Immanuel Kant, an esteemed philosopher, introduces to us the ‘democratic peace theory’. Most interesting about Kant’s piece is its effects on international relation theories, especially realism. The fundamental tenet of the democratic peace theory proclaims that the probability of a democratic government maintaining peace is much higher than that of other forms of governing, as the negative consequences tied to war are much higher in a democracy.
Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Theory of International Politics’ acted as a sort of mediator to the highly aggressive realist theories, which assert that the system is anarchic and states are self-interested. Every state desires to claim hegemonic status. This desire is outrun by the egoistic tendencies of other states, which will not only try to match, but also overtake in the power structure. Kenneth Waltz then introduced us to the theory of ‘defensive realism’, which emphasizes the undesirability of war for states, and assumes that states would constantly try to create a balance in the system, as to maintain peace.
Kant’s theory is more of an amended version of defensive realist theories, as it agrees that peace is possible if states balance their powers, but this is only possible by negotiation and the ability of states to forego some interests which can impede peace resolutions. To gain something, you have to lose something. Peace would be of highest importance for any democratic state, as war not only reduces the likeability of a democratic government, but can also cause public opinion to work in direct conflict with the democratic government.
When discussing democracy, one needs to understand the essential principle of being democratic, and that means attaining ‘consent of the governed’. In order to legitimize itself in power, the government would have to cater to the needs of its people to sustain their support. For a common citizen, a ‘need’ would not be in the form of war or an increased defense budget, rather, it would be socio-economic development needs; the need for development.
Kant’s theory makes perfect sense. If there existed pure democracies in the system, peace would be a possibility. In reality, there is no pure democracy. Controlled by self-interested elite individuals, democracies tend to be susceptible to corruption and immorality and the public is not strong enough to alter their decisions. Taking the example of the currently strongest (still not pure) democracy in the system, USA, it is safe to assume that public opinion has an immeasurable effect on public policy, as seen in the Vietnam War. The gruesome and immoral nature of the war led to public out roars and protests against the government, and resulted in USA pulling out Vietnam. Similarly, the war in Afghanistan has already resulted in the fall of one president (George W.Bush) and as predicted, has led to public opinion working against President Obama.
If the possibility of democracies being pure existed, why would peace not exist? States are self-interested power maximizers, but if a democratic framework is applied properly, states would seek to balance hard power and lead on a socio-economic frontier.
Strange view on Kant, because Kant's perspective is firmly in the liberal camp. His views are very much cotra realist thinking.
ReplyDeleteA few of your other arguments also did not make sense. For example, Bush did not leave office because of the war in Afghanistan (he left because of term-limits).