Realism
Introduction
Realism in terms of understanding international relations or what is popularly known as political realism is observed as among the oldest theories in international relations and is recognized as a worldview. This is one of the earliest theories when it comes to the study involving the politics at the international level and how it has evolved through failures and how it would change the global politics. Realism is considered to be contrasted with liberalism and idealism that tend to give more emphases on the cooperation. The realists consider that the states to be the principal actors in managing their security, interests and power struggle (Gilpin, 2016). The only negative implication of the realist is the fact that the emphasis on the self-interest and power is basically the skeptical ideology with regards to how relevant the ethical norms are with relation to the states involved. National politics in many parts of the world are identified through the way of law and authority but international politics are signified through conflicts and war.
In every sense, not all the realists consider the lack of ethics in the international affairs. This dissimilarity ought to be identified between the classical which is represented by the twentieth-century theories and the extreme or radical realism (Scheuerman, 2013). The classical realists also acknowledge the possibility of having an ethical judgment in the global politics. Rather they are all critical of the moralist which signifies a moral disclose which does not take into consideration political realities. Supreme value is awarded to the successful political actions which are based on the prudence (Murray & Nuttall, 2014). Prudence is given as the ability to control the rightness of an issue from the possible possibilities based on the consequence of the politics in place. The realist theories urge that politics should be viewed as they are in the current times and not how one would like the politics to be in the world.
The twentieth-century code of realism has been currently replaced by the neorealist that is an effort to develop a technical approach to the study of the worldwide relations. Considering the political system or more important the international system, the realist has been focusing their thoughts on how the international relations perform based on the perception of power and security (Scheuerman, 2011). The variations among the realist create an opening for the assumptions regarding the international relations that can be compared to the constructivism, feminism, and liberalism. International relations with regards to realism are mostly centered on the assumptions of the human behavior. In general, the entire realists are basically concerned with what is called the 3s which are survival, statism, and self-help.
Statism
For most, if the realists, the state become the main actor and the sovereignty is the distinguishing part. Being a sovereign state means that the state has the power and capability to do as it pleases. The clear way of defining this act of violence between the states, one would consider terming a state as a monopoly of using physical force in a given territory as a show of legitimacy. Within such a state with such a territory, sovereignty indicates that the state has the capability and the supreme power to create laws and have them enforced by the state members (Murray & Nuttall, 2014). This establishes the basis of unwritten relations between the state and the individuals. In most cases, this can be termed as trading the liberty for the sake of having security. Once there is security then the other arms can start operations such as civil societies. At this point, the only duty for the realist which is remaining is establishing power domestically. This is now the basis for competition in the international relations.
Realists argue that in anarchy, the states compete amongst themselves for security and power. In this sense, the nature of having the competition is viewed as a way of having one state grab everything while the others have nothing at hand. This logic of power competition politics makes the basis of the agreement very difficult to get in the universal principles but allows the principle of non-intervention into the internal affairs of any other sovereign state (Schuett, 2010). However, this same principle of non-intervention which is designed to bring in coexistence is suspended by some realist who argues that it does not apply to the relations between the great powers and their subordinates. As it has been witnessed in some parts such as the United States in a country like Iraq and Afghanistan, powerful states have the capability of overturning the principle of non-existence on the basis of international order and national security. Provided the first move of any state is to organize for power domestically followed by having power internationally, it is most evident to consider what the realist talk of when they say politics with power. Most can associate the politics on the international level as being a struggle for being in power but the main concern is what power is perceived to be the realists (Scheuerman, 2013). Power, in this case, is defined as the capability to control and rule over the minds of other people. Power is both a relation and relative concept where something has to be in existence for power to exist. Having power, in this case, is now perceived to be the counts of how many aircrafts, tankers, naval ships and number of troops a particular state possesses which can translate to having the capacity to force others to do what they cannot do willingly.
Survival
In international politics, the main idea is all about survival according to the realists. The ultimate concern is having security through the ambiguity by which the realists play it means accumulating more and more power. For one to attain every other goal in life, there has to be survival whether through conquering or through independence. Beyond every survival move, the aims by which a state possesses are endless. States compete to secure the best for their survival and therefore using every possible means to ensure that they succeed in what they are doing (Schuett, 2010). However, states are very defensive but if it means making the security of the country be vulnerable, then at times they will let go instead of jeopardizing the security. Realism does not only provide for an alternative code of morals for the leaders but also reject the bringing of ethics into the international politics. This code of moral has brought about the issue of criticism especially from the liberal theorist who recognizes the idea of universal human rights.
Self help
Conflicts and war are very common in the domestic politics but this is not the case with the international politics. The main distinction between the domestic and the international politics is the structure of each level. When it comes to the domestic politics, citizens have no obligation to defend themselves but for the international politics, there are no authorities in the higher level to counter or prevent the action of force used by every citizen. In this case, the security can be obtained through self-help. Self-help is basically a principle of action in an anarchic structure (Scheuerman, 2011). When a state is busy trying to secure its own security, other states are rendered insecure making it create competition among each other. Security dilemma is a term that is used to describe a spiral of insecurity issues. A security dilemma exists when a neighboring state starts military preparations which create the irresolvable lack of certainty in the minds of the immediate neighbors. In every sense, the preparations could be for defense or war but this does not change the fact that there will be conflict and lack of trust amongst the two involved states.
Conclusion
Realist idea is mostly viewed as one being obsessed with power. This is fuelled by the concept of self-help, survival, and statism which dictates that the states must have power as a key thing in the international politics. The level by which a realist can go in search of power can be determined through the levels of classical and structural realism (Gilpin, 2016). On other levels, security is more important than the power of a state. Competition can never end since one state is always concerned over the doings of another state. Countries want to retain the idea of being the sovereign holders of power and ideology makes others insecure.
References
Gilpin, R. (2016). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.
Guilhot, N. (2011). The invention of international relations theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Murray, R. W., & Nuttall, A. D. (Eds.). (2014). International Relations and the Arctic: Understanding Policy and Governance. Cambria Press.
Scheuerman, W. E. (2011). The realist case for global reform. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Scheuerman, W. E. (2013). Morgenthau. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Schuett, R. (2010). Political realism, Freud, and human nature in international relations: The resurrection of the realist man. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
