Anarchy and Power - Case Study Example

Anarchy and Power Politics Introduction: The changing panorama in recent international politics has directed world leaders and governments toward the bigger expression of the emergence of an international community. This has further emphasised the primary issues under the studies of international relations amalgamating more global issues. The study of international relations is significant in the sense that it articulates the most important political and socio-economical theories regarding the geo-political relations within states as well as among nations. In this context, the notion of anarchy is important to explain and understand various political philosophies related to international relations. While advocating the absence of states, anarchists support revolution as “a process leading to the total deflation of state authority” (Ehrlich, 1979, p. 13). But how far is anarchy proclaiming about self help system in a state? How is the concept of security being looked after in terms of institutionalising identities and interests of states and nations as described by Wendt (1992)? Above all, it also includes a bigger question about identity formation of international politics. This paper addresses briefly the different connotations of the notion of anarchy in accordance with its relation to realist and liberal international relations theories. The paper offers a comprehensive study on all the ideas surrounding the political philosophy of anarchy while precisely reviewing the theories of international relations in an attempt to provide with a broader picture of world politics. Anarchy: Coming to the theories and notions of international relations, one of the most debated issues is the concept of anarchy and the argumentations it follows. The idea of anarchy can be defined as a socially constructed concept (for example, ‘sovereignty’ and ‘power’) which is, according to Wendt, “what states make of it” (Wendt, 1992, p. 395). Anarchism is concerned with the restraints of world government as argued by neo-realists while neo-liberals see it as a big problem that can be resolved through the creation of strong global institutions (Kegly, 2009). Postmodern international relations theorists are vocal about the ‘traditional or heroic practice’ of international relations that differentiates between sovereignty and anarchy (Sutch, 2001, p. 18). It supports the dichotomy between sovereignty and anarchy arguing that sovereignty is the ideal of order, rationality and homogeneity that is threatened by the latter (that is, anarchy). Nonetheless, it is important to understand the definition of sovereignty in relation to anarchy and vice versa with regard to explaining structural aspects of international politics. With the conceptualisation of international anarchy, the issue of security is of primary concern for world governments. Anarchy is the absence of institutions for global governance, which may direct to the possibilities of global outbreak of war. This is probable as anarchy fails to provide a complete explanation global systems change in terms of determining the levels of war and peace (Kegley, 2009). In terms of realist theories, states operate in a world of ‘anarchy’ without common government, thus defining anarchy as the absence of an external enforcer of agreements (Elman and Elman, 2003, p. 74). Whereas neo-realists argue on the far-reaching negative implications for cooperation in anarchy, much to the opposition of institutional theorists. The latter is in favour of the existence of cooperation within anarchy. As per the neorealist assumption, anarchy is the key ordering principle of international relations along with its positive as well as negative implications. In short, the notion of anarchy has different connotations as determined by states. Some of the interpretations of anarchy can be determined as following: Anarchy as chaos as defined by the first anarchists during English and French Revolutions Anarchy as absence of government Anarchy as a better society without government Anarchy as a global security concern posing as a significant threat to all nations Above all, interpretation of anarchy has significant variations in terms of different theories in international relations, depending on the different relationship between the anarchic environment and human beings (Thompson, 2001). In order to understand these interpretations of anarchy, it is important to go through some of the most discussed theories in international relations that can provide a comprehensive picture of the significance and connotations of anarchy in current context. It is important to note that issues of international relations can be described at best in terms of three most popular theories - realism, liberalism and constructivism. Anarchy and realism: Realism is considered to be the most dominant theory of international relations advocating the notion of an international anarchic system. Realists argue that states are the main actors in international politics. As self-interest and power politics are incorporated with anarchic systems of states, realists identify the concern of security dilemma (Wendt, 1992) leading to greater military instability to the extent of global war as a result of defensive strategies adopted by states. That is to say, realism focuses on power as the dominating force in international anarchic system of world government (Richardson, 2001). In terms of the issue of cooperation, realist theorists argue that there is more of competition among states rather than of cooperation mainly due to the structure of international anarchy without global governance. For instance, the realist assumption argues that cooperation will be rare in terms of arms control or other security issues of common interest (Kegley, 2009). This further encourages distrust among states in an attempt to seek self-advantage and economic primacy over each other. In other words, international anarchy encourages states to practice self-help while emphasising on military strength. This is definitely a potential threat to the issue of international alignments among nations. Another related issue is that of transforming identities and interests of states under anarchic system. As Wendt (1992) explains in his article, realists believe that anarchy encourages developing egoistic identities and interests among states, which is evidently against the notion of a universal identity and interest(s). So realist anarchism propagates the idea of conceptualising identities and interests while concentrating on the issue of power. In other words, the dynamics of anarchy as argued by realists leads to competitive power