Analysis of Liberal States - Essay Example

Liberal s Liberalism is a political doctrine that believes protection of freedom of citizens of any country is themain problem of a government and generally advocates for equality among all citizens. In liberal states, the support of ideas such as freedom of religion, freedom of press, fair and transparent elections and other civil rights is usually very common since the people are normally aware of their rights. Liberal states though they exhibit some variations in some political ideologies they usually exhibit a common belief on the fight for freedom and rights of their citizens. Liberalism carries a sense of international sense of prudence, which enables them to restrain from fighting with one another since they have the same system of international relations and ideologies. This kind of self-restriction among the liberal states has enabled many such states not to engage in wars since it does not seem logical for them to engage in any form of fighting and if agitated to do so they have the ability to restrain from the urge (Sandel 175). However, this sense of prudence only seems to be practical among liberal states only since when non-liberal states attack the liberal ones it has usually resulted in war. The reason advocated by the liberal states for their act of intolerance to their non-liberal counterparts is that it is prudent to attack since they are defending themselves. The argument of self-defense usually seems to be logical since they believe that a country cannot remain silent when it is being attacked and it thus becomes rational to fight back in such a situation when attacked by the non-liberal states. Furthermore, the non-liberal states lack any form of self-restriction when it comes to war and thus explaining the cause of the numerous wars that have occurred between the liberal and non-liberal countries while the constitutionally liberal countries have not engaged in war. The conservative and authoritarian leaders of majority of the non-liberal countries usually stimulate wars out of mere fear about what other countries may do especially when the political climate is volatile. This kind of sense of insecurity forces these leaders to initiate wars with their neighboring liberal countries since they usually perceive them as a threat and likely to attack any time. They see them as a threat probably because the liberal states usually seem to be enjoying a lot of freedom and rights, which the non-liberal countries do not have since their laws, and political system does not allow them to do so. Thus, the leaders fear that their citizens may be encouraged to start fighting for their own rights so that they can come out of the oppression, which they usually face. This explains the reason behind the many wars that are associated with non-liberal leaders such as Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Napoleon among others who is their terms as leaders were mainly characterized by wars. Liberal states have also initiated wars in the past against the non-liberal states especially the ones that seem to be less powerful economically and politically than them. Kant’s theory of liberal internationalism explains the reason for this behavior where liberal states are more prone to initiate aggressions on weak liberal countries but avoid any such kind of aggression on the more powerful countries. He argues that autonomous governments moderate the aggressive behaviors of absolute potentate and encourage the aspect of respect for rights and freedoms of the citizens since they have the ability to exert appropriate influence. As a result, wars then are perceived to be additional expenses to the people thus unpopular but these forms of restrictions are not completely effective since liberal countries continue to be involved in various wars. He further argues that liberal states only engage in liberal wars, which are usually popular among the people since they fight for various freedoms for the citizens and other rights Liberal states firmly founded on such individual rights as equality before the law, freedom of expression and other civil liberties, private property, and elected representation are absolutely against war according to John Locke’s theory. The theory further argues that when citizens who carry the burdens of war elect their leaders, wars cannot happen since the citizens have absolute trust on their leaders and the leaders have the interests of the people at heart. In addition, the citizens are able to recognize the fact that the reimbursements of trade can only be enjoyed only under circumstances of peace where the individual people are free to transact their business without fear of harassment by the government. Therefore, Michael Doyle’s believes that constitutionally secure liberal states such as United States cannot engage in war among one another since it is impossible (Doyle 101). Liberal countries are peaceful because they are believed to have found rational reasons to promote peace but they are also believed to have found reasonable reasons to cause aggressions with non-liberal countries. Joseph Schumpeter who broadly examined the relationship that exists between capitalism and liberalism believes that capitalism produces an unwarlike environment. He argued that under capitalism system the people’s energy is spend largely in production and the uncertainties that are associated with industrial life necessitates sound reasoning (Medearis 3). He believed that individuals who are able to think rationally are most likely to demand democratic governance, which normally results to peace. This is because no democracy will pursue a minority’s interest and tolerate high cost of imperialism but instead it will encourage the interests of the majority and thus war, which is usually a result of self-interest of a few people, cannot prevail. Cosmopolitan law encourages the spirit of commerce in which liberal countries have inherent desire to do business amongst themselves for their mutual benefits (Covell 34). They thus try as much as possible to create peace and avoid any form of war since any kind of aggression will affect their relationship and consequently affect the trade. Since each individual economy is believed to be better off than it would have been under independent system it thus develops an incentive to avoid measures that would lead the other countries to break the economic ties that exist in between. Maintaining open markets depends upon the notion that the future business activities will also be determined by laws and the mutually agreed prices rather than persuasion and thus a feeling of collective security is critical to avoid the countries from engaging in other harmful activities in pursuit of security. This enhances the security that exists among the liberal states since they will always avoid any form of activity that may cause wrangles and encourages formation of peace alliances that are aimed at further increasing the bond existing among the countries. Cosmopolitan law further encourages peace among liberal states through international trade, which removes the burden of making challenging decisions on trade that may spark controversies. This makes a nation not to be directly responsible for decisions made and thus in case of controversies the involved states will be willing to engage in peaceful means of resolving their differences. The law has thus been effective in ensuring that single differences on various parts of business do not bring conflicts among the entire liberal states and thus explaining the prolonged peace among these liberal states. Liberal states have engaged in war with the non-liberal ones in the past because of realism, which the latter group advocates for and upholds it as the right form of belief. Realism believes that the international system is in a state of constant antagonism where individual countries are self-centered and they thus strive to accumulate a lot of wealth (Brown 8). The desire to amass many resources encourages competition which often a times results to conflicts among the involved countries since each economy is trying to outdo the other. Non liberal states which firmly believe in this system have thus been motivated to be involved in war with their broad minded counterparts who oppose these ego-centric believes. They furthermore believe that special attention is accorded to countries with large powers economically and politically because of their influence globally which the small powers do not have. This serves as an additional tool for justification for them of their involvement in fights with the liberal countries since they are motivated to win the wars and thus takeover the defeated states. This form of worldview has been fundamental in explaining the many fights that have been witnessed between liberal countries and the non-liberal ones and the resulting rifts. The above theories clearly explain the reasons behind the trend where liberal states have been involved in war with the non-liberal ones and yet the liberal countries have remained to be peaceful amongst each other. The liberal countries will thus continue to be in peace with one another since their freethinking nature, their desire for freedom is common, and they will thus continue upholding mutual peace. Proper measures need to be taken to ensure that the differences that exist between liberalism and realism do not lead to wars in the future as it has happened in the past. Works Cited Brown, Michael E. Debating the democratic peace. Cambridge, Mass [u.a.: MIT Press, 1996. Print. Covell, Charles. Kant, liberalism and the pursuit of justice in the international order. Münster u.a: Lit, 1994. Print. Doyle, Michael. “Liberal legacies and foreign affairs”. International politics : enduring concepts and contemporary issues. Art, Robert J. 12th ED. Boston ; Munich [u.a.] : Longman, 2011.Print Medearis, John. Joseph Schumpeters two theories of democracy. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2001. Print. Sandel, Michael J. Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Prints. Read More