Kant’s Philosophy: Republicanism, Despotism, and Perpetual Peace
Kant’s Republicanism and Despotism
Kant distinguishes two modes of states according to their constitution, that is, according to their governance. This classification is republicanism and despotism. Let’s deal first with republicanism. Kant explores the fundamentals of politics, seeking a principle of sovereignty that is human. This is the republican constitution. For Kant, republicanism is also desirable, indispensable, and achievable. The republic is desirable because it benefits perpetual peace; as a republic will decide if there is war or not, it is likely that maturity will one day prohibit the conflict. The Republic is indispensable to the extent that it reconciles, in the life of citizens, the two absolutes that contradict: order and freedom. So, republican citizenship is defined as autonomy, in other words, as obedience to the authority that one gives to oneself. And finally, the republic is achievable, that is, a historical perspective worthy, even for a people of demons. The institutions must aim to match individual interests for the benefit of all. Kant said that the city should act as co-participating in the direction of the society to which it belongs. Kant’s republican constitution is currently referred to as parliamentary democracy, a republic, or a constitutional monarchy.
And now, despotism or absolutism. Quite the contrary of republicanism. A government that is despotic is that which has no limitations, everything contrary to republicanism. It is the principle of government by laws of the state that the ruling has given. Kant compares the despotism of republicanism, which are differentiated by the use of power. On the one hand, despotism is based on absolute power and no executive and legislative branches. And on the other hand, republicanism is based on principles of freedom and equality of citizens, and in this, if there is separation of powers. For Kant, democracy is a tyranny because it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all may decide against one where their opinion is not valid. Therefore, the will of all is not for everyone; therefore, it is opposed to freedom. In other words, for Kant, democracy is a tyranny in that all legislative and executive branches could not have separation of powers and representative government.
Kant on Popular Sovereignty and Representation
In Kant’s view, the popular sovereignty of the people is exercised through representation. It does not mean that the people are the same laws that will apply immediately. Kant thinks that popular sovereignty needs to be represented in a monarch or assembly of deputies, giving them reality and effectiveness. The people are responsible for giving the monarch or deputies the power to legislate. As a result, citizens are subject to laws that they themselves are given through their representatives. Thanks to the representation, laws express the will of everyone, even those who cannot vote, so that these laws are worth infinitely without relying on whether everyone participated in the vote or not. The Republican State does not ask for the consent of all or the majority. This is one of the differences from democracy. Democracy defies this principle because everyone wants to be sovereign, making representation impossible. In contrast, aristocracy and autocracy can adopt this mode of government. If the consent of every citizen were to be decisive, because we would never agree because it is impossible, the law would express the will of the majority and would try to impose on the minority.
The smaller the number of people in power, the greater the representation and the closer the constitution is to republicanism. The government should be representative of the will of another, the general will. If it is not representative, it is necessarily despotic because it makes the law that it gives itself, that is, it is arbitrary. Kant considers that both autocracy (rule by one) and aristocracy (rule by many) may be unrepresentative, and therefore, would be defective, although they may step toward representation. However, this is impossible in the government of all, that is, democracy. The fewer those who govern are, and the more the governed are, the easier it is that step by step the government will become representative and therefore take the form of republicanism. Reforms and changes to representation and republicanism are easier when one governs (monarchy), more difficult when several govern (aristocracy), and much more difficult when all those who are governed govern.
Kant’s Republican Constitution and Perpetual Peace
Kant asks whether the constitution is the only Republican one that can achieve perpetual peace among states. First, the republican constitution of Kant has similar characteristics to those of formal ethics. These are freedom, universality, and autonomy. Kant said that a republican constitution is a form of government representing the will of the citizens. Based on this, he explains why he believes that with the republican constitution, perpetual peace is possible: In a republican constitution, the consent of the citizens is required to decide to go to war, and he believes that people will think long before deciding to go to war against another state, considering the negative consequences of that war. In contrast, in a non-representative state, the ruler is the one who decides the war for fun or to take their own benefit, regardless of the consequences that would extend to its citizens.
To defend peace among peoples, Kant does not use altruistic arguments (war is bad for others) or ethical grounds (contrary to dignity, etc.) but selfish arguments: reject the war because it costs money and hurts us. That is, selfish arguments are used to produce a result that is not selfish and is ethically correct: Perpetual Peace.