Liberalism as we
know typically refers to an ideology that is based on the
ideas of freedom and fairness. However, Michael Doyle in his
article ‘Liberalism and World Politics’ talks about different views on
liberalism and how these views are different yet similar to one another. He tries
to end the huge gap that exists between these views in order to show how
liberalism has so far contributed towards shaping international politics.
To begin with,
Doyle talks about Liberal Pacifism which is associated
with Joseph Schumpeter. According to this theory all war in today’s world can
be seen as imperialistic. Behavior which tends to encourage war can be curbed
through imposing liberalism on states. This can be done through a combination
of Capitalism and Democracy. This is because capitalism serves the interests of
individuals through the ownership of private property hence people are less
likely to go to war as it would damage their businesses and property along with
other valuable things. Democracy on the other hand would enable public opinion
to be reflected via voting hence it would also reduce the chances of war as
local people are less aggressive and willing to wage wars.
Moreover, he also talks about Liberal Imperialism
which has been linked to Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli claimed that
republics were the best form of ensuring states survival as they included
public opinion and different leaders chosen by the people were elected. Therefore,
there was no one ruler leading the country hence chances of a single leader
making irrational decisions without consulting others would be reduced.
Lastly, Doyle mentions the third type of liberalism called
Liberal Internationalism that has been associated with Immanuel Kant. This states
that liberal states have the right to intervene in other sovereign states in order
to achieve liberate them. So the invasion of the US all over the globe is
justified under this theory as they claim to do so on humanitarian bases. However,
theories like these promote aggressive foreign policies that claim to be humanitarian,
but have ulterior motives. Hence expansionist policies take refuge under terms
such as ‘liberation’ and ‘humanity’ and end up destroying, exploiting and taking
away the sovereignty of weaker states.
Therefore, the idea of spreading liberalism in other
countries is in itself problematic because powerful countries may exploit this
term in order to cater to their own personal interests. Hence liberalism plays
liberal states against non liberal countries. As a result this has the potential
to create anarchy in the international system.
A decent summary, but I don't think you can read Kant as promoting liberal states to intervene around the world to promote liberalism. Although he does think that liberal states are the best way to ensure perpetual peace, it would be a stretch to argue that he is advocating for intervention by liberal states into illiberal states.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sir. While it may be true that states may expand under the banner of liberation and humanity, Kant also suggests ways in which peace can be achieved. This idea of liberal states intervening non-liberal states can rather be a critique of Schumpeter's belief that capitalist democracies produce rationalized individuals and this ultimately leads to a weakening desire for war.
ReplyDelete