Instead of normal split of democratic countries. Are there democratic countries that joined to form another independent country? Example of independent union is European Union. My question is are there any independent countries so formed?
Wikipedia has a list of state mergers. Many of the mergers are the result of war or were, at best, flawed democracies. Almost by definition, if a country is merging with another, they are not "stable".
From Wikipedia's list I offer some examples that you may consider:
- The merger of Newfoundland (a British dependency-dominion) with Canada (a fully sovereign dominion). Both countries were in some way democratic (Newfoundland had elected a national convention in 1946), but both had links to Britain.
- The merger of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. Certainly these were flawed democracies, having just become independent and didn't have stable governments. However both were, at least in theory, republics at the time of union.
- The merger of Sikkim into India. Although there was a lot of pressure from India, there had been a state council and limited democracy prior to merger. There was a referendum on whether to unite with India. Similarly India was broadly democratic, with an elected parliament.
- The re-unification of Germany. Following the first free elections in the DDR in the Spring of 1990, the country merged with West Germany in the Autumn. West Germany was clearly Democratic, and East Germany had just become Democratic also.
Germany in 1990. While presented as (re)unification, technically it was the German Democratic Republic voluntarily joining the Federal Republic of Germany. By that time, even though DDR still had "Democratic" in the name, it was a reasonably democratic country by all accepted standards.
There were other unifications throughout the history, but mostly the countries fell short of the current understanding of the term "democratic", or they were not really established countries as commonly understood.
One could also claim that the Republic of Texas is an example (independence from Mexico as a sovereign state 1836, became a State of the USA 1846). It only existed for ten years, and already contained a very large percentage of US citizens, so merger with the USA might have been considered inevitable.
Wikipedia notes that:
After gaining their independence, the Texas voters had elected a Congress of 14 senators and 29 representatives in September 1836. The Constitution allowed the first president to serve for two years and subsequent presidents for 3 years. In order to hold an office or vote, a person needed to be a citizen of the Republic.
However, it is important to note that citizenship was not granted to all previous inhabitants of Texas, and not all of them could even live legally within the limits of the Republic without the consent of Congress. In this regard, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) established major differences according to the ethnicity of each individual. Section 10 of the General Provisions of the constitution stated that all persons who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence were to be considered citizens of the Republic, excepting "Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians"
You could conclude that, because of legalized discrimination, the Republic of Texas was not truly democratic, but the USA at that time also had very similar laws, so it would probably unfair to single out Texas as un-democratic if you were to say that the USA was democratic at that time.
It looks like Texas's admission to the USA was voluntary and peaceful, not coerced. Wikipedia observes,
On October 13, 1845, a large majority of voters in the republic approved both the American offer and the proposed constitution that specifically endorsed slavery and emigrants bringing slaves to Texas. This constitution was later accepted by the US Congress, making Texas a US state on the same day annexation took effect,