Liberalism

Liberalism

Introduction

Liberalism refers to the modern democracy that is demonstrated by the predominance of the phrase liberal democracy. Liberal democracy represents the states with an election that is free and fair, protected liberties of the people, and the rule of law (Mykhnenko 358). However, when this liberal democracy is discussed based on the IR theory, it has a distinct entity. The term liberalism contains various arguments and concepts on how institutions’ economic connections and behavior mitigate and contain the violent power of different nations. Liberalism adds extra factors into our view, mostly a consideration of international organizations and citizens.

Most importantly, liberalism has been validated to be a traditional foil of realism in IR theory (Mykhnenko 360). The reason is that liberalism offers a world view that is optimistic grounded in distinct history reading. This paper will present a critical review of six essential readings about liberalism. Such readings include the promise of institutionalist theory by Robert and Lisa, force or trade, how liberalism produces democratic peace by Owen, myth of democratic peace by Layne, democratization, and danger of war by Mansfield and Snyder, and liberal theory of international politics by Moracsik.

Issues and Arguments 

According to Robert and Lisa, although addressed by these scholars are almost the same, and that they are advocating for liberalism, they are basing their arguments on different facts. The first argument is posed by Robert and Lisa (Robert and Lisa, 40). These two scholars talk about the issue of political economy and security. They tried to criticize the argument by other scholars that there is a line dividing political economy and security based on the institutionalist theory. Following the argument of the theory that revolves around the responsibility of institutions of information provision, then its applicability should be on security issues. The authors argue that international institutions play an important role in the liberalism by offering security and improving the political economy of all states that are members of the cooperation (Robert and Lisa 46). According to the article, some trades are internationally, and the assurance of security while carrying out their operations in foreign countries is through international institutions.

The main claim of the theory is that the formation of international institutions is among the critical contributors to the liberal environment. The member states of the institutions are allowed to retain their autonomy and sovereignty. The implication is that the institutions are relatively powerless in some state matters. The role of the institutions is to strengthen the liberalization between the member countries. The first benefit is that foreign investors are given the power to control the market locally and internationally. Following the country’s cooperation with the institutions, there is free movement of different factors of production. Production skills through labor mobility are moved from one state to another, and this is a crucial factor in economic growth and development. However, according to different studies, it has been found that the institutions have effects on the political state of a country and also can adversely affect a country. Consequently, the impact of the institutions, according to Robert and Lisa, is determined by the behavior of a certain country. It depends on the conformity of the country to the rules of the institutions.

According to the author of the article “Force or trade,” the issue is overspending of a country on political-military. The logic behind the claim of this particular article is that when an individual state focuses a lot on political-military, then some economic sectors will be unattended, and this is a complete failure of such a country’s government (Force or trade 155). In concurrence with other different studies, the author presents a better idea of avoiding the cost of forgoing some economic sectors for military spending. It has been confirmed that a country that spends more on the military force of defending itself, there are some associated adverse implications. The first implication is that the image of such a state to the world is tarnished, and no country will want to trade with it. The second implication is that such a country will have depicted that it is weak based on political stability, and interaction with other countries will be limited. Liberalization is an effective remedy of the issue concerning military spending, which will have adverse effects on the economy. The reason why a country will spend on defense force is that its relationship with other nations is unfavorable, and they appear to be attacking the particular country.

Liberalism creates friendly interaction between different countries that have agreed to liberalize. They protect each other, especially during attacks, and consequently, the issue of defense is curbed. According to the argument of the author, the preference of most countries for a trading strategy is achievable through acceptance of the liberalization. Since 1945 after World War II, most countries have suffered from military expenditure while others have enjoyed free-riding on the military. Such free-riders were benefiting from the security provided by other countries through liberalization (Force or trade 160). Generally, following the transformation that has taken place since World War II, most countries have liberalized their territories and allowed free trade forgoing military expenditure, although the superpower countries like still focusing on the military.

According to John Owen: Production of Democratic Peace by Liberalization, the principal issue addressed by John Owen in his work is liberal democracies and the way they curb the problem of wars between different states. The author refers to the effect of the liberal democracies as democratic peace (Owen 87). According to the provision of the article, the liberal democracies are brought about by liberal ideas, and they incline away from state conflicts. Liberal democracy has been defined as a country that instantiates liberal ideology, and that is dominated by liberalism. In such a state, the nationals influence the decisions about wars. The citizens in liberal democracies enjoy free speech, and they are the determinants of officials of the state who have the powers to declare wars. The author claims that all liberals have the assumption and perception that all people everywhere are crucially the same. Additionally, they believe that such individuals are pursuing material well-being and self-preservation, and consequently, it calls for freedom to accomplish such pursuits.

