Liberalism vs Realism PDF

Preview

Summary

What are the key differences in how liberals and realists see the international system?...

Description

“What are the key differences in how liberals and realists see the international system?”

Throughout history, scholars and intellectuals have attempted to introduce a basic foundation of international system seeking to establish an exemplar understanding of the world politics. Numerous indicators have been developed forming different schools of thoughts which then were identified as political theories. Each theory adopted specific attitudes toward the world and formed basic assumptions about the international system, power, and the nature of people. According to Michael Doyle (1997), “the classics of international relations theory deserve to be taken seriously, not just as intriguing chapters in the history of ideas, but as ongoing sources of inspiration, empirical models to be rigorously tested, and compendia of policy-relevant insights”. It is crucial to understand the different schools of thoughts to comprehend global issues and to shape personal opinions. Hence, this essay aims to discuss two of the most dominant theories: realism and liberalism. For a long time, scholars has been embracing realism, providing empirical evidences and building conclusions that complements their realist views influencing people to believe that realism is the most powerful theory (Ozkan and Cetin, 2016). Nonetheless, the outcome of this article is to investigate which of these approaches is more persuasive in analyzing the international system and in order to carry out such conclusion, this article will start with identifying the nature and the main outlook of each theory. Then, provide the reader with an ultimate analytic examination of the two theories based on their major principle and respectfully discuss their conceptual assumptions on: state and corporations, power and soverighnty, and lastly, war and peace. Finally, this article will attempt to evaluate each theory and summarize their strengths and weaknesses to reach a valid conclusion.

Realism is the oldest theory and one of the most important school of thoughts in international relations. Realists tend to see the world with a utopian attitude which reflect their core belief in human nature as selfish, sinful, and greedy. They have agreed on the fundamental principles of pessimism, maximization of power, and the importance of security (Mowle, 2003). However, since political theories are in one way or another connected, we can recognize some distinction within realists themselves by looking closely at the work of realists’ scholars. For instance, constitutional realists

1

concentrate on the domestic affairs of the state, meanwhile, structural realists, like Hobbes, tend to emphasize international affairs more (Doyle, 1997).

Liberalism, on the other hand, is considered as one of the most influential and powerful theories as it has greatly impacted the European Enlightenment (Burchill, 2013). Liberals, in contrast to realists, have more optimistic worldview. They empower individuality, freedom, and recognize humans are rational bodies that carry out development and progress (Ozkan and Cetin, 2016). Their principles underline the significance of human rights, democracy, and limitation of state’s power. Like realists, we can acknowledge some disagreements within the liberal school of thoughts as liberal institutionalists, for example, highlight the aspect of human nature, meanwhile, liberal internationalists, like Kant, prioritize the international issue and the interstate system (Ozkan and Cetin, 2016).

At the basic premise of international system, it is defined as an assemblage of states. Nonetheless, realists and liberals have different opinions towards the state as a unit in the global politics. Realists acknowledge states as the “unitary rational actor” which based on Grieco (1993) neo-liberals agree on. However, they also believe that other institutions like international organizations and corporations are equal in power and importance with states. It can be said that the reasoning behind liberals’ emphasis on international organizations and multinational corporations beside states indicate their belief in these institutions’ global influence in shaping international system and setting world political agenda. Liberals claim that empowering economic interdependence and empowering free trade collaboration will result in reducing the chances of conflict between states and moreover, it will execute the barriers between nations and people to eventually unite societies. (Burchill, 2013). Accordingly, neo-realists responded to these claims with two main arguments (Grieco, 1988). Firstly, under the circumstances of anarchy, any problems occur between competing units will in endangering security as consequence of prioritizing economic interests. And secondly, they argue that interdependence is deceptive concept as it promote fake vulnerability and equality when in fact power is dominated by the main corporation. However, it is important to point out the success resulted from

2

liberalism. According to Diebold and Rosecrance (1986), following the economic growth resulted from interdependence, there was an equivalent decrease in states’ conquests. There is no doubt that there are a number of imperfections about the current image of cooperation and that it requite to be monitored and limited, but the act of realists’ scholars denying giving liberals credits is unnecessary.

The debate of power and sovereignty between the two theories can be clearly demonstrated by understanding their reaction towards the Power Politics Theory. This theory aims to protect nation’s sovereignty and state’s power and to allow them to use economic, political, or even military threats upon their rivals (Bessner and Guilhot, 2015). This theory largely adopts realist’s view of greed, competition and selfishness. However, liberals reacted firmly by rejecting the theory and they insisted on their principles of prioritizing peaceful and cooperative approaches. Accordingly, avoiding the Power Politics theory resulted in a number of political gains like, improving cooperation between states and empower the option of compromises to eschew conflicts. Nonetheless, with the ongoing conflicts around the world over power, realism succeeded to measure the military capabilities with anarchic system. However, liberalism responded to the aggression of realism which accept that empowering and financing military should be the primary goal of the nation justifying this with national security. Liberal refused the hostility and instead argues that the measure of power ought to be economic growth, political progression, and protection of human right.

