Emmanuel Kant forsaw a march of history that would lead to a cosmopolitan world government, but also was one of the first to suggest that in the interim, a global international scene consisting solely of liberal republics would greatly increase stability and security throughout the world.
The reason for this, Kant supposes, is that republican peoples are less likely to go to war, because:
This would mean calling down on themselves all the miseries of war, such as doing the fighting themselves, supplying the costs of the war from their own resources, painfully making good the ensuing devastation, and, as the crowning evil, having to take upon themselves a burden of debts which will embitter peace itself...But, though no two liberal republics have fought each other in over 200 years, they have nonetheless waged plenty of wars; both offensively and defensively, and against both more authoritarian regimes, native populations, and secessionist movements.
Why is this, and more importantly, is it preventable?
I would argue that the reason for this continued warlike behaviour by liberal republics, including the United States, is twofold: First, none of these so-called republics are very republican; though the population may elect a leader and an executive, once that leader is in power, be it for 2 years, 4 years, or what have you, they function as an autocrat- in Kant's words:
For the head of state is not a fellow citizen, and war will not force him to make the slightest sacrifice so far as his banquets, hunts, pleasure palaces, and court festivals are concerned. He can thus decide on war, without any significant reasons...
Truly, one might observe without a trace of cynicism that no fundraising dinners have been canceled of late, no Texas hunting trips or escapes to Kennebunkport have been missed on account of the trivial matter of a 5 year war that has cost the lives of a mere 4000-odd soldiers on foreign sands...
In the second place, the populace also fails to meet Kant's criteria in that neither the whole population, nor even a large or representative slice of it, is required to bear the misery of fighting; they are also not specifically required to make good the resultant devastation, though one can suppose that through taxation and the potential for war rationing, the populace will indeed bear the domestic financial costs of the war...
In the United States, as in most liberal democracies, our modern wars are fought by a small percentage of professional soldiers, led by an elite officer corps. These armed forces, even the massive ones that exist in America, have much more in common with the mercenary troops of yore than with those truly citizen-soldiers such as marched in the phalanxes of Sparta and Athens, and the volunteer Federal and Confederate regiments of the Civil War.
Having discovered this deficiency between Kant's ideal liberal republic and today's liberal, democratic, capitalist states, can your humble scribe offer a prescription for change?
But of course. A two-fold problem calls for a two-fold solution.
First off, while it's no doubt convenient to foist off the day-to-day administration of the State to a group of corrupt, inefficient bureaucrats, the decision to commit the armed forces of the Nation to combat should be subject to a national referendum; today's modern technology makes it entirely possible that one could vote, swiftly, securely and uniquely, via, say text message:
Supposing that one will not now go to war without the consent of the majority of the citizenry, one would like to ensure that those citizens are not signing up to wars which they themselves would not be willing to fight.To: White House (703-xxx-xxxx)
From: Cleitus (202-xxx-xxxx)Re: War in Ossetia
Vote: NO
The simple solution would be to mandate a limited period of military service for all persons who are mentally and physically capable, and then make them liable, in the future, to be called into service to augment the standing forces for a term of 3 years or so, and of course to be activated in a time of war.
Full citizenship (ie, the right to vote for or against a war) should be limited to those citizens who have served, or are serving - those who are exempted for mental or physical reasons should have no say, lest they bring down upon the heads of the Nation's warriors an undesired battle.
Both these prescriptions are easily manageable with today's technology; whether true republican spirit is palatable to either America or its rulers is less certain.
Posts
6 comments:
I think your system would make most sense if whoever votes for a war were required to serve in that particular war, rather than only allowing veterans to vote at all.
But your entire analysis is based on a dangerous assumption: that the US populace (or that of any state) is paying enough attention to be able to understand their own interests as they pertain to geopolitics on the other side of the world, much less vote for those of the nation.
"These armed forces, even the massive ones that exist in America, have much more in common with the mercenary troops of yore than with those truly citizen-soldiers such as marched in the phalanxes of Sparta and Athens"
In either of those cases, fighting men reprsented not just citizens but citizens who could afford to equip themselves with arms. Sparta of course, was a military oligarchy with every male citizen a professional soldier in the sense we use the term, made possible by Helot labor. This exclusivity ended up costing Sparta it's power. Casualties were irreplaceable.
Athens, democratized not because of it's land forces but because of it's abject military dependency on the rowers of their naval forces who were poor men. Citizenship was the concession.
The Roman Republic, whose legions were truly citizen soldiers, was the most aggressively expansionist power of the ancient world. Far more than the Spartans at their apex or later when Rome was an empire and fielded professionals and mercenaries. Emperors were more cautious than the glory-seeking Consuls had been.
De Tocqueville has interesting things to say about warmaking and armies in modern democraciers BTW.
Ironically, Kant cautioned against democratic states waging war in order to promote democracy, arguing that such wars would threaten democracy itself. Unfortunately, the trend Cleitus highlights (exporting democracy - or perhaps resource hunting under the guise of exporting democracy) is indeed a doomed enterprise, no matter to which end the war is orchestrated. Promoting democracy has more to do with protecting minority rights in multi-ethnic states than with military campaigns (interested parties can read up on the OECD´s High Commission on National Minorities).
