Is Realism realistic as an approach to understanding contemporary global politics - Essay Example

?Introduction In order to fully understand and as to whether realism is a realistic approach to understanding global politics it is important to understand as to how realism and its different types or extensions actually evolved over the period of time. Realism as a political ideology has evolved over the period of time and suggest that the while maintaining international relations, States always tend to keep their self-interest intact and therefore all the decisions are made based upon the notion of securing the interests of the state first. However, this ability to safeguard the interests of the States largely depends upon the ability of the States to accumulate military and economic power to dominate at the international scene. Neo-realism ideologies however suggest that the states may not be entirely in control as there is a layer above the states which may be dominating in terms of defining the overall behavior of states at the global level. neo-realism therefore differs quite significantly from the realism as it views the states and the overall global political order as a system based upon complex relationships. As per the system thinking, states may not be entirely in charge of determining their own behavior and moves. Though realism may seem a realistic approach theoretically but it may not be entirely a realistic approach in terms of implementing the same. Issues such as globalization, changing economic preferences, dominance of terrorist and other pressure groups as well as the influence of super powers may be some of the key issues which may not allow States to actually design and develop strategies based on their own self interest. The first part of the essay will discuss the theoretical background about the realism and neo-realism whereas in the second part of this essay, it will be argued as to whether the realism remains one of the realistic approaches to deal with the issues of contemporary global politics. Realism – A General Introduction Realism is one of the most important concepts with wide ranging applications both in international relations and politics. Political realism outlines that national interests are always above any other moral obligations. Realism therefore outlines the need for nation-state and suggests that nation-states are motivated by the national interests of the states and these interests are often disguised in the moral concerns for the nation-states. Realism is an opposite of liberalism which advocates the use of cooperation in the international relations. Realists however, on the other hand believe that the principal actors in international arena are the states themselves which decide based on their own interests and other considerations. There is therefore an inherent dichotomy within realism which outlines that the politics at the domestic level must be governed by the rule of law and ethics however, at the international level it must not be engaged into any ethical considerations and therefore should only focus on its self-interests while dealing at the global level. (Harrison, 2002) It is also however, important to note that the classical realism does not actually discard the ethics entirely within international politics. As such realism therefore is not entirely based upon the Machiavellian notion of everything is fair in the interest of the State. Realism is also not inclined towards any conflict or War Between the States however, it only points out to the assumption that the international relationships between the states should be based upon securing the interests of the state first. However, the ability to secure the interests of the State first largely depends upon the ability of the State to have power both in terms of economic as well as military. If the State cannot have sufficient economic and military power, it is unlikely to secure or safeguard its interests in the international politics. It is therefore important to understand that realism or classical realism as it is often referred to gives preferences to national interests over any other moral obligation of the State. As such realism is also often associated with the term power politics as both the terms give more preference to securing national interests first and then go for any other commitments or moral obligations of the State. It is therefore critical that realism as a political ideology indicates that any kind of moral obligation; concerns for social reconstruction as well as any ideology do not hold any preference over the State. (Stefano, 1993) Realism therefore, as a political ideology, is based mostly upon the concept of self-interest and as such advocates that for states as well as individuals nothing is more important perusing self-interest first. This however, often leads to the urge to remain in dominating position and to have more power to remain sustainable. One of the important assumptions which are made in realism as a political ideology is that there are no actors above the states therefore the overall relationships between different states in international political order cannot be controlled by any external authority. Since, realism gives more importance to the nation-state than any other external authority such as super powers to control or dominate the policy making process within any country. Accordingly, every state decides what is in its best interest without actually recognizing coercive influence of any other state or body. What is also critical to understand that overall power of any state is limited to its economic as well as military power? The overall extent of any state therefore is mainly based upon how the state accumulates the military as well as economic power without actually referring to any moral obligations. During 19th and 20th Century, many states which became super powers therefore went on to accumulate the military as well as economic power to dominate the overall global political scene. It is therefore often considered as desirable that the States without having any reference to the moral obligations can avoid to have any long term commitments with other states and can just purely focus upon their own self-interests first. As such states often do not engage into any relationships which can compromise their own position in the longer run. As such international relations therefore are shaped the way a given state views its own interests.( Waltz, 2001) In order to better understand as to whether realism is a realistic approach to understanding current global politics, it is also important to understand and review the ideology of neorealism which is a rather advanced form of realism. Neo-realism is not just limited to considering state as the sole actor in determining the relationships between the states at the global level. Neo-realism actually places one more layer above the state and suggests that the layer above the state may be in a dominating position too and direct and influence the overall policy making process of any state. While departing from the basic argument of realism about human nature, neo-realism suggests that the states face structural constraints which actually restrict their ability to pursue their own self-interest first. The structural constraints therefore may not allow any state to fully operate on its own terms and therefore may have to accept the pressure from external actors to review and change its policies. It is also important to note that neo-realism views the international politics as a defined and precise structure. This view is relatively different from the classical realism in the sense that classical realism views the states based upon their individual behavior at the international level. The system level thinking approach by neo-realism therefore allows it to view states above any moral obligations, human nature, self-interest as well as power. It is also this assumption which allows neo-realists to actually view power in an entirely different manner. Kenneth Waltz is considered as one of the key theorists behind the ideas of neo-realism and how it matters in the international political scene. According to Waltz, the overall structure of the system itself is the most important element which influences the overall behavior of the states rather than states themselves deciding upon what they want. Neo-realism takes on a systematic view of the states rather than focusing on the states as the individual actors. Realism believes on what is called state of nature which outlines life without the State. Originally propagated by Hobbes, the concept of State of Nature outlines that people living in a state of nature may not live a perfect life and in order to safeguard their own self-interests it is important that they must subjugate themselves to any authority which can protect their rights and provide them the necessary environment to live a peaceful life. Hobbes therefore envisioned State based upon the notion of an authority to safeguard the interests of its citizens. Based on this argument, it is therefore argued that the State is one of the best protectors of the self-interests of the individuals and it is the state which can do that. This idea therefore further suggested that the states and their behaviors should be based upon the notion of protecting the self-interests and as such there should not be an external agency or actors which can dominate the overall conduct and behavior of State and its institutions. Realism and Contemporary Global Politics One of the key arguments in favor of realism as one of the most important realistic approaches towards global politics is based upon the notion that it involves nations as the dominating actors. As such it completely discards the possibility of non-state actors doing anything which may hamper the overall relationships of states. It therefore completely ignores the existence of terrorist organizations and other outfits which may undertake activities which can be detrimental for overall international relationships between the two states. It is also important however, to understand that the presence of non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda may practically reject the appropriateness of realism as a valid approach. The dominance and presence of non-state actors therefore may be one of the key arguments against the ability of realism to completely define the involvement and importance of the nation-states within the international political context. Realism also advocates that there must be a balance of power between the states as it advocates that the states based on the concept of self-help often design and develop their capabilities to balance the power. However, cold war era and post-cold war era coupled with how international political scene changed after 9/11 are some of the key issues which may not suggest that realism can be a valid theoretical explanation for understanding global politics. Post-cold war era has seen the rise in the dominance of the US as the sole super power of the world. This tendency of US coupled with globalization therefore has given rise to the notion of super power doing all the policy decisions where states merely acting out of the obedience. The way US marshaled its troops despite international criticism in Iraq and Afghanistan therefore can be considered as two of the important issued underlying the importance of how radical changes in the global political order has resulted into this shift. Though the world may be considered as a uni-polar world now however, the uni-polar world has increasingly seen the dominance of one or few states over the international affairs. This therefore has basically restricted the ability of the states to actually decide about themselves or in their best interests. Realism believes that states tend to survive in an environment which is characterized by the anarchy. States strive to survive in an environment which is volatile and non-responsive in nature however, this may not be entirely the case. The direct involvement of US in Gulf War during 1990s may be considered as one of the key examples of how the states actually failed to protect their interests and actually sought the external help to wage a war against another violent state. It is therefore critical to understand that the States may not be able to safeguard themselves on their own and their defence and foreign policies may be tilted towards a particular country which can help them to actually fight another enemy thus pushing the interests of the State aside. (Schweller, 2004), The existence of terrorist organizations therefore to force states to adapt to a particular behavior therefore can be considered as a conundrum for the realism theorists. The success of organizations like Al-Qaeda to actually induce a particular behavior therefore can be considered as one of the key theoretical challenges for realism theorists to recognize and accommodate their existence. Realism also argues that the states are in a constant struggle for more power in terms of both the economic as well as the military. This line of argument however, may not be a valid argument as states often pursue different goals as some states are revisionists in nature whereas some prefers to hold the status quo. The realism therefore fail to actually point out as to when and what goal to pursue. As such, realism as a theory is believed to be built upon the intuition rather than solid theoretical foundation which can practically allow states to specifically choose different goals under different circumstances. (Mearsheimer, 1994/95), The concept of war may not be entirely defined under the realism as war is seen as an intricate relationship between the human nature as well as the political units. Neo-realism however, takes into account the third element which may be a dominating factor also behind war between two or more states. (Waltz, 1988) Recent war on terror and the inability of the states to actually enforce their own laws has also been considered as an act under which states actually withdraw or rather forfeit their power of independence thus giving opportunity to states like US to force them to allow US to take action against such elements. The above arguments therefore suggest that realism may not be a realistic approach to understand and explore current issues of global political importance. The changes in the way states behave now and the increasing influence of super powers into the overall affairs of the States therefore itself negate the importance and role of states in governing their self-interests. Realism therefore may not completely explain the current global political environment and may not be a realistic approach. Conclusion Realism is one of the key political ideologies advocating the role and nature of state within a global political environment. Realism argues that States act in their own self-interest and as such balance of power and its accumulation are some of the key issues which states should pursue. Realism therefore suggests that the overall relationships between the states are dominated by the self-interests of the nations. The changing nature of global politics as well as other global events however shifted the way realism can explain modern politics. The changing paradigms of the balance of power, the involvement of non-state actors such as terrorist organizations to induce a particular behavior within states therefore are some of the issues which may not allow realism to actually fully describe the current political environment. Neo-realism to some extent however, outlines and accommodates actors beyond states as significant actors which can influence the outcome of relationships between states. References 1. Harrison, E. (2002) Waltz, Kant and Systemic Approaches to International Relations, Review of International Studies, 28(1), p.143-162 2. Mearsheimer, J(1994/95), The False Promise of International Institutions, International Security, 19 (3), p. 5-4 3. Schweller, R (2004), Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Under balancing, International Security, 29 (2), p. 159-201. 4. Stefano, G. (1993) Structural Power: The Limits of neorealist power analysis, International Organization, 47(3), p.443-478. 5. Waltz, K. (2001) Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. 6. Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of international politics, New York: Random House. 7. Waltz, K. (1988) The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), p.615-628. Read More