The Definitive Articles Of A Perpetual Peace

A state of peace among men who live side by side is not the natural state, which is rather to be described as a state of war.

There is no actual open hostility. Yet there is a constant threatening that an outbreak may occur.

Thus the state of peace must be established.[117] For the mere[p. 119] cessation of hostilities is no guarantee of continued peaceful relations, and unless this guarantee is given by every individual to his neighbour—which can only be done in a state of society regulated by law—one man is at liberty to challenge another and treat him as an enemy.[118]

FIRST DEFINITIVE ARTICLE OF PERPETUAL PEACE

I.—“The civil constitution of each state shall be republican.”

The only constitution which has its origin in the idea of the original contract, upon which the lawful legislation of every nation must be based, is the republican.[119]

It is a constitution, in the first place,[p. 121] founded in accordance with the principle of the freedom of the members of society as human beings: secondly, in accordance with the principle of the dependence of all, as subjects, on a common legislation: and, thirdly, in accordance with the law of the equality of the members as citizens.

It is then, looking at the question of right, the only constitution whose fundamental principles lie at the basis of every form of civil constitution. And the only question for us now is, whether it is also the one constitution which can lead to perpetual peace.

The republican constitution has a sound origin. It arose from the pure source of the concept of right. And so it can attain perpetual peace.

This is because in a republic, the consent of the subjects is required to determine war.

They would weigh the matter well before undertaking such a bad business.*

This implies that they must fight themselves.

They must hand over the costs of the war out of their own property.

They must do their poor best to make good the devastation which it leaves behind; and finally, as a crowning ill, they have to accept a burden of debt which will embitter even peace itself, and which they can never pay off on account of the new wars which are always impending.

On the other hand, in a government where the subject is not a citizen holding a vote, (i.e. in a constitution which is not republican), the plunging into war is the least serious thing in the world. For the ruler is not a citizen, but the owner of the state, and does not lose a whit by the war, while he goes on enjoying the delights of his table or sport, or of his pleasure palaces and gala days.

He can therefore decide on war for the most trifling reasons, as if it were a kind of pleasure party.[120] Any justification of it that is necessary for the sake of decency he can leave without concern to the diplomatic corps who are always only too ready with their services.

Democracy Versus Republic

The forms of the state are based on 2 principles:

1. Who holds the supreme authority in the state
2. How the people are governed by their ruler

This is the form of sovereignty. There can be only 3 constitutions differing in this respect:

The supreme authority belongs:

1. to only one

This is an autocracy or monarchy

2. to several individuals working together

This is an aristocracy or nobility

3. the whole people constituting the civil society.

This is an democracy or the people.

The manner of government is based on the constitution. It transforms a multitude into a nation.

In this respect the form of government is either republican or despotic.

Republicanism is the political principle of severing the executive power of the government from the legislature.

Despotism is that principle in pursuance of which the state arbitrarily puts into effect laws which it has itself made.

Consequently, it is the administration of the public will, but this is identical with the private will of the ruler.

Democracy is of necessity despotism because it establishes an executive power, since all decree regarding—and, if need be, against—any individual who dissents from them.

Therefore the “whole people”, so-called, who carry their measure are really not all, but only a majority: so that here the universal will is in contradiction with itself and with the principle of freedom.

Every form of government in fact which is not representative is really no true constitution at all, because a law-giver may no more be, in one and the same person, the administrator of his own will, than the universal major premise of a syllogism may be, at the same time, the subsumption under itself of the particulars contained in the minor premise.

Autocracy and aristocracy are always defective because they leave the way open for such a form of government.

Yet there is at least always a possibility in these cases, that they may take the form of a government in accordance with the spirit of a representative system.

Thus Frederick the Great used at least to say that he was “merely the highest servant of the state.”[122]

The democratic constitution, on the other hand, makes this impossible, because under such a government every one wishes to be master.

We may therefore say that the smaller the staff of the executive—that is to say, the number of rulers—and the more real, on the other hand, their representation of the people, so much the more is the government of the state in accordance with a possible republicanism; and it may hope by gradual reforms to raise itself to that standard.

For this reason, it is more difficult under an aristocracy than under a monarchy—while under a democracy it is impossible except by a violent revolution—to attain to this, the one perfectly lawful constitution.

The kind of government,[123] however, is of infinitely more importance to the people than the kind of constitution, although the greater or less aptitude of a people for this ideal greatly depends upon such external form. The form of government, however, if it is to be in accordance with the idea of right, must embody the representative system in which alone a republican form of administration is pos[p. 128]sible and without which it is despotic and violent, be the constitution what it may.

None of the ancient so-called republics were aware of this, and they necessarily slipped into absolute despotism which, of all despotisms, is most endurable under the sovereignty of one individual.