Introduction
Realism is a theory that basis its principle beliefs on self-competiveness. The human nature of self-interest and egoism and lack of international government have led to sphere of power and interest in the international relations. The theory upholds the view that world politics involves sovereign states that compete to attain security. However, this build up of security sometimes come along with greater instability as a result of the competing powers accumulating power arms to defend their territories.
This therefore makes national security search an endless game. The theory also upholds the view that there is no higher source of authority that exists above the great powers (Donnelly 2000, p. 8). These higher powers are the ones that bring order in the international relations; however, realism is against the actions of these higher powers claiming that the international relations should be left in the hands of the control of human nature.
Realism brings out the realist perception that today’s state relations are based on the notion of competition. This is where various nations focus more on what they are to gain from any relation in terms of attaining the ability to help themselves. Firstly, by basing its fundamentals on emphasis on international anarchy and human selfishness, realism only focuses on one side of the issue and ignores the whole general theory of international relations. In addition, its promise to provide an overview explaining the theory of international politics has made this theory to be viewed as a great failure (Galston 2010, p. 388).
Realists’ emphasis on political needs that are derived from lack of international government makes the evil human nature become the order of policy making in the sensitive international relation issues. This is because human nature is known to be controlled by a structured political authority and exercise of rules. Adopting realism in international relations, therefore, serves to empower the exercise of the human nature which when left to reign can express the worst attributes making the world politics unmanageable (Donnelly, 2000, p. 435) This is because human nature is led by egoism that makes nations seek to control the struggle for power and security without considering the limitations of power and space.
Realism fails to provide an ideal political life even during the most favorable circumstances. This is because it holds the view that harmony is unachievable and focuses on amassing security arms to guard a nation from ever present conflict and instability.
From the early times of the history of international relations, realism has not been perceived as an alternative to the idea of transforming the world politics. For instance, many scholars have always viewed the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union as an illustration of a weakness in the adoption of realist international theory. Since this theory of international relations did not cease to exist though most people had predicted its end after resolution of this crisis, its persistence continues to bring harm to the current situation in the international relations.
Despite these weaknesses in the realism theory, it has remained an important theory in the international relations even in the present age. Firstly, the political theory has shown that this theory is still being applied in the international relations. This is due to the nature of the theory to refuse the utopian claim of always expecting the best and adoption of preparation mechanisms to defeat the worst. According to Mearsheimer’s (2001, p.10-11) argument, the atmosphere that the current states have adopted is that which is dominated by a cycle of violence that is not likely to be overcome easily. He proposes this through suggestion of the five basic assumptions that dominate the international relations system.
Firstly, the international system still operates on the system of anarchy. This is where there is no functional central authority to govern or control different states’ actions. This assumption can gain its ground since the few international organizations that assume the position of central authority are either not functional or they are not empowered enough to command much authority from all the nations of the world. Secondly, the renowned great powers in the world have access to military capability that can be used against other states through destruction especially during the times of attacks or inter-state wars.
Mearsheimer’s (2001, p. 11) third assumption about the international system is that different states cannot have the certainty of their counterparts’ intentions. His fourth assumption is that the main objective of all states is attaining their means of survival. Finally, he argues that the international system is governed by the notion that states are able to remain balanced thus claiming that they should be treated as rational actors. When the international system has assimilated the five assumptions, then what result are the negative results of realism.
The consistent fear among both great and even small nations has become a reality in the world today. Nations are in constant fear against their neighbors or other nations that appear to them as a threat. This fear has developed as a result of the possession of the means and ways of inflicting fear by the great powers. In addition there lacks a functional institution that is able to control a given nation from being aggressive to another nation.
The other behavior that has been adopted by various nations today as a result of assimilating realism in their relations is the desire to find ways of assisting themselves. The current state of anarchy in the world has forced the nations to seek ways of ensuring their own safety and survival. They do this by seeking ways of maximizing their own power in order to counterattack any unknown intentions of other states around them.
Different nations are currently investing a lot of their resources in trying to become better than their counterparts. They do this through various strategies; some of these include the use of wars and blackmail to gain more power than others. This is because a situation of war between two nations gives a chance for the warring nations to become certain of the other’s power and also to define their power position. This is after establishing their rival’s capability which gives them a sense of satisfaction.
Realism makes power the basis of international politics. According to Schmidt (2004, p. 429), this view evolves from describing the power of a state based on state machinery and materials that the state has in comparison with other states. This makes a state to measure its power by focusing on its ability to defeat other nations in a situation of war between them.
Even if Mearsheimer (2001, p. 23) focuses on other aspects in determining the strength of a nation like socio-economic components, these aspects zero back to the nation’s ability to come up with a strong military power system. The nations that are known to be the strongest are those that besides being wealthy and having large populations, they also have a strong army and possess strong military mechanism. This has therefore made international politics a consistent security competition where their relations are those of continued struggle to gain a higher position than other nations.
According to realism, the introduction of a relationship where nations depend on each other based on a common ground of trust is unnecessary as this relation would lack benefits since nations would have nothing to gain. In addition, realism argues that when a nation invests its resources in attaining power, there would be no reason for other nations to do the same in an attempt to compete against it. This is because it is doing this in its attempt to secure a security mandate which is important in all states.
