Dean V. Babst
Wisconsin State Department of Public Welfare
In 1961 Congress created the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency. One of the goals assigned to it was to carry
out research toward achieving a ‘‘better understanding of how the basic
structure of a lasting peace may be established (1)_". One approach to
this problem is to inquire whether there are certain types of governments which
do not make war against each other.
PureJy impressionistically the hypothesis was
formulated that these would be freely elected governments of independent
countries, the borders of which are firmly established. This is based on the assumption
that the general public does not want war, if it can choose. However, the
possibility of choice requires independence and the existence of an elective
government. The tendencies of such governments to work out international
differences by means other than war would be most obvious in their dealings
with other such governments.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a preliminary
test of this hypothsis. This test was made by asking the question. “Have there
been any wars fought between independent freely elected governments?" In
order to make a systematic test’ a search was made for a list of wars and the
countries participating in them. One of the best enumerations was found in
Quincy Wright’s book A Study of War (2).
Wright and his associates listed all major wars
fought since 1500. They define a major war as one important enough to involve
over 50,000 troops or to cause the creation or extinction of states,
territorial transfers, or changes in governments.
Using this list, each war was evaluated to determine
if any freely elected independent government fought each other. In order to
objectively compare governments of various areas for different periods, it was
necessary to deve]op an operational definition of the type of government in
which we are interested. The definition used is that a country's government
will be considered as freely elected, for the year under consideration, when it
has the following four characteristics:
1.
Legislation and
national finances are controlled by a legislature or parliament whose members
are chosen by majority vote from at least two opposing choices, at regular
intervals, by the electorate.
2,
The
administrative control of the government is by an executive chosen by majority
vote by a parliament secured in the above manner, or by direct vote of the
electorate, from two or more opposing candidates, at regular intervals. If an
hereditary ruler, such as a king, can chose the prime minister or president,
then the country is not considered to have an elective government unless the
monarch’s function is primarily ceremonial.
The author wishes to
express his gratitude to Hugo 〇.Engelman. John W. Mannering and Paul H. Kusuda for
their critical review of an earlier version of the paper.
3. There is a secret ballot and
some freedom of speech and press; otherwise the opposing choices are not
legitimate.
4. Since in a country that is not independent the
population cannot exercise a relevant choice the country must be independent at
the start of the war.
The question here is whether any wars occurred
between governments meeting the preceding specifications. Quincy Wright's list
of wars extends from 1480 to 1941, when his book was published. However, only
the wars from 1789 to 1941 were analyzed. 1789 was selected as a starting point
for this study, because it was this year the first elective government in our
sense, that of the United State, began operating.
James Bryce, shows the recency of popular elective
governments in. human history (3),
“A century ago there was in the Old World only one
tiny spot in which the working of democracy could be studied. A few of the
ancient rural cantons of Switzerland had recovered their freedom after the fall
of Napoleon, and were governing themselves as they had done from the earlier
Middle Ages, but they were too small and their conditions too peculiar to
furnish instruction to larger communities or throw much light on popular
governments in general. Nowhere else in Europe did the people rule. Britain
enjoyed far wider freedom than any part of the European Continent, but her local
as well as central government was still oligarchic. When the American Republic
began its national life with the framing and adoption of the Federal
Constitution in 1787-89, the only materials which history furnished to its
founders were those which the republics of antiquity had provided, so it was to
these materials that both those founders and the men of the first French
Revolution constantly recurred for examples to be followed or avoided.”
From this shaky beginning, popular elected
governments have grown greatly in number and size to become a world force.
Despite two world wars and many lesser ones there has been a large growth in
the number of elective governments, e. g. United States, Great Britain, Norway,
West Germany, Finland, India, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Israel, Australia,
Switzerland.
Quincy Wright and his associates list 116 major wars
from 1789 to 1941 (date of publication), with 438 participating countries. An
analysis of this list shows that no wars have been fought between independent
nations with elective governments. Such nations have fought many wars against
autocratic governments, and even some against their own colonies who wanted to
become independent, but these nations have not waged war against each other.
