Why does Rawls believe that decent, non liberal peoples should be tolerated? How is this toleration realized at the level of the Society of Peoples?

Résumé du document

In The Law of Peoples, John Rawls explains how his theory of justice can be extended to the international level. The Society of Peoples, he describes allows two kinds of bona fide members: liberal democratic societies and what he calls decent non-liberal people. Even though these 'decent' non-liberal people only respect basic human rights and don't have liberal democratic institutions, they are considered as 'tolerable' in the Society of Peoples. Rawls defines toleration as not only renouncing to impose sanctions to 'make them change their ways', but also to accept them as 'equal participating members in the good standing of the Society of Peoples'. He distinguishes, among decent non-liberal societies, decent consultation hierarchies and other non-liberal people. Decent consultation hierarchies have their members consulted, or at least they have a significant role in political decisions. They don't have aggressive aims and they respect a basic set of human rights. The question is to know why these peoples should be tolerated, that is to say what gives legitimacy to what Allen Buchanan calls a 'betrayal of liberalism'? Rawls's justification for this toleration is somewhat vague and based on facts in some respects, and doesn't seem be a real legitimate justification.

Extraits

[...] Why does Rawls believe that decent, non liberal peoples should be tolerated? How is this toleration realized at the level of the Society of Peoples? In The Law of Peoples, John Rawls explains how his moral theory of justice can be extended to the international level. The Society of Peoples he describes allows two kinds of bona fide members: liberal democratic societies and what he calls decent non liberal peoples. Even though these non liberal peoples only respect basic human rights and don't have liberal democratic institutions, are considered as “tolerable” in the Society of Peoples. [...]

[...] Rawls raises the question of self determination and incentives for decent non liberal peoples to move toward more liberal institutions. He assumes that incentives can be made by liberal peoples if they are voluntary on the part of the decent non liberal peoples they are directed to and if they are made from persons in the civil societies, and not by institutions. The problem calls for further analysis than just these two restricting rules. First of all, it is very likely that liberal societies, their institutions in particular, will obey strictly these two rules. [...]

[...] Rawls explains the Law of Peoples should be worked out by equally considered representatives of both liberal democracies and decent non liberal democracies. The question of equality among the representatives and within the societies is to be raised. As a matter of fact, the representatives stand for societies that don't have the same views on equality, since a full equality is not required for decent non liberal peoples to be considered equal participants to the Society of Peoples. Buchanan, in his article, raises that the choice of the representatives within the members of each society is a problem. [...]

[...] Rawls intends to convince liberal readers that at the end of the day, toleration is an efficient strategy to make decent non liberal peoples have more liberal institutions, because, he assumes, of the very power of liberal ideas. This argument has no theoretical legitimacy since it doesn't explain why it is fair to tolerate this peoples but, on the contrary, why it is in the interest of liberal peoples in terms of ideological expansion. This change toward more liberal institutions would be encouraged by the toleration of decent non liberal peoples as bona fide members of the Society of Peoples, as they witness how liberalism works on this level. [...]

[...] It is obvious that even though they tolerate decent non liberal peoples, the very expression “toleration” suggests a perception they have of a moral hierarchy. The explicit aim of this toleration, in addition, is to encourage decent non liberal peoples to become more liberal. The toleration being made by governments, it is a form of incentive because the first consequence is to protect tolerated peoples from political and economical sanctions. Any non liberal society is thus encouraged to move or to give the impression they move toward a doctrine liberalism they might not be fully convinced of. [...]