Kant's Perpetual Peace and the Republican Constitution

Introduction: The Republican Constitution and Perpetual Peace

In the paragraph beginning "Now in addition to…," Kant argues that the republican constitution provides "purity of origin and source" (Kant, 113), or true interpretation of the law. A republican constitution, which by definition must be representative of a republic and the people living within it, must ultimately be concerned with the concept of perpetual peace. How can a republican constitution provide perpetual peace? Kant states that when a republican constitution is in place, it must follow that in order for war to be declared, the citizens of a nation must consent to that war (Kant, 113). This requirement stems from the fact that a republican constitution is not authoritarian or despotic in nature, but rather represents the will and desires of the citizenry.

Citizen Consent and the Costs of War

Kant argues that the citizenry of any state in a republic will have to consider all of the consequences of war before agreeing that the risks of partaking in it are worthwhile (Kant, 113). This argument might also ring true for the citizens of a democracy, such as the citizens of the United States. In theory, under a democratic constitution, the declaration of war cannot occur simply on the whim of the nation's ruler. Rather, the ruler must act according to the will of the people. Congress, or the representatives of the citizens, must agree to declare war, and the devastation that war might inflict on the homeland is often taken into consideration.

However, a democracy differs somewhat from a republic in that the will of the people may be enacted by the will of one person who does not necessarily represent the true will of the citizens.

The Problem of Perpetual Peace in Practice

Long-standing, or perpetual, peace according to Kant can only be acquired through moral consideration on the part of the citizenry. This moral consideration will occur within the framework of a republican constitution, where the consequences of any such action are heavily weighed. However, one must note that the natural state of affairs is typically one of conflict, and even if the will of the majority is that war is unappealing, it still seems to occur with great frequency.

Consequences Citizens Must Bear Before Consenting to War

Kant points out that among the considerations citizens must weigh before agreeing to war is the fact that they themselves may put their lives at risk by fighting (Kant, 113). Additionally, those participating in the war effort will have to subsidize it through out-of-pocket expenses or taxes. Citizens will also bear some responsibility for repairing the damage inflicted on their homeland — and perhaps on another nation — due to the devastation naturally caused during times of conflict (Kant, 113).

This is very often true; however, in most situations the perceived benefits of going to war can outweigh the consequences of remaining at peace. Most people, even within a republican constitution, will agree to go to war at the expense of their safety and finances in order to protect their own free will and livelihood, as well as that of their country. The protection of the innocent is also a powerful factor. In this respect, war seems a more natural state of affairs than peace, making peace a difficult condition to achieve and sustain.

Conclusion: Evaluating Kant's Thesis

The non-republican constitution thus thwarts all efforts toward perpetual peace. Perhaps here Kant is observing the frequency of war declared in nations ruled by someone considered the nation's "owner." It is true, in a sense, that some countries appear to exist in a state of perpetual war rather than peace. However, even within countries that abide by a republican constitution, perpetual peace is hardly realized. The argument that such a constitution guarantees peace is therefore not without its faults. Even if the citizens of a republic object to war, there remains a possibility that they will find themselves drawn into conflict regardless.

Consider, for example, the United States' entry into Afghanistan and its subsequent declaration of war. Despite mass public objection to the war and the lack of prior approval from the people's representatives, the nation's leader took it upon himself to declare war regardless. This behavior is far more despotic in character — and more typical of the natural order of things — as Kant would argue. The United States, however, is a democracy rather than a republic in the strict sense Kant intends. Also objectionable is the idea that a country will continue to go to war merely to escape the debt induced by previous wars. If this were the case, even nations with republican constitutions would find themselves in a state of perpetual war rather than peace, since debt is inevitable.

Kant's argument would have been stronger had he maintained simply that the adoption of a republican constitution creates greater motivation and tendency within a country toward perpetual peace, and makes it more difficult to engage in continuous war without the direct approval of the citizenry. As Kant's broader political philosophy suggests, institutional structures that bind rulers to the consent of the governed represent the most reliable path toward a more peaceful international order — even if that peace remains imperfect and difficult to sustain in practice.

Kant, Immanuel. "Perpetual Peace." P. 113, Section 351.