The political theories of Immanuel Kant, 18th century Prussian philosopher, espouses the conditions of Perpetual Peace as attainable between nations under the condition that Republics make agreement with one another to this end. Kant, convinced of the potential application of these agreements as absolute, also doubted whether man, under the strain of human attributes of fear and avarice, could uphold such a state of nations.
Kant based his construct of Perpetual Peace under the umbrella of Republics as maintaining separate "halls" for the legislature and the executing of law; a rather aristocratic/monarchical view at the time. The democratic principles, at the time of Kant, carried a more literal interpretation and the voice of the people, en masse, was, to Kant, a threat to the actualization of peaceful purposes. He did not "read" democracy as a Utopian form of government, but rather as majority rule that threatened individual liberty.
Kant understood and championed international organization (agreements) as being key to Perpetual Peace, while also recognizing that non-republics would vie for supplemental power against republics and therefore, require acts of engagement of war. This was, for Kant, acceptable, but he compromises his truth.
Today, we are missing something important about Kant. Kant recognizes the philosophical engine humming inside all humans as pivoting on the borderline between wanting peace and wanting security. Security is seen as a condition of "power" whereas peace is seen as "passivity."
Perhaps if we exchange the application of these definitions whereby Security is Passive and Peace is Power, our approach to international politics can also change and we can truly hear what Kant meant.
No comments:
Post a Comment