Theories that support these assertions
While relating the theory of realism to the global political economy, an individual must have the reality that reality is changing. This is in terms of relations of production, power, and forms of states among other forces. These forces are the ones that can describe the current state of the world. Various scholars in their attempt to criticize the approaches of the international relations have focused on the Global Political Economy, GPE.
The theory of orthodoxy which holds close perceptions as those of the theory of positivism leads to the confirmation that realism is still an important concept in the international relations. In coming up with this theory, Hume (1972, p.38) claimed that the main determiner of the prices of products in the market is the availability of the exchange commodity. The application of this claim in the market is that this commodity that is used as the means of exchange controls free trade by ensuring that it remains balanced.
He advanced this claim by the observation that since the demand is determined by prices of the commodity, the countries that produce in surplus will make their exports to drop while those that produce deficit products will go up. This therefore makes markets gain the ability to stabilize independently. All these claims were directed to elimination of the restrictions that are placed to control importation of goods by assuming that this would not be harmful to the global market. Free trade that is in existence today is based on this notion that buyers and sellers can simply continue with their market transactions regardless of existence of any set body to keep check or control how this is done.
Marxist capitalism in the market economy also possesses some realist inclinations. The theory’s basis is founded on expanding oneself without considering the limitations of time and location. This is because it argues on the importance of opening the market which in the long run ends up benefiting the capitalist traders and those who have the power to define the way the market is run due to their influence and power. This therefore leads to a market economy that is dominated by laissez faire capitalism.
The current form of free trade has taken this feature where the most influential nations insist that the other states and especially the developing nations open their borders in order to allow easy flow of goods due to elimination of all restrictions. However, due to lack of a powerful system to control this process, the wealthy nations become hideous by refusing to open theirs or through exercising high taxes on products being imported to their country from other trade partners. This perpetuates economic imbalance and creates ‘master’ and ‘slave’ nations.
Capitalism perceives conflicts that exist between trade partners as necessary in the process of ascertaining the power of an individual nation. This is because these conflicts ensure the possibilities of nations to put up empires and new property in new areas. These views are similar to those of current realism since the current international relations views a conflict in a nation as a chance to empower their power and authority over others.
Feminism is another theory that can also explain the existence of realism in the international relations today. This theory in the international relations aims at making a difference through changing the way the world is perceived. In addition, the theory through its introduction of new ideas aims at giving more emphasis to gender issues in the platform of international relations. The emergence of this theory in the international relations has come to strengthen the current international relations order in which realism has become an important concept.
This is because the theory has brought the discussions on very core aspects of the theory. These include aspects like security, issues of human rights and authority. According to the theory’s view, women have been left behind while the international relations is analyzing the state, political economy and even issues of international security. This can explain why women have remained powerless in the military and foreign arena. This is because according to the feminists view, the constraints that have existed for a long time in the global order and gender relations should be eliminated.
The policies and rules that prevent evenly distribution of power between genders should be removed in order to empower all the genders equally and allow them to compete on a common ground. The adoption of the feminism theory in the current society has encouraged the real exercise of unrestrained human nature between different genders. This is where competition and search for glory has dominated the various fields of gender relations and since there lacks a superior power to control these measures, lack of trust has led to fear and doubt between these relations.
Conclusion
In the view of critical realism, the aspect that determines economic efficiency and growth is through ensuring that there are no market leaders or the financial markets take charge of the developments as these leaders may end up manipulating developments in order to favor their situations (Edkins & Vaughan-Williams 2009, p. 67). This however, may cause conflicts as the situation would encourage unfriendly control and since there is no one to lead or to take charge, the market players may start operating in anarchy. This may end up destroying the principles of market economy. This theory of economics became the basis of current theories of economists, though at first it had been viewed as contradictory.
Politics in the international community is based on the notion of agreement through justice; it also views this as possible through adoption of coordination which is undertaken by a system that checks the balances of power. However, in today’s international relations, the views that have been adopted are those of realism which continue to dominate the politics in the international arena. This is because according to political realists, agreement that is necessary in order to sustain ordered politics in the international relations is not possible.
Realists believe in having autonomy on the political arena since according to them, politics cannot flourish well if there is lack of freedom to exercise judgment without restriction by any forces or principles. Realists view political conflict as a recurrent situation; thus, the need to consistently seek better ways of preventing the individual nation from its effect. The current state of international relations domination of this theory can be identified by the relations between various nations which have been dominated by tension. This has been due to lack of trust which has made nations to relate only with a motive of understanding each other’s intentions. The realist view of political life with perceived skepticism is the order of international relations today.
The current systems that run the political international relations lack a hierarchic structure. The perception that order should be imposed by a higher authority instead of the interactions of political actors that operate on the same level has caused the current state of politics in the international relations. There is however need to level this ground if international relations are to improve. Nevertheless; political, military, and economic might will remain as determinant factors in the field of international relations.
Reference List
Donnelly, J., 2000. Realism and international relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Edkins, J., & Vaughan-Williams, N., 2009. Critical theorists and international relations. Oxon, OX: Taylor & Francis.
Galston, W. A., 2010. Realism in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory 9(4), 385–411.
Hume, D., 1972. “Of money”, in E. Rotwein (ed) Writings on economics. Freeport, NY: Hume, Books for Libraries Press. pp. 33-46.
Mearsheimer, J. J., 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: Norton New York.
Schmidt, B. C., 2004. Realism as tragedy. Review of International Studies, 30: 427-441.