What Does Realism Allow Us to See in World Politics - and What Does It Miss?

To grasp what realism, also referred to as the ‘power-politics’ school of thought, enables us to see in world politics (and what it might cause us to overlook) it is imperative to consider that this paradigm is not merely a theory, but instead a spectrum of thoughts sharing similar philosophical dispositions. Its propositions, based upon the ancient tradition of thought by Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes, argue that statecraft strives for national survival and during times of conflict the acquisition of power will be a state’s rational, proper and inevitable goal. Due to the constant development of realist sub-schools, particularly before and after the Second World War by figures such as E.H Carr and Hans J. Morthegau, the scope of thought has widened in radicality and sub-paradigms such as left realism and neorealism have emerged. For that reason, this essay will only consider the traditional interpretation of political realism alongside its core political propositions; that interpretation positioning realism as the alternative to idealism. The core propositions that will be considered are statism, anarchy and self-interest/power; all of which function under the umbrella term of realism.

One of the concepts underpinning realism is statism; the belief that politics transpires between identifiable groups who fortify the state’s survival, but also serve as a source of potential conflict. This belief functions under the assumption that states are unitary, autonomous actors that operate within specific geographical boundaries of the international system. Subsequently, propositions that international institutions promote and conduct cooperation in global affairs are dismissed.

Benefits of perceiving world politics through this premise of the realist paradigm is that it enables the main political groups within the international sphere to be identified, allowing those who study international relations to analyse and interpret communications between the major players of the political arena. In addition to this, statism prompts criticality over the ability of global institutions to promote cooperation. This disapproving response to institutions is beneficial in enabling us to understand the reasons as to why the UN failed to stabilise the situation in Israeli’s war with Lebanon in 2006 which, from a realist perspective, would come as a result of Middle Eastern intervention offering limited gains to a state seeking to acquire power in the fulfilment of self-interest. Statism thus possesses many valuable explanatory features and offers insight as to why institutions are not necessarily synonymous with peace.

However, statism could incline those who study international relations to neglect the progress various international institutions have made in restoring order to previously volatile situations and, according to political scientist Karl Deutsch, the proposition also ignores institutions abilities to “promote dialogue” and encourage states to rethink their “security priorities and behaviour”. This is evident when reviewing the UN’s intervention in Mozambique in 1977, which saw the ONUMOZ transform the outcome of the civil war when a General Peace Accord was signed in 1992 and democracy prevailed. This core belief within realism therefore fails to account for cases where international institutions have intervened in global conflicts with the outcome being that of peace under anarchic conditions. Furthermore, commentators have argued that the state, as the primary actor in world politics, is under decline due to military and economic penetrability making world issues too multiplex for independent units to tackle. Whilst this does not necessarily cause us to “miss” anything relating to world politics, it calls into question the strength of statism and suggests the concept will lose momentum in the future which could in turn, undermine the overall paradigm of realism. It can therefore perhaps be argued that realism is too turbulent and incomprehensive to explain world politics as it fails to account for peaceful diplomacy, and changing perceptions in the global arena.

Anarchy, a proposition that lies at the foundation of realism, can also be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of realist ideology. This proposition argues that a central governing authority is absent in the international sphere, in contrast to the hierarchal domestic political system. Similar to statism, anarchy also denotes that cooperation is only feasible if it serves the national interest.

When this notion is applied to world politics, benefits lie in that anarchy provides a starting point for interpreting international relations, enabling us to methodically apply the realist paradigm when scrutinising global affairs. Furthermore, it occasions a series of important questions concerning a state’s propensity to cooperate and the security of its actors, such as;

· To what extent can independence and interdependence collaborate?

· Who assumes the most vulnerable position in the international system?

· If the state actor is declining in value, who replaces it?

Therefore, perceiving the international system as anarchic is advantageous as it generates pertinent questions about current and future world politics, that paradigms such as liberalism and idealism would perhaps miss.

Critics of realism have labelled anarchy ahistorical and myopic however as it is heavily centralised around the state’s actions, perhaps causing scholars to overlook the work of individuals and non-state actors. Not only this, but anarchy’s binary distinctions have also been criticised for warping the intricate nature of world politics through the means of silencing and marginalisation, implying those who possess this belief underestimate the paradigm’s obscurity and perhaps overestimate its rationalisations. The supposition can thus be made that whilst anarchy raises a series of necessary questions, its oversimplified, inflexible nature not only prohibits us from developing a diversified understanding of world politics, but also causes it to initiate more questions than it can account for.

Lastly, self-interest and power also serve as essential points of interest in evaluating the effectiveness of realism. This proposition argues that state action is rational and guided by national interest; an interest defined by survival and relative capabilities. Consequently, military and material power are crucial, alongside coercive power which causes war to be a constant threat in world politics.

Similar to anarchy, the realist propositions of self-interest and power are vital for prompting relevant questions; questions which perhaps enable us to foresee conflict. When used alongside theories such as Thucydides trap, a theory underpinning the risks of a rising power displacing a ruling power, valuable and highly relevant lessons are revealed:

“We all need to work together to avoid the Thucydides trap – destructive tensions between an emerging power and established powers … our aim is to foster a new model of major country relations.” – Chinese President Xi Jinping

In regards to realism, this comment connotes it is important to interpret world politics under a more pessimistic lens as it uncovers the areas of the state which must be reflected upon and improved in order to avoid future conflict. Theories, such as Thucydides trap, guard against complacency with old models and encourage intuitive solutions in response to fluctuations of power in the international system. Therefore, whilst realism and the belief in power/self-interest may appear unnecessarily cynical to some, it still holds immense merit for the precautions it unveils.

Nonetheless, commentators have further flawed the explanatory capabilities of this realist proposition, deeming it inadequate for explaining the constant evolvements in human nature. Not only this, but through interpreting world politics as power/self-interest orientated, those who study the discipline underestimate abstract ideas, such as emotion, due to the propositions assumptions of non-existent moral conscience or social responsibility in states. Consequently, cooperative and integrative developments, such as those seen post World War 2 in Western Europe, can be left unaccounted for.

To conclude, it is evident realism leaves scholars subject to overlooking vital facets of the international system. The despairing nature of the paradigm towards human nature leaves important shows of cooperation and peace throughout history unexplained, and the few explanations the argument does provide are incapable of considering the consistently developing, labyrinthine way in which world politics functions. This being said, is there an existing paradigm so profound that it can explain these functions any better and, regardless of realism’s capabilities, should it even be the purpose of a paradigm to go into such great depth concerning these matters? A paradigm may be better interpreted by some as merely a universal explanation as to why the world operates in a certain way, as opposed to an all-encompassing commentary for every event that has taken place within the history of international affairs. Realism offers an, albeit oversimplified, valid and highly relevant explanation for world politics. Moreover, the precautionary nature of the paradigm uncovers the importance of scrutinising world politics and not taking foreign policy at face value, as it enables us to understand the less explicit, sometimes malicious, nature of international communication.