Liberal International Thought Since Immanuel Kant - Essay Example

Liberal international thought since Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential philosophers of the liberal tradition whose ideas have remained relevant in the contemporary world. Kantian political philosophy has been extremely influential in the development of the current political systems as well as governmental institutions and they have ensured that the liberal tradition lives on. However, it can also be argued that the Kantian tradition has created a situation where the liberal international movement has essentially become fossilised. The ideas that were proposed by Kant seem to have become the basis upon which most liberal democratic systems all over the world have been founded and no real or major improvements on these ideas have been made to ensure greater efficiency in these systems (Bader 2008). As a consequence, liberal political thought has not been able to evolve in such a considerable manner as to go further than Kant and propose ideas that might improve this philosophy further. This paper seeks to show that liberal international thought has not really moved on since Immanuel Kant through a study of liberalism in the contemporary world. Liberal international thought has not moved on since the time of Kant because his ideas concerning the creation of constitutional democracies all over the world to ensure peace are still being practiced (Putnam 1988; Ray 1998). One would argue that the agitation for democracy as well as constitutional rule all over the world is as a result of liberalism according to Kant and this creates a situation where a majority of countries all over the world have come to form constitutional democracies because they are believed to be the ideal. It is believed that as a result of constitutional rule, states can no longer act according to the wishes of individuals and in order for any action to be taken, the constitution has to be closely followed (McKinnon 2004). It is essential to note that in the modern world, as a result of a majority of countries having constitutions, the occurrence of international conflicts has been greatly reduced. Most constitutions contain elements of international law that provide for the peaceful settlement of conflict without having to resort to conflict and this has been as a result of the observance of the Kantian political philosophy (Milner 1991). Despite this being the case, it can be argued that the Kantian philosophy on constitutional democracies has not necessarily worked well in pursuit of international peace and this is especially the case where most constitutions give leaders the authority to declare war on other states. Under such circumstances, it has become the norm for stronger countries to attack weaker ones which are perceived to go against the former’s national interests (Schuhmann and Smith 1993). This goes against Kant’s stance that stronger states should not interfere in the affairs of weaker ones since to do so would be to interfere with the internal problems of another state (Kant 1795). Therefore, despite the weaknesses presented by constitutional democracy as proposed by Kant, liberal international thinkers have not been able to develop better ways to either improve the constitutional system or to create a better one where the sovereignty of states can be secured against the aggressive policies of other states. Therefore, it can be argued that liberal political thought has continued to follow the Kantian belief that the power of the state has to be limited in order to protect individuals against the arbitrary use of power by leadership (Assiter 2013). This is especially the case in a situation where the rights of citizens are enshrined in the constitutions of different countries as well as in the conventions of international bodies such as the United Nations. The belief in human rights as well as the freedoms that accompany them has become an essential part of international relations and many countries in the world today have come to place the adherence of human rights at the centre of their relations with each other (Palmquist 1986; United Nations). Under these circumstances, countries such as Myanmar and North Korea have come to face international isolation as a result of their governments’ blatant violation of human rights and this isolation has been enforced as a means of ensuring that the governments of these countries are forced to change their ways. It can be argued that the ability of the international community to move jointly in a bid to ensure that the rights and freedoms of individuals are protected against violations by state actors is as a direct consequence of continued adherence to Kantian liberalism. The rigid adherence to Kantian philosophy has created a situation where liberal international thought independent from it or that improves on it has yet to be developed because it is believed that this model of liberal international thought is the ideal (Kant 1998). Therefore, the ideals of Kantian liberalism, which would otherwise have been considered to be a relic of the Enlightenment, have continued to remain prominent and its being in the mainstream makes it difficult for other liberal thought to come to prominence. Liberal international thought has continued to be dominated by the Kantian School and this has ensured not only its continued dominance, but also a lack of evolution in liberal thought for over two centuries. Further, one would argue that meliorism, which is an idea that