To sum up, the ideas presented by the author, the creation, cooperation, and conformity to the liberalization by a state is a guarantee of democratic peace. The interaction between these democracies is always harmonious (Owen 100). The democratic institutions and liberal ideology play an essential role in shaping the foreign policies. Due to that, they are said to have prohibited wars among liberal democracies. Instead of attacks against other states, liberal democracies defend each and observe self-interests of each other. Conditionally, for the effectiveness of the liberal ideology, the liberal democracy of a country ought to be recognized by others for it to be treated as one of them.

The Myth of Democratic Peace is an article that criticized the theory of democratic power. The main issue addressed by this author is the testing of democratic peace theory. The argument of the author, according to the provision of the article, is that the theory is not valid (Layne 6). According to the theory, it is only liberal democracies that can harmoniously interact. However, according to this particular article, there several cases where the theory is criticized. For instance, there are many cases whereby states that are not democratic countries harmoniously interact and also interact with democratic states. The implication is that not all democratic countries that enjoy democratic peace.

Another claim is that even though liberal democracies may peacefully interact with each other, there might be disharmony locally between a government and its citizens. In a democratic country, an individual can sue the government in the court of law. If this situation is experienced, then the theory of democratic peace does not hold (Layne 45). On the other hand, the government can take a private sector to court, and this is disharmony. All these critiques are true, given that the definition of peace is broadly perceived. The third claim against the theory of democratic peace is when there are threats to the citizens; Broad perception of peace cuts across the absence of threats and peace of mind. In a liberal democracy, there are rules that govern the state, and repercussions apply to those who deviate. Due to such threats, the citizens are said to be living in a state disharmony. Generally, the main idea of the author is that the theory of democratic peace, in some cases, does not hold. These, among other studies, have tried to explore liberalism as experienced in the world.

Weaknesses of Liberalism

Despite the many advantages of liberalization, there are some weaknesses that are attributed to it, as discussed below. One of the weaknesses associated with liberalism is the democracy decline. Among the roles played by liberalism is to shape the legal order of the liberal democracies. On the other hand, the meaning of democracy is that there is self-independent power whereby each nation is independent politically (Smith n.p). The implication is that the two are, to an extent, not possibly interacting. In the countries where the liberalization occurs, then the country’s sovereignty if reduced since some modifications are applied.

The other weakness of liberalism is the interdependence illusion. Liberals are blinded by the free trade created by the ideology. However, liberalism does not address the issue of inequality among liberals. After the free movement of factors of production, there are demerits that accrue to some of them, especially developing nations. In the process, there those countries that benefit more than others, and this issue is not addressed by liberalism (Smith n.p). For instance, the powerful and developed nations will exhaust those nations that depend on the exportation of raw materials. Such nations also have unskilled or semi-skilled labor, and thus they depend on labor from the developed nations for the extraction of their resources. The research department in those developing nations is less effective, and also they depend on research findings from developed nations. All these factors bring about the exhaustion of such countries, but they seem to be blinded by the interdependence that is not equally and mutually benefiting.

The other weakness of liberalism occurs when scenarios like the cold war are experienced. There are those nations that are a superpower, and they are treated better in the global market compared to the third world nations. These nations, most of the times, are deviants of the law provided by the liberalization (Smith n.p). Liberalism should ensure that the treatment of liberals that acts against the law is similar across all liberals regardless of the level of development. For instance, the customs duties set for importation and exportation can differ from one liberal to another, depending on the level of development.

Conclusion

In conclusion, liberalism is an important aspect of the world for security and economic purpose. The liberals enjoy harmonious interaction among themselves. Due to the harmony among the liberals, the amount that would have been spent on the military for defense purposes is used in other economic sectors. Additionally, the citizens enjoy the free movement created by liberalism from their local country to another one of their choices. Apart from the aforementioned strengths of liberalism, there are few associated weaknesses. The first case is that it does not address the issue of reduced democracy of the state.

Additionally, there are issues of inequality associated with it among the liberals based on the level of development. Also, the applications its rules are not homogeneous. This is because the way supernatural states are treated is not similar to that of less supernatural ones.

Work Cited

Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin. The Promise of Institutionalist Theory: International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer, 1995), pp. 39-51

Force or trade, the cost and Benefits 155-162

John M. Owen. How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace: International Security, Volume 19, Number 2, Fall 1994, pp. 87-125

Christopher Layne. The Myth of the Democratic Peace: International Security, Volume 19, Number 2, Fall 1994, pp. 5-49

Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder.

Mykhnenko, Vlad. “Strengths and weaknesses of ‘weak coordination: Economic institutions, revealed comparative advantages, and socio-economic performance of mixed market economies in Poland and Ukraine.” Beyond Varieties of Capitalism (2007): 351-378.

Smith, Rogers M. Liberalism, and American constitutional law. Harvard University Press, 2000.