As to the question of whether an drafted electorate might make different choices, Israel and Sweden serve as good examples. In Israel, military service is mandatory for all Israelis (man and woman), yet this has not dissauded Israelis from supporting armed incursions into Palestinian territory or Lebanon. On the other hand in Sweden, military service is mandatory (only for men) and yet Sweden´s involvement in conflict has been primarily as a peacemaker. While Cleitus draws attention to an important dilemma (that of democracies involved in interstate wars with non-democracies), the independent variables (those leading to war)may be more complex than the views of electorate...
Good points all, and I am heartened by the diverse views on this topic.
Empedocles, I do not suppose that there are not other variables involved, merely that modern democratic populaces are neither republican (in having a direct say on their Nation's decision to go to war) nor bound to suffer all the evils incumbent upon such an enterprise.
Certainly I do not propose that civilized states should forcibly export either democratic or autocratic principles; I merely suggest that despite the great size of modern states, it is now technologically feasible that all citizens could vote on policies that have the potential to dramatically effect them, and that, having voted, they should be obliged to bear the full consequences (including dying for the sake of their own war) rather than shunting those grim tasks off on a band of lower-class "volunteers" led by aristocratic officers.
The original Roman citizen-soldiers were expansionist because expansion was good business. It was socially acceptable to conquer neighboring nations, and the odds of success (as opposed to the risk of death) were with the legionnaires; they could rely on superior tactics, weaponry, and training. Thus, to support a war was a rational decision, and one that was commonly made. Nowadays, a rational citizen has opportunities to grow his or her wealth and power in ways that do not require military action; the global economies provide this venue. And for those who might look to war, success is a much less certain prognosis, as the heaped dead on both sides of the latest shooting war in the Caucasus shows. Thus to merely look at historical republics to predict the actions of future republics is fruitless without considering other factors. I merely pointed to the Greek city-states and the early volunteer regiments on both sides of the civil war as groups where a majority of the citizenry not only voted for the war, but then undertook to prosecute it, for better or worse.
As for you, Diodotus, I like to think that even such a lethargic and uneducated mass of feckless humanity as apparently makes up the populace of the United States (judging from their reality TV, talk shows, and banal newscasts) might bestir itself to seriously consider whether to declare war against a distant country.
I do not suggest that diplomacy and economic policy, indeed even most domestic policy would not remain the purview of the bureaucrats, simply that the decision to make war should lie with the populace, and along with that responsibility, the grave duty to carry out the action.
As for allowing only those "active" in service to vote, I should think that such active members would constitute a large cross-section of society, being fit persons from 18-45, not merely those currently serving their 3-year active stint, but those eligible for a blind lottery to recall them to service for the duration of the war.
A novel concept, I grant you, but an eminently practical one. Consider how long the current debacle in the desert might have gone on if businessmen, politicians, and the ilk (along with their sons and daughters) had been obliged (if their number came up) to go off to the "war" and there remain until the conflict ended.
In the United States, as in most liberal democracies, our modern wars are fought by a small percentage of professional soldiers, led by an elite officer corps. These armed forces, even the massive ones that exist in America, have much more in common with the mercenary troops of yore than with those truly citizen-soldiers such as marched in the phalanxes of Sparta and Athens, and the volunteer Federal and Confederate regiments of the Civil War.
What you are describing I could see if applied to the Regular Army in the 19th Century. But the post 1975 Armed Forces are, if a small percentage of the population, fairly representatives of the population as a whole, except those who cannot meet basic enlistment requirements. And certain portions of the upper class and upper middle class who would not think of joining even as an officer ideological reasons or simple because it is so beneath their inflated self worth. I would say that the soldiers who serve in today’s regiments, many of which are the successors of the Civil War regiments, are successors of not just the lineage but the spirit of those regiments.
--------------
When I was an adolescent I read Robert Heinlens Starship Troopers and the idea of the Full Citizenship being dependent on military service seemed quite reasonable. Though Heinlen did not include a draft. Another of his ideas for limiting the voting franchise is that only mothers should be allowed to vote. They would disinclined to sending their children to war, but also a level of common sense on other subjects that former soldiers may lack. Good things for provoking thought but I’m not too sure they would be good in practice.
------------------
A few years later Sec of Def McNamara showed us how a draft based army brings about a more balanced armed force. More here
Less effective
More casualties, but from parts of society that would have no practical ability to complain.
The statistics are mixed on whether it helped those who survived find a better place in society on discharge, which was the officially stated reason.
While almost all of these people were African American, Genocide requires intentionality, which would be very hard to prove if it existed..
I regret to say that or something close to it would be the ultimate result of reestablishing the draft in the United States.
I did enjoy your interesting comments, but I do not really think any proposal to reestablish the draft should be considered unless events force no alternative.
"Another of his ideas for limiting the voting franchise is that only mothers should be allowed to vote. They would disinclined to sending their children to war, but also a level of common sense on other subjects that former soldiers may lack."
I don't buy it... ever hear of the Security Moms...? And then there are the mothes of ancient Sparta whose entire identity was based on raising their sons for military service... states are very good a militarizing motherhood and providing emotional and social incentives to take pride in a child's military service; historically, it's often been women including mothers who have cheerled or even shamed their men into going to war.
Of course mothers have been active in the peace movement as well. I just think we have to be careful not to make assumptions...
Post a Comment