Realism and Global Politics
With every passing day, new relationships, treaties, bilateral agreements, and pacts are signed and entered into by different nation and states. Global politics continue to play a major role in economic growth, realization of millennium goals, and stabilization of the world’s homely milieu (Waltz, 2010). Just like the positive developments, global politics has also proven to be thalidomide whose hazards are unimaginable. Unnecessary competition between countries, conflicts that have ended catastrophically’ violence and war fares have been witnessed courtesy of transnational disagreements on global political platforms (Little 2007). Unlike the common belief, this paper seeks to disregard the notion that realist thoughts have contributed to bringing about the ongoing conditions of war, competition, and conflict in global politics. It presents insightful exploration of various renowned realists’ schools of thought who have helped shape realism to be what it is today. It elaborates the widely misunderstood aspects of the realist’s theory to show that realism encourages peace, healthy competition and amicable resolution of conflicts especially on global political platforms.
In the field of global politics, there are various competing general theories or points of view. These are theories or perspectives that continue to define and shape the world and especially the broader International Political Economy (IPE) and International Relation (IR) (Morgenthau 1967). Realism is a gamut of ideas that base their argument on shared ideologies about what determines Nations’ behavior towards one another. Realists are individuals who subscribe to the ideas and arguments that form the basis of realism, a school of thought that has fundamentally influenced global politics (Waltz, 2010). Among its key ideas is anarchy (Waltz 2010). The realist school of thought holds that there is no common or centralized worldwide authority that restricts autonomous nations and influences their actions. In this regard, individual nations are the justifiable players in transnational affairs and not even international or domestic actors can restrict their actions (Donnelly 2000).
In times of anarchy and future uncertainties, states rely entirely on themselves with the main driving force being national interest (Kegley 1995). Universally, there are three types of realist with the distinction being what they take to be the spring of in eliminable divergence and conflict. The classical realists suppose that the source of conflict arises from human nature, the neo-realists believe that the source of variance is the complex constitution of the anarchic state system while the neoclassical realists assert that the both human nature and the complicated anarchic system alongside a variety of domestic variable are the major sources of conflict (Waltz 2010). Moreover, realists are torn into two divides based on the types of actions they believe states should take in the process of navigating global politics (Dyson 2007). These are the defensive realists and the offensive realists, although it is worth noting that most realists do not fall in any of these groups.
Global politics is a broad discipline that seeks to study economic, social and political patterns of the world. Global politics revolves around engagements and associations and particularly relationships between cities, states, nations, multinational organizations, global corporations, and non-governmental institutions (Donnelly 2000). Following modernization, global politics is defined today by what can be termed as human values, rights and developments, beliefs that have given rise to internationalism, cosmopolitanism and ethics (Williams 2007). In anarchy which is a key principle of realism, the most important goal that every state must keep in focus is survival. Logically, realism points to the fact that in times of disorder, states usually stand a chance of landing in any of the three options available, which are to seek domination, to perish or to pursue the guiding principle of balance of power. According to Waltz (2010), balance of power involves gaining predominance by intensification and strengthening or through the formation of coalitions. In the process of balancing of power, hegemony might be possible notwithstanding whether there is resistance by other states or not.
According to Thomas Hobbes, a seventeenth century realist and one of the most renowned Language polymath, the nature of human beings is characterized by three main things that always spark conflict and give them a quarrelsome nature (Dyson 2007). Hobbes points to competition, diffidence, and glory as the major reasons why conflict between people is always a bomb that awaits detonation. In the current world of scarcity and anarchy, the only way to acquire something is to dispossess others. Dyson (2007) writes that in a competitive world, deprivation of one’s fruits of hard work, life and liberty is the center stage of united forces whose main aim is to dispossess and own what they did not have at first. Nations all over the globe yearn for peace and harmony to the extent of formulating rules and laws that govern their conduct. But because of the nature of man, governments must be empowered to enforce the same rules made, lest the nation fall into warfare. Without what can be viewed as superior authority, men cannot contain their desire to snatch from others what they do not have, force others into respecting them or to react with extreme fear (Jervis 1998). It is, therefore, clear that global politics has not been put into jeopardy by realism but by the mere nature of man.
