Exploring War and Democracy Dynamics

My name is Craig Jackson. I am a professor of law at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, where I teach constitutional law and international law. You may be wondering what my background I have behind me. This is a picture of the first session of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945. I thought I'd use it because today's topic is war and democracy for the Houston Area Urban League's Social Justice and Advocacy Fall Series. Now, I have chosen four different topics for our discussion today. There are four inquiries that I want to talk about today. They are, what is democracy? How is war making structured in a democracy? Are democracies more prone to go to war than authoritarian regimes? And do democracies go to war against other democracies? First question. What is democracy? Democracy is rather hard to define because there are different kinds of democracies, but the paradigm of understanding is government by the people, but what exactly does that mean? Well, the academic literature identifies broadly several kinds of democracies. It is important to understand that among the variety of governmental units in the world, There are different varieties of democracies with their own unique characteristics. So with that disclaimer, first there is what is called pure participatory democracy, where citizens directly participate in law and policymaking. In modern times, it seems to work best at local levels, though many governmental units like California often rely on referendum votes to amend their constitutions with regard to all sorts of matters. I guess the thing we most identify with in terms of pure participatory democracy is the New England town hall from centuries ago in this country. Also, even further back, we might look to the democratic system and systems in the Greek city-state. Now, another form of democracy is representative democracy. Some scholars refer to liberal democracy as... representative democracy in which the people elect the policy and lawmakers. Now, though these kinds of governments have, like in the case of the referendum process, aspects of participatory democracy within their portfolio, here participation is channeled through a structural framework of government in terms of elected lawmakers to minimize the effects of citizen participation. Take the US national government, for example. Members of the House of Representatives are supposed to be close to the people, and maybe so. But that is not pure participatory democracy, since the congresspersons vote on the laws, and then there's the Senate, which is even further away from the people than the House. So it's fair to say that there is no participatory government in the United States. We are more of a liberal democracy. i.e. a representative democracy. Now, importantly, it's very important to realize this is not an exhaustive list of kinds of democracies. So the reason for our second topic, how is war making structured in a democracy? Each democracy, regardless of kind, will have their own constitutional power structure with regard to war making. Take the United Kingdom, for example. A country has a constitutional monarchy, which is essentially a misnomer, since the monarchy was relieved of any significant governmental power centuries ago. Also, there is essentially no written constitution, so to speak. Under that democracy's governmental processes, war-making is technically a monarchical prerogative, but it's actually based on recommendation. of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Only recently has there developed a practice of parliamentary debate and vote on the deployment of forces. But at present, it is only a custom and there is no clear constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval. But in the United States, our constitutional systems are clear and definitive on paper. But in action, the decision to go to war is anything but clear. First of all, we have to deal with the question, what is war? Full-scale, declared war, or military action like bombing Syrian installations. believed to have been launching bases for chemical attacks on civilians, or drone attacks on suspected terrorists. In the US, the entire Congress, Senate, and House must approve war. Usually, we think of war by declaration of war under the Constitution. But when we consider that the last declaration of war this country made was in December of 1941, it becomes clear that other means of going to war have been used, whether... constitutionally or not. The other great feature of the declaration of war is that the people decide, not directly, but through their elected representatives to go to war. The House is particularly important because it is a more democratic institution than the Senate because it is closer to the people than the statewide elected Senate. For political reasons, the practice of late has been for the Congress to pass what is called an authorization to use military force. This device, like the declaration of war, requires both houses of Congress to authorize the president to use force in a given situation. However, an authorization does not include the additional powers of the president and government triggered by a declaration of war. The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were pursuant to separate authorizations to use military force. Now from the beginning, the Republic of the Republic, there has been an understanding, based on notes from the Constitutional Convention by James Madison, that the President may need to act to repel sudden attacks without congressional approval or declaration of war. Now, this necessary understanding, which is not written in the Constitution, takes us one step away from democratic decision-making when it comes to war. And on top of this, the lack of clarity in the meaning of repel, threaten, attack, and you have further confusion. From Jefferson's military engagement with the Barbary pirates in North Africa near the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, to the response to the 9-11 attacks this century, to today's drone warfare, one has to ask whether this is warfare are just repelling sudden attacks. And if the latter, what does that mean? And are the decisions taken by Democrats in a Democratic fashion? And to make things even more complicated, does a Democratic use of force require a Democratic declaration of war by Congress, an authorization to use military force, which is not a declaration of war in the constitutional sense, or just Democratic appropriations of funds by Congress, which many believe led to the continued fighting in Vietnam, not a declaration of war, and not really an authorization to use force. But Congress kept providing the funds for the Vietnam War. I don't have the answers to these questions, nobody does actually, because these kinds of questions have never reached the Supreme Court, and because of a principle called the political question doctrine, never will. So it leads me to the next question, are democracies more prone to war than authoritarian regimes? According to a 2018 study by researchers from Caltech and Texas A&M, democracies are more prone to war than authoritarian governments. It may be surprising. It was surprising to me when I heard this. But among the explanations for this conclusion are the audience, our constituency, cost, and the dynamics of war and peace. A democratic leader seen as a loser in a conflict with another state, may be voted out of office, while an authoritarian leader does not necessarily face the same pressure. So the Democratic leaders were prone to pursue the war that got started somehow. Of course, this is 30 months before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and reports in the Western media that the Russian president is under pressure because his nation's conduct and defeats in the war have not gone as expected. Nonetheless, the Caltech A&M report suggests the opposite of what we would expect. But, Democrat leaders may be less likely to back down during a crisis, but at the same time, they may be less likely to start a conflict because of audience response and because of the back down costs are so high. Now, it would be noted, it should be noted, that the data is less definitive when you throw terrorism into the mix. If we also assume that transnational terrorist organizations do not respond to the same incentives and disincentives as nation states. The fourth and final topic is the democracies go to war against other democracies. This is a hard measurement and the experts are all over the place on this one. The reason is as alluded to earlier. There are different kinds of governments calling themselves democracies and different theories of what democracy is out there. For goodness sake, North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Setting aside anomalies like that, there is what is called the democratic peace theory. It is a complex theory that, among other things, rests upon the transparency and accountability in democracies when it comes to the use of force. and the commonality of interests shared by democracies, and the audience toss for starting and backing down from conflicts and mistakes between democracies, are likely to be rather low. Yet there are examples in histories of democracies going to war against each other, though relatively rare examples at that. This is likely because putting aside ancient democracies like the Greeks, and for a while the Romans, Modern democracies are a relatively new phenomenon, at least in the West. Unfortunately, not enough research has been done on African, Western Hemispheric, and Asian societies and other non-European societies to identify democratic-like governance institutions and structures and their warlike tendencies. But the bottom line is democratic conflicts are rather rare, at least within the universe of examples. which the most research has been done. Well, that's my summary of war and democracy. It's a very complex topic, and I don't presume to be all-encompassing. Books have been ripped on this subject. But I really enjoyed the opportunity to discuss some of these issues on behalf of the Houston Area Urban League. And with that, I'll say good day.

