Power in Domestic and International Politics - Term Paper Example

Power Politics Every within a maintains a certain position in relation to other s thatis either superior or inferior. Within the anarchic international system there exists only one constant, the will to survive. While states vary in size, shape, geographic location etcetera, they are alike in that they are treated as individual sovereign territories. The more power a particular state wields, the more likely it is of achieving its goals, the primary goal being that of basic survival. This arrangement of the international system cannot change unless the very nature of the system ceases to be anarchic. Despite the recent emergence of transnational organizations and such, the international system continues to be anarchic and there is very little movement against state autonomy. Realists contend that the anarchic system is reinforced by powerful nations because the autonomy they enjoy from international anarchy works directly to their benefit. For the most part international anarchy exists out of lack of trust. In extreme circumstances the use of force can be applied and states must be prepared. Realism prevailed in the post-Second World War period as a pessimistic view of world politics; they argued that their views were more realistic than the idealist and utopian beliefs of the liberals. E.H. Carr believed that it was dangerous to base the study of international politics on an imaginary desire of how we would like the world to be. Utopian influence on government policy towards peace and disarmament can lead to it being vulnerable to foreign attack. Liberals were so concerned with eradicating the source of war that the underlying rationale was neglected, that of power. Furthermore Carr claimed that the post-war utopia was being used to preserve the status quo in the interests of the satisfied powers, or in other words the states that had a vested interest in upholding their current position in world politics. Carr further says “The doctrine of the harmony of interests thus serves as an ingenious moral device invoked, in perfect sincerity, by privileged groups in order to justify and maintain their dominant position (pg 23)”. Hans Morgenthau believed that the problem lied in thinkers within the Enlightenment tradition substituting science for political thought, leading to the eclipse of power and the erection of an artificial standard for politics in science. “The emasculation of political consciousness resulted in an unsatisfactory form of theory, leading to the substitution of scientific standards for political evaluations and, ultimately, the destruction of the ability to make intelligent political decisions at all (Morgenthau, 43).” For Morgenthau, the assumption that scientific truth could be carried over from science to the realm of politics was wrong, since politics was the realm of power rather than truth. Realism holds that states are the central actors in international politics, and therefore to study international politics is to study states and how they interact. They maintain that this holds true because states retain a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence. Realists argue like liberals that inter-state behavior takes place in an environment of ungoverned behavior or anarchy, where they disagree is the extent to which international laws and organizations can bring stability and order. For realists power is the key to understanding state behavior and motivation, and the pursuit of power takes the form of national interest. Realism in its traditional sense asserts that military capability is the essence of power, reasonably so because the stronger you are the more able you are to defend yourself and hence acts as a deterrent against foreign invasion. Not only does it ensure security but enables a state to pursue their interests abroad if desired or felt necessary. For realists it "represents the bottom line, the ultimate arbiter of international disputes." Realism takes into account that military capability depends on a number of factors such as abundance of resources, size of population, and size of territory. Even so the military does not give an accurate account of the power of a state and could be misleading. Efficiency, morale, readiness of armed forces and leadership all have a crucial part in determining the extent of a states power. Power itself is a highly contested concept. Idealistic concepts are still propagated in international forums like the United Nations. Many protocols and conventions have been signed which have called for the respect of human rights. Therefore today international politics is closely tied with respect for human rights. Politicians in domestic politics also use the slogan of human rights to advance their interests. Countries which did not have a history of holding elections have now embraced democracy. More than two thirds of the world has now embraced democracy. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR swept a new wave of revolutions that overthrew the old order. It led to the creation of governments which were chosen by the people. The masses forced their governments to improve their human rights situations. Michael Mastanduno focused on how changes in the international system affect the way US foreign policy is formulated and conducted. “Different international structures provide different incentives for integration or separation [of security and economy policy]. Multi-polar world politics creates incentives for integration - great powers tend to be economically interdependent, they rely heavily on allies for their security, and the risk that allies will defect is relatively significant. Economics is a critical instrument of statecraft in this setting (Mastanduno, 63)”. While "Bipolar world politics encourages the separation of economics and security. Bipolar great powers tend to be economically independent, they rely less on allies, and the risk that allies will defect from more fixed, as opposed to more fluid, alliance structures is relatively low." Liberals argue that the growth of economic interdependency had been matched by a corresponding decline in the value and importance of territorial conquest for states. Thus achieving economic power has become important for domestic politics in the modern world. The benefits of trade and cooperation among states greatly exceed that of military competition and territorial control. Traditionally nation states regarded the acquisition of territory and land as the means to increasing national wealth. The state has transformed from being a military state to a trading state. Statesmen increasingly became aware that the accumulation of national wealth and development relied more heavily on macro-economic policies that increased the competitiveness of their economy compared to other states. Higher levels of efficiency, technology intensive modes of production and valuable human capital all give incentives for multi-national corporations and businesses to invest in the country. Neo-liberals point out that commercial relations between businesses and individuals have diminished the influence and power of the state. This is the type of power which is present in domestic politics (Hogan, 23). Liberals strongly believe that in order for economies to strive, the embodiment of the free market is a prerequisite, i.e. minimal state interference. However this requires a nation-state to have a democracy where the state is accountable and proper checks and balances in place to prevent possible abuse by the state. Liberals are deeply suspicious of concentrated forms of power especially that of state power. Domestic politicians try to get the support of powerful corporations and organizations with economic power. This forms the backbone of the domestic politics