How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them by Barbara F. Walter

    So I liked this book overall, but I was very much put off my two things: the over-quantification of politics and the prescription at the end to just embrace the liberal policies of the Democratic party and everything will be solved. As for the second one, I don't disagree, but it was just uninteresting and unrealistic. Otherwise, the book had other good insights.

    One thing I thought was interesting was the idea that civil wars rose alongside democracies. Part of the rise of democracy has meant that legitimacy comes from popular support, so now wars for political control are fought not by a few elites, but by the entire population of a country. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, ideology and class were the primary drivers of civil war, but today, nationalism dwarfs all other causes of civil war. This is probably for the reason that democratic legitimacy comes from "the people" and most people agree that "the people" are the nation. Walter writes that in the first five years after World War II, 53 percent of civil wars were fought between ethnic factions, but since the end of the Cold War, 75 percent of civil wars have been fought between ethnic factions. What is critical to know in analyzing whether an ethnic/national civil war will begin is the trajectory of the groups. The most likely culprit to initiate a civil war is a formerly dominant ethnic group that considers itself native to the land when it sees itself losing power. This was the case of the Serbians in Yugoslavia, for example.

    One thing I wish that Walter explored more was the hard balancing act between democracy, demography, and nationalism. Democracies gain their legitimacy from their role in determining the will of the nation. They also gain legitimacy from their acceptance of a broad degree of freedom among their citizens. But when the demographics of a democracy change, the democracy is forced to choose between remaining true to its old nation or to its liberal values. Either it imposes new controls on liberty to maintain the old national demographics, or it allows the national demographics to change, but loses its source of national legitimacy. This is a hard question. But it is also the most interesting question raised by the book and doesn't get enough attention.

    Something interesting Walter touched on is the usefulness of terrorism in targeting a democracy. Terrorism targets citizens, the very people with political power. In a system like a monarchy, where one person has total power, an assassination is more useful to decapitate a powerful state. But in democracy, where the people have the power, terrorists know that they can inflict pain on the citizens to get the government to deliver concessions. Terror is also easier to do in democracies because they have more freedom of movement and less surveillance.

    Finally, I liked Walter's point about the importance of leadership in avoiding conflict. For example, as South Africa transitioned out of apartheid, it was lucky in that it had leaders in de Klerk and Mandela who were able to work together and compromise to avoid the conflict. If either one had defected from that agreement, a bloody war would have been likely.

Miscellaneous Fact:

• There was a huge increase in militia activity when Obama became president, with the number of known militias rising from 43 in 2008 to 334 in 2011.