Idealism in an unideal world

Idealism in an unideal world

Classical Liberalism (CL) is a refreshingly optimistic theory. Briefly ignoring its weaknesses, the theory establishes the principal of common decency, the natural desire for cooperation, and the interdependence of nations. It is an idealistic view of the world. The realism we discussed last week feels pragmatic by comparison, CL feels invigorating. I believe it is possible that CL can instil some much-needed optimism in a world dominated by Realist pragmatism, but then again, I may just be naïve.  

CL as a defined ideology emerged in the inter-war period in response to European barbarism. In principle, it supports supranational institutions and consensus politics, guiding mankind in a peaceful and unifying way. With the savagery of the Great War, the idea of European exceptionalism was extinguished. Instead, CL was expressed through the League of Nations and the widespread (if poorly executed) enforcement of democracy onto formerly authoritarian states. Its successor, the UN, more effectively established international law and norms, it is the clearest example of the benefits of CL. It is not a perfect institution, but it straddles the line between idealistic and practical, take Kosovo in the 1990s, or modern North Africa – these anarchic areas were pacified largely by the presence of foreign militaries, but it is simultaneously clear to the population that the foreigners are there to protect, and not to exploit. This cannot be said for any other military force in history.

Similarly to last week, I would like to place CL into the 2003 Iraq War to offer a consistent comparison. From a liberal perspective, the war was deeply problematic. The US used the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to undertake unilateral action against Iraq. This violated the UN conventions on war and demonstrated the weaknesses of international cooperation and the ‘natural good’ within states and individuals. Generally, CL and Neo-Liberals opposed the war, not due to politics, but to the US failure to follow proper UN procedure to invade. (1) Ironically, once the invasion had switched to an occupation, liberal theory supported the US, as the installation of democracy is vital to liberal theory. This is due, at least in part, to the CL notion of the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT). DPT establishes that democracies will avoid war with one another. Though criticism is rife, particularly when discussing covert action between democratic states, the theory has been proved nigh unbreakable. This factor is where the often-attributed naivety comes into play. The liberal belief in DPT and the importance of spreading democracy would see an end to all wars. This kind of fantastical assertion leads many to doubt it, but history has supported the DPT, the issue instead is how to spread democracy peacefully.

In many ways, CL is a flawed theory: nation states regularly engage in deliberate warfare, they ignore international institutions when convenient, and despite significantly increased economic interdependence, states still resort to hostility (whether overt or covert) in a power maximising fashion. However, CL does offer an optimistic take, backed by historical precedent, which, in an academic world dominated by the evils of mankind and their nation states, is nice.