The other day in my Latin American Politics class I got to draw a parallel between that class and this one. In IS we had been discussing the Fujimori regime which ruled Peru during the 1990’s. During his rule he instated a system of state sponsored terrorism to combat the already existing threat which was Sendero Luminoso, a Maoist guerilla movement in Peru. The conflict between civilian officials and the military and Sendero Luminoso resulted in approximately 70,000 deaths in Peru We talked about this idea of the instrumentalization of fear and how in Peru democracy broke down into authoritarianism. The class discussion turned to this idea of times of necessity when democratic principles are suspended. During this time, the majority of Peruvians supported Fujimori’s authoritarian regime because they felt like he was protecting the country. (Later on, Fujimori was brought before international courts and charged with Crimes Against Humanity, among other things, but at the time he enjoyed a lot of support in Peru.) In other words, the citizens of Peru were willing to give up some of their civil liberties in order to let Fujimori have more power and authority to fight Sendero Luminoso. This sounded to me a lot like Kant’s concept, “the right of necessity”. In relating it to the case of Peru, it seems like impeding threat of Sendero Luminoso was more coercive to the Peruvian people, and the Fujimori regime than the possibility of breaking the law. Is this how Kant would look at this situation? Is it true that it is not an issue for justice if the Peruvians saw Sendero Luminoso as such an imminent threat? Or would he say that the Peruvian people are irrational because rational people would not give up their civil rights? Would he say that the thousands of deaths that were carried out by the Fujimori regime were unjust because there is no way to tell the future, and no way that the regime could’ve known how dangerous Sendero Luminoso was, and the consequences that would come of their actions? I mean, we are talking about a regime that killed civilians and children and anyone that they suspected could be associated with Sendero Luminoso. Is this the kind of necessitous situation that Kant was talking about?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is not necessarily true that rational people would never give up their civil rights. If their voluntary relinquishing of their rights leads to a desirable condition, then they have traded their possession for a more valuable one.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case, I cannot give my opinion as to whether or not Fujimori's regime was just because I do not know the details. I can say though, that Kant would not find this moral. These people were being coerced by the violence of Luminoso' regime, and thus gave up their rights for protection by Fujimori irrationally.
The acts of Fujimori can be seen as unjust and just by Kant. If there truly was a need for self-defense against Luminoso, then one could will the action of self-defense as a universal law. Yet, all the actions that follow this decision may not be moral, depending on how far "self-defense" reigns. One can never know the future though, so on the basis of a rational account, self-defense can be justified.
I agree with Ferrell that Kant would say this situation is amoral because of the coercive force of Luminoso's regime. However, since I don't really know all of the details, I can't give my definitive opinion. I do think that Kant would still identify this as falling under the right of necessity for the people of Peru. The were willing to "break the law" and give up their civil rights because they thought Luminoso's regime would be worse than choosing not to give up those freedoms for the protection promised by Fujimori. Morality, and, I'd argue, justice, cannot apply to this situation because those people had no way of knowing that they would suffer so badly under Fujimori. But that's just my interpretation of the facts you provided, since I know nothing about the actual event.
ReplyDelete