was vigorously supported by Kant, remains relevant in liberal international thought today (Gulyga 1987). Meliorism is a concept that considers progress to be a real aspect of life that leads to the improvement of the environment among human beings. Furthermore, it creates a situation where human beings are capable of interfering with the natural order of the world to create an environment that is an improvement to the natural one. Under these circumstances, meliorism can be seen through the various political movements that have arisen in some parts of the world where there is agitation for democracy through the overthrow of despotic regimes (Zafirovski 2007). For example, those liberal democracies States have been behind the backing of rebels in such countries as Syria and Libya in a bid to ensure the toppling of their authoritarian governments. It can be argued that these actions have been directly inspired by Kantian liberal thought and it is based on the belief that the removal of an authoritarian government by whatever means necessary, including through revolutions, are a necessary means of creating a democratic environment (Strauss and Cropsey 1987). Since meliorism can be considered to be a concept that supports the dominance of individual rights within a liberal democratic environment, an argument can be made that it has remained a principle factor in guiding the international order since the beginning of republican government in the United States and France. The revolutions that took place in these countries happened as a result of the spread of liberal political thought and those who led them were guided by the belief that they were doing what was right (Mina 2005; Dunne, Kurki, and Smith 2007). These countries rose up against rulers that were considered to be despotic in a bid to ensure that their freedoms were secured and this created a situation where individuals were taking action to improve the natural order of things in the true tradition of meliorism, as supported by Kant. Liberal Kantian thought, it can be argued, has led to a situation where there have developed conflicts between liberal countries and those that tend to be more conservative (Doyle 1986). This is because liberal thought, since it has not advanced beyond the Kantian view, is not equipped enough to ensure that there are better way to deal with situations that are not based on the liberal perspective. One would argue that the liberal tradition, because of its lack of flexibility has been made vulnerable to such an extent that those countries that normally practice it often tend to be in conflict with those that do not (Burchill and Devetak 2013). Therefore, the western world, which generally subscribes to the Kantian tradition, ends up encountering some serious hurdles when it comes to having dealings with non-liberal countries in Africa and Asia. An argument can be made that the European Union has come to have a difficult time in establishing itself as an influential entity when it comes to relations with non-European countries essentially because of its long held Kantian liberal opinions (OHagan 2009). Thus, while the integration of Europe has ensured lasting peace on the continent, as proposed by Rousseau (Rousseau 1917), it has not allowed for its institutions to evolve further into more flexible entities. Under such circumstances, the institutions of the European Union have been created in a manner that adhere to Kantian political thought and this has led to this entity losing an opportunity to assert itself more on the global stage where its contributions would be most welcome. It is also essential to note that the European Union, because of its largely Kantian liberal tradition, has not been able bring its influence to bear on those countries that have a more conservative tradition and this has been mainly as a result of its being ill-equipped to deal with these countries (Snyder 2004). The fact that liberal international thought has not been able to evolve beyond the Kantian tradition has created a situation where it is difficult for such an entity as the European Union to create a more conducive international environment where it is able to deal with other systems contemporary to it (Mack and Gaus 2004). Thus, the inability of liberal international thought to move beyond Kant has made the liberal tradition to become inflexible as many of the institutions that are based on it have become more or less stabilised and while this may be a good thing in the short term, in the long term, it might become a problem especially as newer situations on the international scene develop. Liberal thought has followed Kant’s opposition to direct democracy, where individuals in society cannot directly participate in politics. Instead, it has followed the tradition of people selecting representatives to provide representation on the national stage (Gaus 2003). One would argue that liberal thought has not been able to develop systems that go beyond representative democracy while at the same time retaining its liberal nature. With the advancement of technology, direct democracy can be considered to be an idea that would be more feasible but this is a situation that, following Kantian tradition, is normally not considered in liberal thought. Representative democracy has remained the pinnacle of liberal thought and it is this that has continued to be propagated as the ideal (Habermas 1994). It can be argued that in the modern world, the value of democracy is measured through its representative nature