Immanuel Kant Perpetual Peace

Charles Lipson in “Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace,” argues that Democratic Peace Theory offers an explanation as to why democracies, in particular, have avoided the war front. In his delineation, he cites the ideals of bargaining, mutual benefit, reluctance to bear the cost of war, and the restraint placed upon elected official as to why democracies, unlike non-democracies, have avoided conflict for as long as they have (Lipson 10). His argument, alike to other Democratic peace theorists, consist of the idea that all areas should be a democracy, as these benefits exist amongst democracies due to their shared values.

19). That begin said, Russian politics have always governed around protecting themselves from threats inside and outside their boundaries both economical and militarily. In addition, Lynch elaborates that the capability of a state is so important in developing; in order to form a democracy since having been a built on post communist and Imperial auspices (Lynch, p. 5). In other words, a democracy does not merely come out of nowhere in a civil society, unless there is a capable national service where a political authority may draft, pass and enforce legislation. Furthermore, it is the neopatrimonial model that best describes the functioning of the Russian state that took hold in post communist Russia ruled by Yeltsin and Putin (Lynch, pp. 128-30). To clarify, it was significant that Russia established itself in a liberal economy, which was mostly supported by Western states, however the emergence and eventual consolidation under Putin established a neopatrmonial Political system.

Current Issues, 35th edition, examines both the pros and cons of spreading democracy. This text explains that promoting democracy is in the U.S. national interest because democracy creates a safer, more stable world. Democratic nations cooperate with other nations and the U.S. better because they are more answerable to their citizens. The text also claims that such nations will deny terrorists from a base from which to plan and carry out attacks.

The current global economic and political climate has promoted the question of whether fascism is on the rise again. Vladimir Putin is one of the few current world leaders who has shown fascist tendencies. Putin’s Russia has many elements that are reminiscent of the early 1900’s fascism. There are many similarities between Putin’s Russia and the fundamental principles of classical fascism. Putin asserts Russian power by putting pressure on weak neighboring states, and slams the West’s criticism of his policies and actions. By annexing Crimea and supporting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Russia was able to justify “its military-patriotic mobilization of society” and the transformation of Russia into a “besieged fortress” (Motyl, 2016, pg. 29). The annexation of Crimea made Russian citizens feel a wave of vicarious optimism. Putin’s ‘bully’ attitude and aggression are supposed to manifest Russian ethnic and cultural revitalization after decades of decline. Similar to Mussolini, Putin is building his regime on the promises of greatness, the display of military force, and the campaign to make Russia great again. Putin’s actions and policies provide the Russian citizens with a sense of national pride, which has been lacking since the post-Soviet era. He continues to pursue strategies and policies that restore Russian pride while consolidating power and influence in Russia. Putin lacks of interest in engaging with Western politics has also contributed to the rise of his popularity at

“Democratic peace theory” states that democratic nations tend not to fight one another. For example, The United States, which is a representative democracy, has never been involved in a conflict with another democratic nation. Conflict between democratic nations never occur simply because they treat everyone as equal, take majority votes into account, and are transparent. First of all, democratic nations tent to have a secular attitude. This means that people are more open to new ideas, and more accepting of different people and races who might be different.

The EU represents Kant’s idea of a federation of states in perpetual of peace in many of the more overarching ways, it must be noted that it is not a perfect fit. Before diving into the support of this claim, it is important to realize what the European Union is so to fully understand what it could represent. The EU is a political and economic union, hoping to facilitate free movement in terms of trading, with the intent of building peaceful relationships and increasing economic growth. Perhaps the biggest reason the EU was created was to increase peace throughout Europe and hopefully take away the possibility of another World War. The European Unions serves as a facilitator for agreement between each nation inside the union, and provides the

Throughout the history of mankind there has come to be two factors that are seen as inevitable. The first is progress, humans are naturally competitive creatures who not only want to insure their own safety but also get one up on their neighbours. Progress has led to huge leaps forward, not only technologically but also socially. However, aside from progress there is another factor, war. Time and time again throughout history humans have fought and killed each other for their own selfish reasons and security. And according to political theorists such as Hobbes this is simply the state of nature, a perpetual state of ‘war of all against all’, further surmising that it is due to this that mankind is fundamentally selfish. However, just because so far, mankind’s history has consisted of an endless cycle of wars, does that mean that it must continue to be this way? Political Philosopher Immanuel Kant outlines a number of articles that he hypothesises could lead towards a perpetual peace. There are many criticisms of Kant’s perpetual peace, many argue that it is to idealistic and utopian. However, Kant doesn’t deny these claims. Instead Kant argues that if this ‘perpetual peace’ is even a remote possibility then for the good of mankind, we have a duty to try make it a reality.

Russia’s Return as a Superpower. There are concerns that Russia may once again “reassert itself militarily” (Wood 7). After the original fall of communism in 1991, Russia seemed to be on a path to democracy. Currently the notion of a democratic Russia seems to be fading as Russia “has been centralizing more and more power in the Kremlin” (Putin 2). Regional governors, who were once elected by the people, are now being appointed by Moscow.

Politician showed political will to make peace on the earth with democracy and with international organizations. ‘Democracy is the political system that best – through proper mechanisms – allows people to enjoy their civil, political,

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic

Modern History is littered with Treaties and Peace Agreements… yet we still live in a World dominated by unrest, conflict and ….war.

In regards to the influence of politics towards a state, Rustow discusses the process to which democracy is developed. National unity is key, and is the foundation of the process (Rustow 1970: 350); Lacking national unity would mean that democracy would not be able to flourish, or even begin developing. By national unity, Rustow means that as a whole, a majority of citizens in a country not yet in a democracy, must agree on identification of their political status (Rustow 351). This would allow the transition to democracy to be more smoothly, and have minimal conflict since the majority of citizens would agree on their political identification for their country.

The present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.

Democracy has rapidly became the premier form of government in the world. The growth was rapid and sudden. This increase is intriguing for the fact of how quick it was. There were many different proposed forms of government, but viewing how democracy became that fundamental idea gives us an insight into the cultures that formed from it. The subjugation of other systems is at the root of democracy. It pushes out conflicting ideas and propagates itself.

The common narrative, at least the one put forward by Ukraine and much of the West, is one of Russian aggression. Russia, afraid of losing its influence over its former colonies and refusing the accept the modernising, pro-Western ambitions of the Ukrainian people, artificially engineered a rebellion through propaganda and blatant lies, labelling the protestors in Kiev as fascists and Neo-Nazis, then moved in its own troops under the guise of disgruntled locals and off-duty army ‘volunteers’ to try and disrupt Ukraine’s progress. But this narrative, while correct from a certain point of