politics among states (Wendt, 1992). Because anarchy explains that every state should promote its national interest and acquire power (in this sense, military capabilities) to dominate others and compete with them for self-advantage. A significant development of realism can be termed as neo-realism, advanced by Kenneth Waltz (Wendt, 1992) that defines anarchy as the ordering principle of international system. The theory combines an individualist approach to the international system with the materialistic approach of Classical Realists emphasising power and interest (Wendt, 1999). The neo-realists’ take on the issue of cooperation in anarchism states that the reinforcement of cooperation and collective identity formation among states is constrained by the fear of exploitation. In such cases, anarchy is the best systemic principle to describe international relations. Anarchy and liberalism: In terms of shaping state identities and interests, the theory of liberalism is of subsequent importance in international relations. In Richardson’s words, “international liberalism seeks to realise the core liberal values globally, aspiring to a world in which all people enjoy liberal rights and freedoms.” (Richardson, 2001, p. 55) Liberal theorists challenge the realist conception of anarchy arguing that the international anarchic system can be conceptualised as an ordered anarchy even without global governance. This is possible as most states follow commonly acknowledged normative standards (Kegley, 2009). So collective identity and common interests are essential part of liberal anarchism. Unlike the realist conceptualisation of states as a unitary actor in international relations, liberalism advocates plurality in state actions. That is to say, the itineraries of liberalism are not limited to political security concerns of states alone, it also focuses on economic and cultural security issues. Anarchy is definitely there in international relations; but options are there for broader notions of power as well as cooperation. Besides, liberalism distinguishes from that of realism in terms of its emphasis on absolute gains rather than the realist relative gains. One of the most essential features of liberalism is characterised by the concept of interdependence, a situation where the behaviour of international actors affects others associated with them. In other words, interdependence is often used to explain cooperation and cooperative relationships, constituents to develop collective identities and common interests, among states (Wendt, 1992). However, with the process of globalisation doing its rounds, states fear that interdependence will develop a comprising condition for their sovereignty and security (Kegley, 2009, p. 284). With significant changes in international relations, it is strongly assumed that increased interdependence can lead to higher levels of cooperation among states. This assumption has been successfully promoted by neo-liberalists, who argue that cooperation in the form of global institutions can resolve the problems of anarchy. In this context, conceptualisation of cooperation is common in both neo-realism as well as neo-liberalism. While the neo-realists are vocal about the negative implications of cooperation in anarchy, neo-liberalists go for ‘institutionalised cooperation’ (Wendt, 1992; Thompson, 2001). Neo-realists emphasise on relative gains whereas neo-liberalists focus on absolute gains. Security is a primary issue for neo-realists while neo-liberals are more concerned about economic welfare. Thus, neo-liberalism does not deny the anarchic nature of the international system; instead, its argumentations are verified in support of the role of cooperation in institutionalising the anarchic system by means of building norms, regimes and institutions (Kegley, 2009). Conclusion: It is evident now that the concept of the presence of anarchy is accepted by almost all theories in the study of international relations. The presupposition of an anarchic system is thus valid as the international system is leaderless. Therefore, there is no universal sovereign or global governance, no hierarchical superiority of power that can resolve disputes, enforce law and order the system. But that does not encourage us to define anarchy as a world of chaos, disorder or conflict. It simply reflects the order of the international system that comprises of independent states with no central authority controlling them. The recent progress in globalisation has influenced states to emphasise on relevant aspects such as interdependence, cooperation and above all, security issues. Neo-realists as well as liberalists commonly agree over the significance of cooperation in managing international relations. Neo-liberalism further supports the idea of institutionalised cooperation in the international anarchic system. Therefore, it can be summarised that anarchy is the key order in international relations. It does pose a competitive threat among states over security issues as supported by realists. However, there can be cooperative relationships in anarchy with its positive and negative implications (advocated by neo-realists). One of the most important point in international cooperation is to maintain interdependence in a progressive manner (argued by liberalists). The value of interdependence can further advance toward achieving the higher levels of cooperation among states, which is a political, socio-cultural and economic requirement the globalized world needs now. The connotations of power politics are changing to the extent of incorporating states and nations together with the global system, which encourages developing collective identities and common interests. This is happening in accordance with the various interpretations of anarchy in present context. Therefore, it is politically correct to argue that the interpretation of anarchy is what states make of it. References: 1. Ehrlich, H. J., 1979. Reinventing Anarchy: What are Anarchists Thinking These Days? London: Routledge. 1. Elman, C. and Elman, M. F. (eds.), 2003. Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1. Kegley, C. J., 2009. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. 1. Richardson, J. L., 2001. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Colorado: Lynne Rienner. 1. Sutch, P., 2001. Ethics, Justice and International Relations: Constructing an International Community. London: Routledge. 1. Thompson, W. R. (ed.), 2001. Evolutionary Interpretations of World Politics. New York: Routledge. 1. Wendt, A., 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 391-425. 1. Wendt, A., 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More