Only the major
wars can be considered in this paper. It is hoped that the testing of the
hypothesis can be extended to the future. We should also find answers to these
further, unresolved questions. For example, why have some of these elective
governments occasionally fought a colony or area under their control which
also had a freely elected government and was trying to become independent? This
appears to be a serious weakness with elective governments but cannot be
considered here.
.Elective Governments — A Force for Peace
The first war that came close to being a war between
independent nations with elective governments was the war of 1812. In this war
the United States was independent and had an elective government. Great Britain
had an elected parliament but the king still dictated the choice of the prime
minister and had considerable power in the operation of the government. It was
not until about 1832 that parliment choose the prime minister.
In the Civil War, starting in 1861，the Southern States had an elective government but
were not independent. Rather they were fighting to become independent and
establish their boundaries. The South African War starting in 1899, between
Great Britain and South Africa was another war of this type.
In the nineteenth century the number of independent
nations with freely elected governments was limited. Consequently, while there
was the possibility of war between such governments the probability of such
occurring at any one time was small. However, the fact that during the entire
century no major war occurred between such nations lend support to our
hypothesis.
Could the fact that there were no major wars between
independent elective governments have occurred by chance? World Wars I and II provide an opportunity to make
a more rigorous test of this possibility. These wars had more participants
than any of the other wars listed by Wright.
Irv World War I 38 countries
participated (Wright, Table 41). Five of these were not independent at the
start of the war; India, Hejaz, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. This
leaves the 33 independent nations shown in Table 1. Of these ten had elective
governments as defined earlier.
Table 1
Independent
Naiions Which Participated in World War I
Allies and Associated Powers___________________________
|
Central Powers
|
Elective
|
Non-Elective
|
|
Non-Elective
|
Governments
|
Governments
|
|
Governments
|
Australia
|
China
|
Montenergro
|
Austria-Hungary
|
Belgium
|
Costa Rica
|
Nicaragua
|
Bulgaria
|
Canada
|
Cuba
|
Panama
|
Germany
|
Great Britain
|
Greece
|
Portugal
|
Turkey
|
France
|
Guatemala
|
Rumania
|
|
Italy
|
Haiti
|
Russia
|
|
Brazil
|
Honduras
|
San Marino
|
|
New Zealand
|
Japan
|
Serbia
|
|
Union of
|
Liberia
|
Siam
|
|
South Africa
|
Luxemburg
|
|
|
United States ______
|
|
|
|
|
Could
the fact, that all of the independent elective governments were on the same
side have occurred by chance? One way of statistical testing this relationship
is in the following manner. Between the 33 independent nations there were 33! or 528 possible
ways they could have
fought on another. There were 72 declarations of war between them. With this
many war relationships the probability of war between any two nations was p
equals 72 equals .14.
Between the 10 elective governments there were10!/ (10-2)! 2! or
45 different ways they
could have fought one another. There were no wars declared between them. The
proportion of wars fought to wars possible was p equals 0/45 equals 0,
Using the test for the significance of the difference
between proportions it was found that the difference between these proportions
was statistically significant on the 1 percent level.
Another intriguing thing about World War I is that before Italy entered the war she was allied
with the Central Powers. This meant that Italy, with an elective government at
that time, was allied, against many other elective governments. However, before
she entered the war public sentiment turned so strongly against the alliance
that it was broken and eventually Italy entered the war on the side of other
elective governments.
Germany and Austria-Hungary prior to World War I had governments with some elective features, however
they could not be considered elective governments as specified in this study.
Germany had an elective Reichstag but the Emperor, an hereditary ruler, had
much authority such as choosing the chancellor. In Austria-Hungary the Emperor
had considerable power and used it. Prior to the war he had parliament
adjourned, and it remained muzzled for several years thereafter.
World War II provides another opportunity to test whether the lack
of wars between independent nations with elective governments could have
occurred by chance. The same procedure was followed as in the case of World War
I. Fifty-two nations which participated in the war were independent on Sept 1,
1939, the date the. invasion of Poland began. See Table 2. Of the 52 nations,
14 had elective governments in our sense. Between the 52 nations there were
52!/(52-2)2!
or 1,326
possible ways they could have fought one another.
