Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

[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.