as such powerful organizations and corporations can contribute to the economic well being of the state (Huntington, 52). International politics differs from domestic politics because inside a country the state has a monopoly on using force. The state defines the laws. However international politics differ because power is used differently. A state has to respect the international laws. A failure to respect these laws can result in reactions by global powers. For instance the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was swiftly condemned by all countries. An international coalition force was build up and sanctions were imposed on Iraq. The failure of the Iraqis to understand the level of power being arrayed against them cost them a humiliating defeat in which they lost their military and economic power. Only by using power have states been able to maintain their influence. States ally with each other to protect against more powerful threats. For instance the threat of Soviet expansionism and hegemony prompted the United States and European nations to sign a military pact known as NATO. Power is not only military power. It can also mean psychological and the ability to impose one’s will on someone else. It aims to convince someone to change their mind by using threats, bribes and diplomacy. European history is full of examples from the fifteenth century where one nation has tried to dominate the entire continent. It has faced a coalition of other states trying to prevent it. Spain, France, Germany and the USSR were all at some time powerful states that threatened other nations. They were countered by an alliance of other countries. The US and USSR had massive arsenals of nuclear missiles which were an extension of their power in international politics. Power is defined as the ability of actor A to persuade actor B to do something which the latter would not do. There must be disagreement between two actors at the time the power is exerted. One actor cannot be said to exercise power if it changes it behavior on its own. Power is not necessarily equivalent to resources. It is exercised differently in domestic and international politics. Domestic political actors in democracies are usually of two types: the executive and societal groups. The executive is the head of state or government. Societal groups include the various interest groups which are crucial for the maintenance of power. The relationship between executives and domestic groups is seen as bargains between principals and agents. Domestic constituents impose limitations on executives who need to maintain sufficient support to adopt and sustain policies. Domestic groups that oppose executive proposals can veto specific policies or impose costs on executives. The executive can pursue policy goals if there is not veto or unacceptable political costs. The bargaining power of executives and domestic groups can be analyzed by their control of initiative, institutions, information and ideas. Initiative includes the authority to introduce issues on the domestic agenda. Institutions are the process by which decisions are legally made. Information involves the political and technical knowledge. Ideas are the legitimate justifications for specific policies. Domestic political power in democratic societies does not have sanctions, control over procedure, persuasion or violent coercion to enforce change. Violent coercion and economic extortion are not seen in modern democracies as being legitimate means of maintaining domestic state authority. International politics involves the use of power in a form which is different from domestic politics. It can involve the use of persuasion which the ability to redefine a situation for the other player to induce it to change its mind. Diplomacy is to make the other person change his mind or agree to your position. International relations are carried at this level. The presence of resources is vital for the success of diplomacy and persuasion. There must be credible arguments to persuade the other side. During the Persian Gulf War, the United Nations was successful in imposing an economics sanctions on Iraq. This was a demonstration of their resolve. In contrast the imposition of sanctions on India and Pakistan after they tested nuclear weapons was ineffective because they amounted to very little costs (Kennan, 62). Rewards are another form of power used in international politics. These are offered in the form of benefits if the other actor acts in a particular way. These rewards can be political, economic and military. Political rewards can include supporting the nation’s leadership at the international forum like the United Nations. Economic rewards can include assistance to develop the economy. For instance Egypt became the second largest recipient of aid from the US after it signed the peace treaty with Israel. Rewards can also be in the form of military assistance to nations. Sometimes rewards take the form of side payments. An example would be the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba was tied with a withdrawal of US missiles from Turkey. .           Punishments are also a form of power which is used in international politics. They can be actions which are in response to policies of certain countries. Punishments escalate situations to a new level when rewards and persuasion have failed to bring about the desired behavior. Punishments can the imposition of economic sanctions. For instance despite the surrender of Iraqi forces in 1991, sanctions were imposed on them for failure to properly provide information regarding weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes only the intention of punishing a state might be effective. Many East European nations did not challenge Soviet policies because of the brutal suppression of attempts by those nations to assert themselves (Koistinen, 72). Sanctions are only effective if they deter any country by reducing their trade. Sanctions have a mixed history of success. They were successful in forcing the South African regime to abandon its policy of racial segregation. They have been less successful against states like Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Libya. Bluffs are also used in international politics. They are promises and threats for which the country has no means to carry out. They are mostly ineffective. Democracies have to make sure that any type of diplomacy, rewards or sanctions they use must be supported by their domestic constituency. Autocratic leaders do not fear this because they are in absolute power. Power differs in international and domestic politics. Democracies have to exercise their power cautiously because of the domestic political costs associated with. International politics are different because a democracy might face threats which need extraordinary measures. Sanctions, rewards, punishments and diplomacy remain the most visible projection of power in international politics. Works Cited: Hogan, M. J., ed. 1996. America in the World: The Historiography of American Foreign Relations Since 1941. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Huntington, S. P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Kennan, G. F. 1996. At a Century’s Ending: Reflections, 1982-1995. W. W. Norton. Koistinen, P. A. 1998. Planning War, Pursuing Peace: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1920-1939. Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas. Carr, Edward Hallet. The twenty years crisis, 1919-1939: an introduction to the study of international relations. Mastanduno, Michael. Economics and security in statecraft and scholarship. (International Organization 52 (4): 825-854, 1998) Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 6th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985)       Read More