Introduction
Realism is the attitude and at times the tendecy of ccepting things as they are, having the ability to prepare to deal with it accordingly. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a worldview founded on the ideas of equality and liberty. Any student or any person interested in international relations should study the basic foundations of it. Among the most prevalent theories in international relations are realism and liberalism. Realism claims to rely upon a tradition of thought that is ancient and includes writers such as Thucydides, Hobbes and Machiavelli Rousseau (2006). The early realism can be as a reaction against the interwar idealist thinking. Liberalism holds that state preferences rather than its capabilities are the primary determinant of the behavior of the state. For liberalism, interaction between states is never limited to high politics like security but also low politics as well like economic issues and cultural ones. This essay aims at exploring to what extent and in which aspects realism and liberalism get similar with each other and different from each other.
Differences
The differences will first be discussed then the similarities at a later stage. The extent by which realism and liberalism differ falls under their beliefs and practices. Realism believes that all states do as they wish. For realists, states only want to maintain their security. A state in this argument may only want power to be strong enough and secure from attack whether internal or external. The states’ motivations thus emphasize on their desire. For a state, it would desire to be safer than the next state and only take care of its boundaries. By beingself-centered, the state will only consider its safety, growth and importance without looking at the next state. Realists argue that the state in this case will do anything even if it means exhausting all the resources and leaving the next state with nothing to keep it grows, the state will engage itself. Realists further argue that states never collaborate with others for gain but only center the growth to them without minding whether the other state or states are left insecure, hungry or poor. Liberalism, on the other hand, holds that states can cooperate with each other and act together. Unlike realises, the belief of liberals opposes their reasoning, and the opposition brings the difference between the realists and the liberals. For liberals, states are at a position to work together and if the states are interested in security, economic gain or even intellectual gain the advantage comes to all. Liberalism thus does not talk about competition, but togetherness to bring the gain. Further, the liberals do not talk about resource exhaustion in order to gain but putting together resources to work and gain whatever is . Liberalism comes to fit for group work whereas realism fits the position of individualism.
Liberals trust that the international system can be manipulated to make peace, and changes are likely to occur. Liberals are open to such organisations like the United Nations that are international bodies and control everyone. These international bodies are also said to act like the global leaders. Liberalism argues that international bodies like the United Nations allow countries to interact with one another in different ways. The several interactions among countries give liberals the belief that issues of conflict can be solved or reduced to a level that is manageable. Liberalism thus believes in possibilities that others find to be impossible with positive hopes that changes can happen. Liberals are flexible and optimistic thus can support, work towards and adapt to changes. By believing that the international body can be manipulated to bring more peace, liberals are optimistic to changes and better things in a soft way. Realism argues that the international systems can never be . Realists further give more information that the international system is inherently anarchical and cannot be made more peaceful except by the use of power. Realism proves to be rigid and does not give room for flexibility that something can be done to bring change. Realists also believe in rigid procedures that have always existed like use of power to make changes instead of thinking about procedures like negotiation. Many people have referred to realists as traditional unlike the liberals who can negotiate depending with the condition and situation.
Liberals possess the belief that democratization is at a position to bring peace. The liberals argue that democratic countries will not fight each other just because of power and personal interests. Liberalism has the sympathy and putting people at liberty. For liberalism, freedom is mandatory, and power is . The liberals argue that the power can not only be in the hands of those high above the hierarchy but also to the lower people. That is why liberalism thinks that a democracy brings peace and countries that practice democracy never fight each other, but have an equal share of power. Realism, on the other hand, does not believe that democratization can be a source of peace. Realists further believe that countries will always pursue power regardless of whether they are democratic or not. Unlike liberals who support democracy, realises support all forms of power and insist that power is be it in a democratic or non-democratic country. To the realists, countries always fight when their interests dictate even when their opponents are both democracies. Realism base its arguments on interests and thirsts unlike the liberals who base their arguments on forms of power. In this case the liberals are automatic that democratic countries reason the same and can never fight each other thus they generalize situations. Realism, on the other hand, individualizes situations and gives exceptions by stating that countries will always fight against each other irrespective of their political practices. The personal interests are what will define whether there will be peace or not and not the shared characteristics.
Liberals have a belief that non-state actors are important, and they pay attention to individual leaders. Liberalism also considers non-governmental organizations and their importance. Liberalism has an aspect of viewing those who make the state one by one and their importance instead of just saying that the state is good. However, many liberals may congratulate or praise a state, the individuals who build the state like companies are as because they are also a building block of the state. Realism believes that only the state matters. The building blocks of the state are never considered as important because the recognized figure is the state. Suppose a state is bad then only the state will be mentioned to be bad, and the non-state actors will not have a bad figure. When a state is good then, the goodness will also only be seen for the state and not for those who contributed in making the state good.
Similarities
One similarity that is rampant between realism and liberalism is that they both have a national interest at heart. The two theories of international relations (realism and liberalism) are based on the idea that the states always do their things as the nation wishes. The state interests that are include military security, influence over the states, self-preservation and economic prosperity. Another similarity is that both realism and liberalism agree that the actors of both the theories desire power Whelan (2004). However, each side takes a view at the method of obtaining and maintaining power differently. Realism claims that the power comes from military dominance by state against state. The war and struggle for power, therefore, become the realist’s key issue of thought. Liberals, on the other hand, open up the concept of power to include corporate agreements, individual contracts, and trade. A noticeable similarity between realism and liberalism is that they are both theories that are in international relations. Other theories are giving evidence that they are not the only theories and idealism is also mentioned. Both realism and liberalism identify roles of actors. From the liberalist view, actors include individuals and corporations that cross the international borders. Realism states only the state as an actor in international relations.
Conclusion
In concluding, many theories give an insight into the concept of war, domestic relations and international relations. Liberalism and realism provide pictures that relate and coexist, but become opposite when they get to the theory. Realism proves to be conservative and pessimistic. The realists often plan for permanence of the international state affairs that currently exists. Liberalism proves to be progressive and optimistic. The liberals believe that the change is always necessary and inevitable at all costs. None of the viewpoints give either the right or the wrong sides. Both the viewpoints (realism and liberalism) contain truths depending on stated circumstances. None of the theories cover all the situations, and these theories provide contrasting views on goals, international affairs, actors, and instruments. Both realism and liberalism define their stated actors within international relations in different manners from each other. As realists tell us that only the powerful larger states are as true actors in international politics, liberals differ. The liberals believe that states are the known central players even though there are many other factors to be.
Reference List
WHELAN, F. G. (2004). Hume and Machiavelli: political realism and liberal thought. Lanham, Md [u.a.], Lexington Books.
ROUSSEAU, D. L. (2006). Identifying threats and threatening identities: the social construction of realism and liberalism. Stanford, Calif, Stanford University Press.
(2013). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
