Political Realism and Neo-realism - Essay Example

Introduction The concept of political Realism and Neo-realism has, for a long time, played a key role in the formulation of foreign policies by various nations. For instance, this concept of political realism compelled the United States of America to exercise its superpowers during the Cold War. The very concept also brought about the reconciliation among many states after the war. Today, realism has continued to guide the minds of policymakers in different states of the world. It is interesting to see how nations divide a long the lines political power; without any apparent interest on the economical wealth, following this old theory of the early 1900s. Each one of the so called super powers of the universe employs all the available resources and forces to maintain their legendary political stature. On the other hand, developing nations, whose political and economical images still lie below the surface of the universe, also struggle to sharpen their bristle fangs to keep away the possible exploitations from the powerful states. The politically able nations, in reaction to the defensive game of the underdeveloped nations, make all efforts to curb the dependence of such ‘poor’ nations on them. This is realism in play; every state on its own, exhibiting the unending selfish nature of the political leadership. Neo-realism is just but a replica of the features of the original realism; the very eternal struggle has been structurally cocooned, both aspects portraying almost similar trends. Therefore, the slightest difference between the two has always been very invisible light for many scholars and world leaders. This essay, having visited the aforementioned problem, shall go further in engaging relevant literature on the very topic and, expound on key points from these sources so as to come up with nuanced and plausible arguments. As a summation at the end of the argumentative literature, a brief conclusive critique shall be made. Literature Review and Arguments Morgenthau, a renowned political theorist 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, 1981, pp347). Following the above state 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, 2004, pp4). 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, 1979, pp 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. 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, 1994, pp23). While classical realism concentrates on the human nature as the sole driving force for international relations, Neo-realism argues that the structural factors are the only determinants of the developments and changes in the international relations. Thus, Neo-realism is also known as ‘structural realism’ (Waltz, 1979, pp79. The theory of neo-realism was by Waltz Kenneth in the year 1979 and, has ever since been one of the very influential views when it comes to matters of international relations. This theory was specially formulated to re-design the classical realism theory previously set by E.H Carr and Morgenthau. 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, 1979, pp80). In 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. Conclusion Both the classical realism and the Neo-realism of Waltz have a number of common features and principles. The difference in these two theories comes from the central focus of their principles; the classical realism focuses on the human nature while neo-realism focuses on the structure and capabilities. The two theories, in as much as they have assisted in various policies making, have noticeable loopholes and biasness. The classical realism of Morgenthau is unrealistic to assume that a state can be powerful without the existence of the economical stability. It is conventionally known that power usually comes as a result of wealth and economical stability. 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 potentiality of other states. Waltz has also overlooked the existence of external forces in the unipolar system. He has assumed that only internal forces could destabilise this kind of system yet the external forces can also affect the behavior of a state. Bibliography Carr, E .1981. The Twenty Years Crisis. London: McMillan. Pp 345-576 Keohane, R. 1986. Neo-realism and its Critics. Colombia: Colombia University Press. Morgenthau, H. 1967. Politics among Nations. New York, NY: Alfred & Knopf. Pp. 5-23 Powell, R. 1994. Anarchy in the International Theory. London: Penguins. Pp. 23-31 Russet, B. 1993. Grasping Democratic Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sagan, S. 2004. Realists Perception on Norms and Weapons of Mass Destruction. London: Cambridge University Press. Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. 78-90 Waltz, K. 2012.Why Iran should get the Bomb: Foreign Affairs, 91(4). Pp2 – 5 Read More