John Opoku
05/11/2002
The idea of “progress” in World politics (week 5)
Following is a broad presentation on the “Idea of ‘progress’ in world politics.” I have looked at
Immanuel Kant’s idea of perpetual peace, the French Revolution and its significance, Edmund
Burke and finally, the on-going debate about the ‘democratic peace’ thesis.
Immanuel Kant
Kant argues that human beings are by nature aggressive and hostile which makes the state of
nature is a state of war. Therefore a state of peace must be established for the cessation of all
hostilities. His preliminary articles in the conditions for perpetual peace actually prescribe
restraint in the conduct of States. Below are his three articles in the conditions for perpetual
peace:
1. “The Civil constitution in every State shall be the Republican Constitution.”
This type of constitution according to him is founded on the principles of ‘Liberty’, ‘law’, and
‘equality’ of its citizens. Republicanism is the political severance of Executive power from
Legislative Power. The opposite is despotism where the law-maker and law enforcer is one and
the same person. He says a Republican Constitution is the Original Compact on which all rightful
legislation of a people is founded. It will lead to perpetual peace because by its nature, citizens
will have to decide to go to war and by that decision, feel responsible for such a war and be
prepared for its consequences. Its contrast to the other constitutions (monarchy) is that rulers
decide without consulting the citizens and since rulers don’t go to war, they, in his view, tend to
declare war under trivial circumstances.
2. “The Right of Nations Shall be founded on a federation of free states”
Men living in a state of nature independent of external laws, are prone to injury and therefore
agree to enter into a civil constitution for the sake of their security. This idea is applied to the
international scene where Kant contends that many states (with Rights of nations) come together
to form one state to give rise to an INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PEOPLES.
He says savages like lawless liberty so they engage in incessant conflicts and Europeans refer to
this wild freedom as barbarism.
He justifies annexation on the grounds that if civilized nations were to unite into a federation of
states, they could then advance against that which is condemned. That kind of unity, he
concedes, was not possible because it contradicts his earlier assumption of independence of
States. But he recommends a concept of ‘Pacific Federation’ which will only preserve and
guarantee itself and preserve the independence of its confederal states.
How will this happen? Writing in 1795, almost six years after the outbreak of the French
Revolution, Kant’s answer was that if a powerful and enlightened people form themselves into a
republic (which by its nature, could lead to perpetual peace), it would provide the center for a
federative union for states to attach themselves to and thus secure the Liberty of all states
according to the rights of Nations. Such a union will extend wider and wider, he says.
1
Given the politics of Europe at that time, events in France sought to qualify for such a union that
Kant was prophesying.
The revolution happened in late 18th Century in the most populous and powerful state in Europe
(minus Russia). A fifth of all Europeans were French– (Hobsbowm,1962). It was a mass social
revolution more radical than any comparable upheaval. It toppled and changed the French
monarchy and provided an alternative political system quite close to Kant’s republicanism. And
more remarkably, it affected other risings in Europe and other parts of the world.
For instance, in the ‘Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens’ in 1789, the French Bourgeoisie
called for an egalitarian society based on individual freedom and consent, private property, and
representative assembly in a limited. These demands were based on secularism and
constitutionalism. 610 men from the Third Estate were elected to the National Assembly.
This era of practical constitutionalism was extended further in a more radical fashion by the
Jacobins who actually established their brand of Republican government after 1790 when the king
was imprisoned. They gave universal suffrage to the masses, abolished slavery, ended feudalism
and preached a welfare government, provisions that were hitherto unheard of in Europe.
As Hobsbowm noted, up to 1848, all plans for European liberation hinged on a joint risings of
peoples under the leadership of the French to overthrow European reaction…
As to whether it led to the perpetual peace idea of Kant, I will revisit that after I deal with his third
and last definitive article in the conditions for perpetual peace.
3. And it is that ‘The rights of men as citizens of the world in a Cosmo-political system shall
be restricted to conditions of universal hospitality’
A stranger in any country should not be treated as an enemy. You can turn him away without
killing him and so long as he conducts himself well, he should not be treated in a hostile way. The
rights of strangers exist only in the possibility of entering into a social intercourse with their host.
And in this vein, distant continents can enter into peaceful relations with each other and bring the
human race together into a Cosmo-political constitution.
He backs these conditions up with some required roles from Nature to supplement the limited
abilities of man who operates on the basis of reason.
To the extent that the French Revolution occurred in no other country than France at the time,
changed their system of government and affected other events in and outside of Europe, Kant’s
idea of perpetual peace is applicable to the French Revolution.
However, if we consider that it failed to bring the world to that peaceful universal union that he
preached, his idea remained utopian. One of the causes for the outbreak of the First World War
was that there was no mechanism for resolving disagreements peacefully, a platform that a state
of perpetual peace could have provided.
This is not to denounce the contribution of Kant in the shaping of global politics. I think that the
principles of global institutions like the United Nations system and other regional bodies like the
EU, Organization of African Unity and even liberals position on the democratic peace debate,
bear some semblance of Kant’s ideas.
Significance of the French Revolution Vs Burke
2
In the context of global politics, the Revolution represented change. It introduced, in a practical
sense, such concepts like conservatism, nation-state and sovereignty, nationalism, democratic
constitutions, universal suffrage, guarantee of human rights and the idea of a welfare state.
In every moment of change there are enthusiasts and skeptics. Both are needed to achieve the
desired aims of a change project. Enthusiasts are vital in stimulating and making things happen.
Sceptics are essential in resisting misconceived proposals, scrutinizing and improving basically
sound ideas.
I see Edmund Burke as a sceptic in resisting the wave of change that was affecting European and
world politics of his time. He genuinely must have been scared by the implications of the
Revolution on monarchical Britain but some of his warnings were genuine.
In pointing out the excesses of the French Revolution, Burke said “ it is a serious thing to have
connexion with a people who live only under a positive, arbitrary and challengeable institutions:
and those not perfected nor supplied, nor explained by any common acknowledged rule of moral
science.
France since her Revolution is under the sway of a sect whose leaders have deliberately at one
stroke, demolished the whole body of that jurisprudence which France pretty nearly had in
common with other civilized countries.
Democratic peace debate and the idea of progress
The two positions on the democratic peace argument are relevant because they collectively form
the basis for a peaceful co-existence in the world today. The liberals are saying that democratic
countries are more prone to form alliances and less likely to declare war on themselves.
The realists are saying that is just common sense. What is rather crucial is the systemic factors
like national interest and strategic concerns of nations that matter in the choice of allies.
Governance in most countries today is grounded in the principles of liberalism – i.e. the principles
of juridicial equality of citizens, freedom from religion and of the press, rule by representative
legislatures, institution of private property and a market driven economies.
Personally, I see the democratic peace arguments as two sets of opinion seeking to guide foreign
policy. They are both correct in their limited senses.
But I must point out this. One criticism against the liberals which I find tangible is the fact that they
keep changing the definition of democracy. I believe definitions set out framework and context for
discussion and by coming up with new definitions every now and then, liberals tend to change the
contest of and consistency in their arguments.
If each one of us in this room is allowed to write an essay and produce his/her own marking
scheme, no one will fail examinations. Russet defined democracy and left out civil liberties and
economic freedom as some of the defining features. He defined war on the basis of 1000-death
fatality. These, I find difficult to understand because they strike at the very basis of liberalism.
Similarities in the internal political and social characteristics of nation’s foster trust and alliance but
in this real world, we cannot write of the relevance of such other factors as national interest and
strategic concerns.
3