While both theories focused on war and peace, their views are extremely contradicted. Hennessy and

Waltz (1960) in their book, Man, the State, and War, recognised three main causes of war that can be accepted by both theories which are: “human nature, domestic political regimes of states, and the international system, and specifically international anarchy”. Unsurprisingly, the pessimism of realism has influenced their image of the world. Doyle (1997) indicated that realists describe the world politics as a “jungle” as it is best to explain the continuous “state of war” which means the constant possibility of conflict. Realists’ emphasis on conflict and war is driven by two main reasons: its utopian views on human nature and world politics, and the post Second World War effects. Realists

3

witnessed a drastic system change replacing the multipolar system to the bipolar after WWII as United States and Soviet Union dominated almost all the power and ended Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan. Realist agreed that “all nations, regardless of location, history, size, political orientations, leadership style, government form, and military and economic strength, were motivated by the same goal– maintenance of world order according to the logic of power”. Realists’ method to prevent conflict is by alliance and balancing “power against power” (Ozkan and Cetin, 2016).

In contrast, liberals tend to see the world as “a cultivated ‘garden’, which combines a state of war and the possibility of a state of peace” (Doyle, 1997). Liberals believe that a state cannot be considered as a unitary rational actor in the state of war. Therefore, they emphasis cooperation and interdependence over conflict. They believe in the rationality of individuals and their abilities to develop their attitudes and even possibly extract war from the human experience ( Carr and Gardner, 1990). According to liberal, war can be completely avoided by executing democracy, encouraging development, empowering international organization, promote international law, and supporting capitalism. As Doyle (1986) said, “when the citizens who bear the burden of war elect their government, wars become impossible”. The argument raised by liberals argue that peace is substantially established when the government is legitimate. Moreover, the institution of a democratic country limit the power of governments leading to reduce the chances of violence beside the benefits of empowering free trade which was explained earlier. In addition, Muller (1989) adds up by arguing that we are currently living the impact of liberalism as the war between major powers has ended which indicates people are by nature prefer peace over conflict.

In evaluating the theory of realism, it appears to be simpler, and much less complicated. However, it remain accounted for normalizing conflict over peace, empowering authority aggression, fail to recognize and explain the success of international organizations and globalization. And also, failed to anticipate the current events but was mainly criticized for its wrongful prediction post the collapse of

4

the Soviet Union. However, as long as violence, conflicts, war, and struggle remain, realism on the other side will continue to be powerful and important. On the other hand, while liberalism might be seem complex and vague. It offered a possibility of a better, peaceful future. At the beginning, critics viewed liberalism as an illusion or an idealized theory that does not connect with reality. Today, it is recognized as one of the most long-lasting theories and most influential. It contributed in developing the research of conflicts, trade, democracy, peace, and domestic politics.

Finally, the debate of realism and liberalism continues as one theory cannot carry out a cohesive description of all global issues in the international system. The instruments of both realism and liberalism have contributed in making the process of understanding and resolving past, current, and future dilemmas possible. Between the conversation of conflict and order, power and rights, state centric and anarchy, it can be said that an obvious outcome does not exist. However, it can anticipated that the future is for liberalism. It succeeded to provide a middle ground between chaos and order and as Herz (1951) said, it is possible to achieve peace and create a whole community based on compassion and cooperation.

5

Bibliography Bessner, D. & Guilhot, N., (2015). How Realism Waltzed Off: Liberalism and Decision making in Kenneth Waltz’s Neorealism. International Security, 40(2), pp.87–118. Burchill, S. et al., (2013). Theories of international relations5th ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Carr, J.R. & Gardner, J.W., (1990). Leaders and Leadership. Public Administration Review, 50(5), p.585. Doyle, M.W., (1997). Ways of war and peace: realism, liberalism, and socialism 1st ed., New York: Norton. Grieco, J.M., (1990). Cooperation among nations: Europe, America, and non-tariff barriers to trade, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hennessy, B. & Waltz, K.N., 1960. Man, the State and War. The Western Political Quarterly, 13(1), p.255. Herz, J.H., 1951. Political realism and political idealism: a study in theories and realities, University of Chicago Press. Keohane, R.O. & Nye, Joseph S, (1989). Power and interdependence 2nd ed., Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman. Keohane, R. (1993). Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press. Mowle, T.S., (2003). Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism, and External Conflict. Political Psychology, 24(3), pp.561–592. Ozkan, E. and Cetin, H. (2016). The Realist and Liberal Positions on the Role of International Organizations in Maintaining World Order. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 12(17), p.85. Diebold, W. & Rosecrance, R., (1986). The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. Foreign Affairs, 64(4), p.875. Waltz, K.N., (2011). Theory of international politics Reprint, Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland.

6...