The great hopes that are presently riding on a transition to democracy in Iraq remind me of a claim still popular in some circles: That democracies never make war on one another. It would be nice if that were true but those who know their ancient history point to the attack of the Athenian democracy on Syracuse as a counter example and those who know their modern history point to the American civil war as a counter-example. The Confederacy was roughly as democratic as the Union.
Those who favour the “peaceful democracy” theory manage to hem and haw their way out of the examples concerned by adding limitations to their theory, however, so let me point out another VERY large exception: World War I. Germany in 1914 was a democracy! And a rather enlightened one at that which took better care of its people than almost any other country at that time did. Wartime propaganda which portrayed the war as the doing of “Kaiser Bill” still lives on but the legal powers of the German monarch were in fact not dissimilar to those of the British monarch. This entry about the Kaiser from the Encyclopedia Britannica is a useful starting point for understanding what actually went on:
William often bombastically claimed to be the man who took the decisions. It is true that the German constitution of 1871 put two important powers in his hands. First, he was responsible for appointing and dismissing the chancellor, the head of the civil government. Admittedly, the chancellor could only govern if he could get a majority in the Reichstag, but this limitation on the emperor's freedom of choice was more apparent than real, because most members of the Reichstag felt it their loyal duty to support whomever the Kaiser appointed. Secondly, the German Army and Navy were not responsible to the civil government, so that the Kaiser was the only person in Germany who was in a position to see that the policy followed by the soldiers and sailors was in line with that pursued by the civil servants and diplomats. Thus, British journalists and publicists had some justification when during and immediately after the war they portrayed the Kaiser as Supreme War Lord, and therefore the man who, more than anyone else, decided to make war.
As time passes, however, historians are increasingly coming to see William as an accomplice rather than an instigator. In the years after 1890 the German upper and middle classes would have wanted a larger say in the world's councils no matter who had been on the throne, and this "urge to world power" was almost bound to bring them into collision with some of the existing great powers. The chief real criticism to be made of the Kaiser is that, instead of seeing this danger and using his influence to restrain German appetites, he shared those appetites and indeed increased them, particularly by his determination to give Germany a navy of which it could be proud. He was a quick-witted, well-meaning man who went with the stream instead of having the vision and strength of judgment to stand out against it.
So the difference between the British and German monarchies was not so much one of different legal powers but of different styles. The Queen is also legally the one who appoints British Prime Ministers and who is head of Britain’s armed forces. Just because the British monarch normally does not exercise visible power may create the illusion that he/she has no power but the power is in fact there. This is best shown in Australia, where the royal powers are vested in the Governors and Governors General. These viceroys have in fact twice in the last century exercised their vice-regal powers to dismiss elected governments! And if the newly restored King of Spain could face down a military coup in 1981, how much more authoritative the Queen of England would be if any such crisis arose!
I might add that the Britannica’s comment that the German parliament felt duty-bound to support whatever Chancellor (Prime Minister) the Kaiser chose is a gross exaggeration. Even the brilliant Chancellor Bismarck had a lot of trouble with German parliaments. Germany was undoubtedly in 1914 as much a democracy as the Britain it went to war with. Democracy is unquestionably a good thing but it is no guarantee of peace.
For those who take an interest in ancient history it is clear from the account of the Athenian attack given in Thucydides that Syracuse was also democratic. We read:
". . . Meanwhile the Syracusans burned their dead and then held an assembly, in which Hermocrates, son of Hermon, a man who with a general ability of the first order had given proofs of military capacity and brilliant courage in the war, came forward and encouraged them, and told them not to let what had occurred make them give way, since their spirit had not been conquered . . ." [later] "The Syracusans heard him, and voted everything as he advised, and elected three generals . . "
And as far as mediaeval history is concerned we might note that many of the Italian city States (such as Venice) were both democratic and aggressive. Although not exactly a case of one democracy attacking another, the account of the ancient and blind Doge (President) Dandolo sailing off at the head of the Venetian fleet to loot Constantinople is still one of history’s most remarkable and dastardly tales.
************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment