Existentialism and Democracy in the International Relations - Essay Example

College: Lecturer: Existentialism or Realism: International Relations Different nations across the world relate differently with each other. One nation can be friendlier to a particular nation than it is to the rest. Occasionally, war erupts between nations due to differences in political ideologies and international relations policies. In most cases, the policies are influenced by the heads of state who are subjects to elections. Each citizen has a right to vote and choose a leader his or her choice. There is a perception that Existentialism and Democracy, in sequential manner, usually design a framework upon which the foundations of political Realism and Neo-realism are laid. The truth is yet to be established. According to Sartre’s philosophy of Existentialism, each individual in any nation seems to the freedom and right to choose a leader of preference (Sartre, 12). It is always a way of excising their God given power. Sartre and Beauvoir share a number of thoughts in this concept of power and freewill. They both tend towards the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln on Democracy where, the citizens have the sole right and willpower to choose a government. In essence, the kind of head of head of state solely depends on the independent decision of the people. Let us try to see how these theories are connected to Realism and Neo-realism. Political theorists of all time had attempted to design a profound theory of political power and state relations. This enormous theory was dabbed Realism. According to Morgenthau and his theory of realism, all the nations of the world will always have contrasting political interests, a situation that usually ignites conflicts among these states. Realism, as separate political theory, is specifically concerned with political power. The 20th Century realism proponents like Morgenthau and E. H Carr strongly believe that power is the key factor in the entire system of the International relations. Realism clings to the assertion that international politics solely depends on the nature of the human, thus, politics is always a subject to the manipulation of a state leader (Carr, 347). Following the above description of realism, realists seem to be of the opinion that the political stability of any state can only be determined by the nature of the leader in the office. Thus, if the head of state is very aggressive, he is very likely to gain more political powers than the less aggressive president. It is the very aggressive nature of the political leaders that led to some leaders being termed as dictators. In essence, leaders of states have been depicted as power hungry in nature by the theory of realism. Strong and selfish heads of states will seek to exploit more resources that benefit their own states. Stories have also been told of the oppressive leaders who illegally obtain the natural resources of the neighboring nations and rule the boundaries that separate such nations. The nature of leaders is what has determined the international relations between on state and another. Harsh and uncooperative leaders have always tarnished the images of their nations in the face of the world as much as they have made their nations powerful and rich. Diplomatic leaders have, on the other hand, built a good reputation of their states and attracted more investors (Sagan, 4). Existentialism, on the other hand, tends to stress the point that the international relation is in the hand of the people who have the right to elect the head of state. Abraham Lincoln, another realist philosopher, believed in the democratic election of a state leader. Therefore, it is the people and not the head. One of the principles of political realism states that politics is always guided by the laws that emanate from the nature of man. Morgenthau says, “We can always insert ourselves in the position of statesman and correctly predict his next move” (Morgenthau, 14). This principle implies that the formation of laws and policies of a state is always a subject of the human nature. Thus, the human will always form laws and policies that befit them best while they are still in their various political positions. However, Morgenthau does not want call this selfish; he instead decides to term it as the inevitable human nature. He thinks that the nature of the human, especially the leaders, is always very predictable. Therefore, states can always know the steps and actions each on of them is likely to take in times of crisis. However, the predictability nature of a state may compromise its sovereignty. Sartre reminds us that man will always be responsible for his own actions. If he makes unfriendly policies, he will not be at peace with the neighbors thus, tarnishing the image of the nation. Beauvoir and Sartre boldly say that man has the power to do and accomplish anything he wishes to. Until a nation realizes this potential, it can never rise above its oppressors. Another principle of realism offers that the interest of a nation can only be defined by its potential powers. This is the principle that separates politics from economy, which has always been defined in terms of the amount of wealth a nation is in possession of. The principle dictates that a nation does not stand any ground of attaining its goals if it does not have the amicable powers. A nation can only remain relevant in the international realm if it continues to exhibit political powers that match the other the powers of other nations. Weak nations may be overlooked as incapable of achieving their goals. Usually, the most powerful nations will come together and discuss common agenda of matters affecting their economy. A good example of such political stratification is the G8 group of nations that comprise of the powerful states of the world. These nations usually meet and discuss common visions since they are of the same caliber. They also discuss how they can maintain their political stability and remain at the heights they have been. Realism has termed such collaboration as a multipolar power balancing, where different nations from a region may join hands in exercising their capabilities (Powell, 23). In neo-realism, the nature and pattern of the international relation can only be determined by anarchy, principles and the capabilities of a state and, not the nature of human. The capabilities of state are determined by the number of powers it has in the international system. Waltz, in his journal book, why Iran should get the Bomb, illustrates how the breakout capability of Iran to use the nuclear weapon gives it more powers among the powerful nations like US. However, in both the classical realism and neo-realism, the anarchy of the international structure is always decentralized. This means that no any other state has the power to control one sovereign nation; every state stands on its own, according to its potential powers and capabilities. Here, each state has to strive for its own survival and stability. In the course of this struggle for the independency and power, a state may merely want to survive and hence become defensive. A defensive state seems contended with what it has and only invests in the internal security as a survival tactic. This is the idea of Waltz in neo-realism. A nation balances its power internally by multiplying the economic growth and increasing the expenditure on its military. However, some states may want to go an extra mile and explore the international realm. Such nations will always want to exercise their adventurous powers on the international stage. They will, therefore, develop offensive military powers, according to Morgenthau. These two aspects of power ignite a debate as to whether the defensive states exist in the world today. As it is today, a nation can be in possession of all the resources it requires but will never rest and defend these resources; in most cases, such powerful nations will still be offensive and seek for more wealth. A good example is the super power America and its numerous interventions in the Middle East. In both aspects of realism, there is always very minimal trust between the international states. Every nation is suspicious and struggles to protect its properties and sovereignty. This situation creates a security dilemma and consistent fear of gain by the more powerful state and dependence by the less powerful state (Waltz, 80). In both realism and neo-realism, there are three main systems of power, depending on the capability of a state. These are: unipolar, bipolar and multipolar. The Neo-realists prefer the bipolar system, terming it as the only method that encourages the internal power balancing. The classical realists prefer the multipolr system. The classical realism of Morgenthau is unrealistic to assume that a state can be powerful without the existence of the people. It is conventionally known that power usually comes as a result of political stability. This stability can only exist if the people are in unity and at peace. He also talks of the human nature yet he ignores the most important aspect of that nature; the morality. Waltz, on the other hand, has been quite bias in maintaining his stance that the US is the only great in the international relation. This stance has undermined the power of other states. The above descriptions and analysis has tried to demonstrate how Realism and Neo-realism continues to depend on Existentialism and Democracy. The former influences the thinking of the people. It encourages the people that they are free and therefore should live freely in a free world, with all the powers and decision makings in their hands. The democracy philosophy also empowers the people, leading to the emergence of democratic states all over the world. To this juncture, there is still a dilemma whether it is Existentialism and Democracy or Realism that determine the international relations. Work Cited Buber, Martin. I and Thou. New York. Touchstone. 1971. Print. Carr, Edmond . The Twenty Years Crisis. London. McMillan. 1981.Print. Morgenthau, Hillary. Politics among Nations. New York. Alfred & Knopf. 1967 Powell, Roberts. Anarchy in the International Theory. London. Penguins. 1994. Sagan, Samy. Realists Perception on Norms and Weapons of Mass Destruction. . London Cambridge University Press. 2004. Sartre, Jean. Existentialism and Human Emotions. Boston. Citadel. 2000 Waltz, Kelly. Theory of International Politics. New York. Addison-Wesley. 1979. Read More