Hans Morgenthau in his 1967 book, Politics Among Nations postulates that realism and particularly political realism just like any society, is guided, regulated, checked and governed by intent laws that are in line with human nature. Through his prolific academic arguments, Morgenthau who is one of the most celebrated structural realists insists that power and interest cannot be the same to every player in global politics across legroom and time (Williams 2007). The fact that interests cannot be the same overboard is a sure marker that state actors at any given time might be faced with disagreements and thus should be able to harmoniously resolve any conflict that may arise between states. Furthermore, political realism upholds the importance of political autonomy according to Morgenthau’s school of thought. It becomes apparent that realism seeks to maintain peace, harmony and tolerance amongst diverse state players in global politics. Realism maintains that formulation of universal moral laws which would be futile as such principles might not be applicable in a state’s course of action.
Kenneth Waltz in the Theory of International Politics maintains that political structure in realism is non-hierarchic, meaning that global political structure is in a state of anarchy where all players are equal and the same (2010). Notwithstanding notable differences in the level of interaction, development, individual political structures, culture and economical capabilities, Waltz marvels at the sameness and equilibrium of the eminence of intercontinental life through the centuries and millennia. The equality is attributed to the fact that the international anarchy political structure has persisted throughout the years. The state of anarchy in realism holds that order cannot be imposed on other states by other superior states like in a hierarchical structure. The autonomy and independence of each player in a realistic global political system ensures that healthy competition, peace and respect for each other is upheld all the time (Donnelly 2000). In the sameness of all players, a favorable environment for development is realized.
In the penultimate section named ‘Economics, Politics and History’ of the famous book Politics Among Nations, Waltz the renowned author asserts that individual nations can only formulate economic policies that favor them and might not necessarily work to the advantage of all nations in the continent or globe (Waltz 2010). He further argues that even if this was to happen, not all; states would spontaneously adopt such policies under an anarchic state. The reason lies in the fact that adoption of such policies in anarchic states would produce suboptimal outcomes for all. In the long run, nations do not stand to benefit equally even in a free trade area although all countries stand to benefit, which is in line with the realist school of thought that argues that in a state of anarchy, relative gain out powers absolute gain. The aspect of relative gain in global politics ensures that individual players do not expect too much to brew conflict and discontentment. Peace is enhanced while conflict and war is kept at bay, as Waltz asserts that the difference between states or nations is capabilities and not necessarily function (Waltz 2010).
Realism encourages “balance” courtesy of the anarchic nature of its political structure unlike the formation of “bandwagons” in a hierarchical global political structure (Little 2007). Usually, actors in anarchic tend to embrace the balancing of power through self-empowerment of coalition formation. Such political system might a bipolar system or multi-polar depending on the number of blocks formed. In hierarchic orders, actors have a tendency of jumping onto the bandwagon of the leading player or recent victor. Little (2007) suggests that this is usually inspired by the fact that losing is never an option and thus do not want to be wiped out. Contrastingly, to join up with a rising front in an anarchic system is more of falling prey for the powerful block. Realism thus ensures that weak states can be heard and respected as they are usually united. Robert Jervis, a defensive realist contextualizes this by observing that in a bid to strengthen its security and power, a country is bound to reduce the security of others (Jervis 1998). Waltz (1993) insists that instead of a bandwagon, weaker states are able to balance against the growing power of another state. This ensures peace is advocated for, conflicts are settled amicably and competition is kept healthy.
Global politics has been checkered with many challenges and shortcomings, but the realist thought is not one of the contributing factors as to why there are conflicts, violence and unnecessary competition amongst state actors. Realism brings with it human freedom which stands to benefit or destroy the man depending on his nature and how hard rules can be enforced. The Machiavellian observation that egoism and the passion to commit evil in order to obtain something is deeply rooted in the human core continues to play out not only in domestic but also global politics. Realism presents vast horizons to explore, vast opportunities to venture in and ultimately a peaceful, non-violent, and integrated global political platform to make the world a better place.
Bibliography
Donnelly, J. 2000. Realism and international relations. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dyson, R. W. 2007. Natural law and political realism in the history of political thought 2 2. New York [u.a.], Lang.
Jervis, R., 1998. Realism in the study of world politics. International Organization, 52(04), pp.971-991.
Kegley, C.W., 1995. Controversies in international relations theory: Realism and the neoliberal challenge (p. 5). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Little, R. 2007. The balance of power in international relations: metaphors, myths, and models. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Morgenthau, H. J. 1967. Politics among nations; the struggle for power and peace. New York, Knopf.
Morgenthau, H., 1998. Realism in international politics. Naval War College Review, 51(1), p.16.
Waltz, K. N. 2010. Theory of international politics. Waveland Press Inc.
Waltz, K.N., 1993. The emerging structure of international politics. International security, 18(2), pp.44-79.
Williams, M. C. 2007. Realism reconsidered: the legacy of Hans Morgenthau in international relations. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