and because the liberal tradition has not moved beyond Kant, it has become difficult for direct democracy to be tried out. Following the Kantian tradition, despite governments being representative, there are elements where the elected representatives do not necessarily represent the interests of all the people and this has created a situation where there is often conflict between leaders and citizens (Moravcsik 1997). Such entities as the European Union consist of mixed government where elected and non-elected officials have been given the power to administer it. One would argue that under such circumstances, it would be extremely difficult for direct democracy to take root because under liberal international thought, governance ends up being practiced based on traditions rather than on innovation. In conclusion, the discussion above has sought to show that liberal international thought has not really moved on since Immanuel Kant through a study of liberalism in the contemporary world. The arguments within it have shown that from the time of Kant, liberal international thought has essentially remained the same with very few variations between the various thinkers and has come to the conclusion that liberal thought has become inflexible. One of the arguments that have been made is that Kant’s ideas concerning the creation of constitutional democracies all over the world to ensure peace are still being practiced. Furthermore, liberal political thought has continued to follow the Kantian belief that the power of the state has to be limited in order to protect individuals against the arbitrary use of power by leadership, hence the definition of the extent of a leader’s authority in a constitution. The discussion has also argued for the persistence of meliorism, which is an idea that was vigorously supported by Kant, and remains relevant in liberal international thought today. In addition, it has been argued that liberal Kantian thought has led to a situation where there have developed conflicts between liberal countries and those that tend to be more conservative. Finally, liberal international thought has followed Kant’s opposition to direct democracy, where individuals in society cannot directly participate in politics. References Assiter, A. 2013. "Kant and Kierkegaard on freedom and evil". Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, vol.72, pp. 275–296. Bader, R. 2008. "Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804)". In Hamowy, R. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. Burchill, S. and Devetak, R. 2013. Theories of International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Doyle, M.W. 1986, “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review, vol.80, no.4, pp.1151–1169. Dunne, T., Kurki, M. & Smith, S. 2007. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Gaus, G.F. 2003, ‘Backwards into the Future: Neorepublicanism as a Postsocialist Critique of Market Society,’ Social Philosophy & Policy, vol.20, pp.59-92. Gulyga, A. 1987. Immanuel Kant: His Life and Thought. Trans., Marijan Despaltović. Boston: Birkhäuser. Habermas, J. 1994. “The Unity of Reason in the Diversity of Its Voices.” In: Habermas, J. (Eds.), Postmetaphysical Thinking. Political Essays. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Kant, I. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Kant, I. 1795. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. [online] Available from https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm Mack, E. & Gaus, G.F. 2004. ‘Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism: The Liberty Tradition,’ in The Handbook of Political Theory, Gerald F. Gaus and Chandran Kukathas (eds.), London: Sage. McKinnon, C. 2004, "Human Welfare and Moral Worth: Kantian Perspectives." The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 57, no. 4, pp.844-5.  Milner, H. 1991, “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Politics: A Critique.” Review of International Studies vol.17, no.1, pp.67–85. Mina, A. 2005, "Emotions and the Moral Life: Kantian and Stoic Norms for Moral Behavior." Eudaimonia : the Georgetown Philosophical Review, vol.2, no.1, pp. 24-8. Moravcsik, A. 1997, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Relations.” International Organization, vol. 51, no. 4, pp.513–553. OHagan, E. 2009, "Moral Self-Knowledge in Kantian Ethics." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 12, no.5, pp.525-37. Putnam, R.D. 1988, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 427–460. Rousseau, J.J. 1917. A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe and The State of War. [online] Available from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1010/144256 Schuhmann, K. & Smith, B. 1993, “Two Idealisms: Lask and Husserl”, Kant-Studien, vol. 83, pp.448–466. Ray, J.L. 1998, Does Democracy Cause Peace? Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 1, pp. 27–46. Snyder, J. 2004, “One World, Rival Theories.” Foreign Policy, vol. 145, pp. 52–62. Palmquist, S. 1986, "The Architectonic Form of Kants Copernican Logic", Metaphilosophy, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 266–288 Strauss, L. & Cropsey, J. 1987. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. United Nations. 1949. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.[online] Available from http://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/act3.pdf . Zafirovski, M. 2007. Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century. New York: BRILL. pp. 237–38. Read More