There are four inquiries that I want to talk about today. They are, what is democracy? How is war making structured in a democracy? Are democracies more prone to go to war than authoritarian regimes?

And do democracies go to war against other democracies? First question. What is democracy?

Democracy is rather hard to define because there are different kinds of democracies, but the paradigm of understanding is government by the people, but what exactly does that mean? Well, the academic literature identifies broadly several kinds of democracies. It is important to understand that among the variety of governmental units in the world, There are different varieties of democracies with their own unique characteristics. So with that disclaimer, first there is what is called pure participatory democracy, where citizens directly participate in law and policymaking. In modern times, it seems to work best at local levels, though many governmental units like California often rely on referendum votes to amend their constitutions with regard to all sorts of matters.

I guess the thing we most identify with in terms of pure participatory democracy is the New England town hall from centuries ago in this country. Also, even further back, we might look to the democratic system and systems in the Greek city-state. Now, another form of democracy is representative democracy. Some scholars refer to liberal democracy as... representative democracy in which the people elect the policy and lawmakers.

Now, though these kinds of governments have, like in the case of the referendum process, aspects of participatory democracy within their portfolio, here participation is channeled through a structural framework of government in terms of elected lawmakers to minimize the effects of citizen participation. Take the US national government, for example. Members of the House of Representatives are supposed to be close to the people, and maybe so.

But that is not pure participatory democracy, since the congresspersons vote on the laws, and then there's the Senate, which is even further away from the people than the House. So it's fair to say that there is no participatory government in the United States. We are more of a liberal democracy.

i.e. a representative democracy. Now, importantly, it's very important to realize this is not an exhaustive list of kinds of democracies. So the reason for our second topic, how is war making structured in a democracy?

Each democracy, regardless of kind, will have their own constitutional power structure with regard to war making. Take the United Kingdom, for example. A country has a constitutional monarchy, which is essentially a misnomer, since the monarchy was relieved of any significant governmental power centuries ago.

Also, there is essentially no written constitution, so to speak. Under that democracy's governmental processes, war-making is technically a monarchical prerogative, but it's actually based on recommendation. of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Only recently has there developed a practice of parliamentary debate and vote on the deployment of forces. But at present, it is only a custom and there is no clear constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval. But in the United States, our constitutional systems are clear and definitive on paper. But in action, the decision to go to war is anything but clear. First of all, we have to deal with the question, what is war?

