Was the Kosovo War a war between democracies?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Was the Kosovo War a war between democracies?

[The Dowager Mod]

None of the locals involved were elected even remotely fairly so no.

[12th Doctor]

Nope

[Nym90]

None of the locals involved were elected even remotely fairly so no.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There has never been a war between two democracies, has there?

[12th Doctor]

None of the locals involved were elected even remotely fairly so no.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There has never been a war between two democracies, has there?

Not since the War of 1812

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, there are quite a few counterexamples besides this one. My post on why Milosevic was not exactly a dictator will come next.

Aside from that there was a brief border war between Ecuador and Peru in 1995, Syria was a democracy in 1948 when it attacked Israel, both Pakistan and India were democracies when they though their first war, and they both were in 1999 when they had another Kashmir conflict, etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK, it's easy to see Milosevic as a dictator because of his actions, but look at the facts:

-He was President of Serbia from 1989-1997. In 1989 he did not come to power democratically, he forced the resignation of the previous president and was appointed by the then ruling Communist Party. But he did largely oversee the democratic reforms of 1990, that led to the elections of the seceding governments in most of the Yugoslav republics that seceded (this also means that Slovenia and Croatia's wars for independence could classify as well, both governments participating were democratically elected). However he did win the democratic elections held for his second term. He also stepped down in 1997 due to being limited to two terms. How many dictators obey term limits?

-Furthermore, while he was responsible for most of the conflict at the time, the President of Serbia was not a head of state, Serbia was not an independent nation, it was still part of Yugoslavia, which for most of the time only included Montenegro as well. How can one be a dictator while only controlling part of their country?

-During the Kosovo War, he was head of State, as President of Yugoslavia. However, he won the 1997 election to this. He ran for a higher (though arguably less powerful) office after being term-limited to a lower one. Quite common in democratic governments, and not really neccesary in dictatorships.

-And his final removal from power was after he lost the election. It is true that he initially refused to step down, and the people revolted and forced him to resign, however the election did go and the official results had him winning, there were irregularities to it, but these were done by his government for exactly the reason of giving him an excuse to refuse to step down in case of defeat, citing election irregularities (which is what he did). Despite this, he still lost in the official results, which is much different from previous uprisings following obviously rigged elections (Phillippines 1986 and Kyrgyzstan 2005)

So for all the trouble he caused in the region, Milosevic was more or less democratically elected during almost all of his tenure in office.

[Jake]

Why do you ask questions knowing the answers? Just so you can show off?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, I was interested if anyone else agreed with me. So far I'm the only yes vote though.

[minionofmidas]

The NATO decisionmaking processes are not very democratic, so no.

Colin - 1812? Neither the US not the UK of 1812 was even remotely as democratic as Milosevic's Serbia, let alone a real, fully formed democracy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The U.K was not democratic in 1812 by any stretch of the imagination; it wouldn't even become slightly worthy of the term until the 1880's and didn't become entirely worthy of it until the early 20th century.

[Bono]

None of the locals involved were elected even remotely fairly so no.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There has never been a war between two democracies, has there?

Not since the War of 1812

You're forgetting the war of northern agression.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, War of 1812 doesn't count, but I did list some other examples above.

I'm suprised at how no one ever mentions Syria had a democratically elected government in 1948, although it was overthrown in 1949, largely because of its defeat by Isreal.

[minionofmidas]

No, War of 1812 doesn't count, but I did list some other examples above.

I'm suprised at how no one ever mentions Syria had a democratically elected government in 1948, although it was overthrown in 1949, largely because of its defeat by Isreal.

I'm not sure if Israel had a democratically elected government before the 48 war though...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyone know where I can look up when the first Israeli elections were held?

I'm pretty sure India and Pakistan's first war was after they held elections though. Also, the Spanish-American War might count, and there was some time in 19th century when France invaded some recently established democatic republic in Italy.

[Storebought]

The U.K was not democratic in 1812 by any stretch of the imagination; it wouldn't even become slightly worthy of the term until the 1880's and didn't become entirely worthy of it until the early 20th century.

A smaller proportion of the adult male population could vote for MPs in Regency-era parliament than in Tudor England.

Normally, I would argue that your understanding of the word "democracy" is an historical aberration, and that Periklean Athens and "hey-nonny-nonny" England were better representations of real democratic government. But then I read this:

I read your speech and I must frankly say, with much regret, there is little in it that I can agree with. You lay down broadly the doctrine of universal suffrage which I can never accept. I deny that every sane and not disqualified man has a moral right to vote. What every man and woman too have a right to, is to be well governed and under just laws, and they who propose a change ought to show that the present organisation does not accomplish those objects. Your speech may win Lancashire for you, though that is doubtful but I fear it will tend to lose England for you.

Lord Palmerston, a "Liberal", to W Gladstone, 1864.

I guess, in that meaning, Britain, the Confederacy, and ancient Athens, were "democracies" in the sense that their goverment, comprised of aristocratic amateurs, governed for the well-being of their population -- something that Czarist Russia or ptolemaic Egypt couldn't even pretend to do.

And Bono already answered the question on the only instance of a civil war being fought between two democracies.

[minionofmidas]

Also, the Spanish-American War might count, and there was some time in 19th century when France invaded some recently established democatic republic in Italy.

The Spanish American does not count. Heck, you might just as well count the Southern slavers. Just because Spain had a parliament doesn't mean it was democratically elected.

France helped Piedmont to conquer Italy, and was recompensed with Savoy (which the Savoyards had been wanting ever since the Golden Days they enjoyed under the first Napoleon; they spoke French anyways) and Nice, where the positive result of a referendum to legitimise the landgrab had to be, ahem, made.