political settlement in the face of a protracted conflict, as democracies tend to not settle for protracted wars. Or am I just looking at this from a Western American point of view (Phillipines, Eastern Europe, etc).

I would have thought so too, but when compared to the mean of political settlements across all insurgencies, democracies actually settle LESS! I think democratic insurgencies involve issues or ideologies less willing to compromise.

There are some dataset coding issues, but none of my quibbles has changed the overall observation significantly.

[Cavguy]

put Algeria ? Part of France - not part of French Union colonial structure - which was a democracy. Easy enough to explain it away since the democratic standards applied to Paris did not apply to Algiers, etc., etc. But, the result was secession.

PS: the topic seems OK - and, in the examples, the term "quasi-democracy" would fit many (IMO); thus, slanting the playing field in favor of insurgency "winning". Maybe there are two questions:

1. Why are there insurgencies in democracies ? E.g., Why the War of Northern Agression ?

2. Why are those insurgencies unsuccessful, etc. ?

Algeria was considered an Anocracy by RAND- rule by minority, since the (democratic) French denied suffrage to the Algerian population.

I replied to a PM on the civil war question - as I have read various definitions I have concluded that not all civil wars are insurgencies - mainly because the pol-sci definition of civil war requires "organized military units" among other things, which not all insurgencies (even some successful ones) have.

[Bob's World]

put Algeria ? Part of France - not part of French Union colonial structure - which was a democracy. Easy enough to explain it away since the democratic standards applied to Paris did not apply to Algiers, etc., etc. But, the result was secession.

PS: the topic seems OK - and, in the examples, the term "quasi-democracy" would fit many (IMO); thus, slanting the playing field in favor of insurgency "winning". Maybe there are two questions:

1. Why are there insurgencies in democracies ? E.g., Why the War of Northern Agression ?

2. Why are those insurgencies unsuccessful, etc. ?

I see insurgency as the course of last resort of a populace to effect change of governance. In a country with no or few legitimate means to effect change, the popualce as a whole both loses hope sooner that change will not occur in due course, and gets to "last resort" sooner as a result.

So why do you still get situations like the American Civil War? Two factors are important. All legal means had been exhausted and we were at a stalemate; two, the issued divided the populace in clear geographic sides. If the issue would have been more like gun control or abortion, that is difused accross the populace in no neat, geographic segments, it is unlikely to result in insurgency. Just suck it up and keep voting.

Look at Tailand. Not a US brand democracy, but there is an ongoing islamic insurgency even though Muslims are less than 5% of the populace. Geographically though, that 5% is a compressed majority down on the Malaysian border. Similar in the Philippines.

2. Why are they not successful? As far back as Sun Tzu military leaders have know that an enemy with no recourse but to fight will fight harder and longer than one who knows that they can either escape, or if forced to surrender, will face a fate better than death. Same concept probably applies here. If a democratic populace is finally pushed to fight, like the South, once that fight appears hopeless they are probably much more inclined to accept a compromise than a popualce that knows that once committed to the fight they must either prevail or die. It was a matter of honor that drove them to fight, and given the option of an honorable surrender, they were willing to take it.

To me this all seems like common-sense, but as that isn't as common as one might hope, this may make a worthwhile paper. My only real reservation is that I am really against all of the "Democracy" rhetoric that has permeated the U.S. message, strategy, and activities of late. I far prefer self-determination and popular sovereignty.

To me, Democracy is a lot like sex. Its great if everyone involved wants it, but if forced upon you it is rape. To carry that analogy probably one step too far: If the Uncle Sam would improve his message and delivery, he'd probably find a lot more willing takers...