______ Alleis_______
|
|
|
Axis Powers
|
Nations With Elev- tive Governments
|
Nations Without Elective _____________ Governments
|
|
Australia
|
Argentina
|
Latvia
|
Bulgaria*
|
Belgium
|
Bolivia
|
Liberia
|
Finland*
|
Canada
|
Brazil
|
Lithuania
|
Germany
Hungary*
|
Chile
|
China
|
Luxenburg
|
Costa Hica
|
Columbia
|
Mexico
|
Italy
|
Denmark
|
Cuba
|
Nicaragua
|
Japan
|
France
|
Dominican
|
Panama
|
Rumania
|
Great Britain
|
Republic
|
Paraguay
|
Siam*
|
Netherlands
|
Ecuador
|
Peru
|
|
New Zealand
|
El Salvador
|
Poland
|
|
Norway
|
Estonia
|
Hussia
|
|
Union of
|
Greece
|
Saudi Arabia
|
|
South Africa
|
Guatemala
|
Tukey
|
|
Uruguay
|
Haiti
|
Venezula
|
|
United States
|
Honduras
Iran
|
Yugoslavia
|
|
Table 2
Nations Which Were
Independent on September 1 ,1939
And Which
Pariicipaled in World War II
|
*These members of the Axis Powers were first occupied
by Germany and Japan and
then used against the Allies.
Wright's book was published before the end of the
war, therefore the source for the data on World War II are his book and the States- men's Yearbooks
(4).
During the second World War there were 103 war
relationships between the independent nations. The only war relationships
counted were those that occurred before the nations lost their independence. A
declaration of war, or an invasion of a country without a declaration of war,
were counted as war relationship.
With this many
war relationships the probability of war between any two nations was p equals
103/1,326 equals .078.
Between the 14 elective
nations involved there were 14!/(14-2)! 2!
or 91 different ways they could have fought one
another. Since there were no wars declared between them，the proportion of wars fought to
that possible was p equals 0/105 equals 0. Again testing the difference between these proportions, it was found to be
statistically significant on the 1 percent level.
In World War II there was one
nation with an elective government, Finland, which fought with the Axis Powers
against the other elective governments. This situation provides a very
interesting example of the desire for peace between nations with elective
governments. Finland frequently expressed a desire not to fight the other
nations with elective governments but she had lost her independence prior to
December, 1941, when she entered the war.
After Hitler took Norway he insisted on the right to
transport troops across Finland to face Hussia. This was reluctantly granted.
He then disregarded the terms of the transit agreement so that by June 1941
there were two German SS divisions with their entire military equipment moving
about North Finland. During the war the Finns were left some independence of
action since Hitler wanted their help in fighting Russia. However, an
indication of how little this independence amounted to is given by the fact
that the Germans were only removed after they had devasted much of Northern
Finland in 1945.
No rigorous test
of the wars from World War II to 1963 was made. This is
another study in itself. However a general review of the main wars since 1941
appears to be consistent with the findings here reported.
This study suggests
that the existence of independent nations with eJective governments greatly
increases the chances for the maintenance of peace. What is important is the form of government, not na- ional
character. Many nations, such as England and France, fought wars against each
other before they acquired freely elected governments, but have not done so
since. The rapid increase in the nrnnber of elective governments since World
War II is an encouraging sign. Diplomatic efforts at war
prevention might well be directed toward further accelerating this growth. •
Heferences
(1)
An Aci To
Establish A Uniled States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Public
Law 87-297, September 27, 1961.
(2) Wright, Quincy; A Siudy of War, Volume 1, Chicago University of Chicago Press 1942.
(3) Bryce, James; Modern Democracies, Volume 1, New York,
The Macmillan Company, 1929 p. 3,
(4) Steinberg, S. H, editor, Staleman's Year-book, New York, Saint Martin Press.
http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/BABST.ELECTIVE.GOVERNMENT.PDF