Full-scale, declared war, or military action like bombing Syrian installations. believed to have been launching bases for chemical attacks on civilians, or drone attacks on suspected terrorists. In the US, the entire Congress, Senate, and House must approve war.

Usually, we think of war by declaration of war under the Constitution. But when we consider that the last declaration of war this country made was in December of 1941, it becomes clear that other means of going to war have been used, whether... constitutionally or not. The other great feature of the declaration of war is that the people decide, not directly, but through their elected representatives to go to war. The House is particularly important because it is a more democratic institution than the Senate because it is closer to the people than the statewide elected Senate.

For political reasons, the practice of late has been for the Congress to pass what is called an authorization to use military force. This device, like the declaration of war, requires both houses of Congress to authorize the president to use force in a given situation. However, an authorization does not include the additional powers of the president and government triggered by a declaration of war. The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were pursuant to separate authorizations to use military force.

Now from the beginning, the Republic of the Republic, there has been an understanding, based on notes from the Constitutional Convention by James Madison, that the President may need to act to repel sudden attacks without congressional approval or declaration of war. Now, this necessary understanding, which is not written in the Constitution, takes us one step away from democratic decision-making when it comes to war. And on top of this, the lack of clarity in the meaning of repel, threaten, attack, and you have further confusion.

From Jefferson's military engagement with the Barbary pirates in North Africa near the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, to the response to the 9-11 attacks this century, to today's drone warfare, one has to ask whether this is warfare are just repelling sudden attacks. And if the latter, what does that mean? And are the decisions taken by Democrats in a Democratic fashion? And to make things even more complicated, does a Democratic use of force require a Democratic declaration of war by Congress, an authorization to use military force, which is not a declaration of war in the constitutional sense, or just Democratic appropriations of funds by Congress, which many believe led to the continued fighting in Vietnam, not a declaration of war, and not really an authorization to use force.

But Congress kept providing the funds for the Vietnam War. I don't have the answers to these questions, nobody does actually, because these kinds of questions have never reached the Supreme Court, and because of a principle called the political question doctrine, never will. So it leads me to the next question, are democracies more prone to war than authoritarian regimes? According to a 2018 study by researchers from Caltech and Texas A&M, democracies are more prone to war than authoritarian governments.

It may be surprising. It was surprising to me when I heard this. But among the explanations for this conclusion are the audience, our constituency, cost, and the dynamics of war and peace. A democratic leader seen as a loser in a conflict with another state, may be voted out of office, while an authoritarian leader does not necessarily face the same pressure.

So the Democratic leaders were prone to pursue the war that got started somehow. Of course, this is 30 months before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and reports in the Western media that the Russian president is under pressure because his nation's conduct and defeats in the war have not gone as expected. Nonetheless, the Caltech A&M report suggests the opposite of what we would expect.

But, Democrat leaders may be less likely to back down during a crisis, but at the same time, they may be less likely to start a conflict because of audience response and because of the back down costs are so high. Now, it would be noted, it should be noted, that the data is less definitive when you throw terrorism into the mix. If we also assume that transnational terrorist organizations do not respond to the same incentives and disincentives as nation states. The fourth and final topic is the democracies go to war against other democracies. This is a hard measurement and the experts are all over the place on this one.

The reason is as alluded to earlier. There are different kinds of governments calling themselves democracies and different theories of what democracy is out there. For goodness sake, North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Setting aside anomalies like that, there is what is called the democratic peace theory. It is a complex theory that, among other things, rests upon the transparency and accountability in democracies when it comes to the use of force.

and the commonality of interests shared by democracies, and the audience toss for starting and backing down from conflicts and mistakes between democracies, are likely to be rather low. Yet there are examples in histories of democracies going to war against each other, though relatively rare examples at that. This is likely because putting aside ancient democracies like the Greeks, and for a while the Romans, Modern democracies are a relatively new phenomenon, at least in the West.

Unfortunately, not enough research has been done on African, Western Hemispheric, and Asian societies and other non-European societies to identify democratic-like governance institutions and structures and their warlike tendencies. But the bottom line is democratic conflicts are rather rare, at least within the universe of examples. which the most research has been done. Well, that's my summary of war and democracy. It's a very complex topic, and I don't presume to be all-encompassing.

Books have been ripped on this subject. But I really enjoyed the opportunity to discuss some of these issues on behalf of the Houston Area Urban League. And with that, I'll say good day.

Transcript for:Exploring War and Democracy Dynamics

Transcript for:
Exploring War and Democracy Dynamics