“Popular non-democratic governments may also be a danger to world peace.”

Having demonized democratic government , it is nice to know the author acknowledges that other forms of government can also present a very real danger if the Third Reich and the Communists who built the Berlin wall displayed in their wholesale distribution of misery, despair and repression.

“In fact the Europeans recognise that the “Brussels bureaucrats” are necessary but are not people, like de Gaulle, Hitler or Churchill, who would inspire devotion. A nation reduced to a convenient administrative unit is not a danger to world peace.”

Why should anyone decide to support any government comprising of “Brussels Bureaucrata” – I am assuming these people are still elected and thus still capable of displaying some modicum of “personality”.

The author seems to be anticipating some miraculous “peace” appearing from the Treaty of Rome and the European Union…

Well I would rather rely on Margaret Thatchers take on things

"(A unified) 'Europe' is the result of plans. It is, in fact, a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage done is in doubt."

We will see…..

King Hazza “Strange- Sweden and Switzerland, ….. BEST records of peace with other countries- both remaining neutral in World War 2.”

I guess the French as well as the Poles feel the British response to their treaty obligations was remiss?

Likewise, the vast majority of Norwegians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Dutchman and Belgians felt happy that the UK and later USA decided not to follow the neutral stance of Sweden or Switzerland.

Fact, if those countries of the democratic alliance (the West) had not fought WWII and had not prevailed in the Cold War with Stalin & Co, I doubt we would be allowed free access to the internet or to have this debate (as in Communist China).

Freedom of Speech.. the simplest of things and totally wasted on those who seem to read history but do not comprehend to consequences of its loss.

I'm a bit surprised at the response to this article. There seem to be a lot of OLO commenters who think that democracy is a bad idea.

You might be interested in watching this TED talk by Steve Pinkerton http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163 which I coincidentally came across via http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/11/the-myth-of-violence/ this morning.

Pinkerton gives statistics on violence and homicide over 10,000 years. The rate of death in the last 100 years is miniscule compared to what went before. Pinkerton has a number of explanations, but one that he doesn't really address, but which would fit the facts, is that the rise of democracies has curtailed the organisational impetus to terminate others' lives.

I would suspect that there is a very strong mathematical correlation between the rise of democracy and the decline in violence. Which stands to reason because the underpinning of the concept of democracy is that every life has value. If you have that conceptual underpinning in how you conduct your life you are much less likely to devalue the life of another than otherwise.

Indeed, it's the democratic values that make the idea that going to war is a bad thing seem so self-evident, even if democracies do occasionally go to war.

Dear Graham,

I think democracy is a very good idea. The article is an exercise in free speech - a product of democracy.

Democracy is such a good idea and can win such popular support that democracies can waste their substance in military adventures since enough wealth is produced to finance a strong military establishment and the military, not needed to control the people of the democracy, can be exported. As the article points out militarism destroyed the democracy of Athens. As one who loves the United States I do not want to see the same thing happen to the US.

I have been very bothered by American militarism since World War II. Lyndon Johnson lied the US into expanding the Vietnamese War by the phony Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Bush 41 got us into Gulf War 1 by having April Glasspie tell Saddam Hussein his quarrel with Kuwait was not the business of the US. He felt free to invade Kuwait. Bush 41 US then rigged phony testimony so the Senate agreed to the invasion. Bush 43 told three big lies to get us into Gulf War 2.

President Eisenhower led the invasion of France in 1943 and warned of the dangers of militarism when he ended his term as president. His speech can be found at http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html:

It contains:

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

I hope President Obama has the wisdom and compassion of President Eisenhower.

Rouge I'm not actually pointing fingers- but the fact remains that the most democratic countries manage to maintain the lowest records of military participation- despite both countries having quite substantial armies and arsenals.
Simple.
If a country doesn't want to fight, that's its right- lots of countries would have liked to have been neutral but weren't given the choice.

I don't see what your problem is....

You cannot call Australia a democracy.
It has not he slightest idea of what the word means.
The legal system is abused by corrupt politicians (as if there s another kind)
The legal system is abused by judges who answer to no one
The abuse of the so called separation of powers is epidemic.
The irascibility of the political parties to feather their own nests is absolutely pathetic ‘
All this in a country that smells of fascism and you knew the saying
If it looks like fascist
Sound like fascist
Smell like a fascist
Then it’s fascist
Don’t step-in it

Democracy is not so much popular government as government by populism, or auto-government, or ideological conformity. The means of production--now subtlised into hierarchical gradations; white collar, career paths for drones, maintenance wings etc.--have become share-holders in the enterprise.
It is naive to suppose that excess production is stored as fat. Against a rainy day? Rather it is invested in the kind of martial entrepreneurship David F alludes to, as well as home-grown R&D. There is no buffer against a rainy day. We are all expendable, living hand to mouth. We are valuable as productive livestock when times are good, but a liability during downturns--when we are treated accordingly, for our own good what's more!
Democracies are largely self-governing, perennially producing a healthy surplus, or being productively chastised to do so during downturns. Does anyone share with me the sense of bizarre unreality that attended the last 12 months, when governments showered money over us? What do we suppose will happen when the whole thing really does become unsustainable? Will our governments fall back on the default humanistic values we all claim to cherish? Or will they "lamentably" take hard decisions? There's nothing human that can't be rationalised. There's no time like the present. Remember Saigon.
Democracy has a huge advantage over autocracy; the whole thing runs itself. The same model has been adopted industrially--sell the workers shares! There's nothing like a vested interest when it comes to tough decisions. And the whole damn thing evolved from rudimentary human nature--insecurity, fear, ambition.
Democracy means unfenced cattle that produce their own fodder! And, crucially, a surplus! At least they bloody well better--or what's the good of them?