Introduction
Classical realism and neo-realism represents the evolution and proliferation of international politics. Even in contemporary times, the political leaders staunchly represent these theories in their practical application of political ideals. This paper is an extensive study of these two forms of realism. It begins by defining realism; then identifies the major differences among these concepts and exemplifies its significance across the world. Finally, a conclusion is drawn by elaborating on contemporary politics and its use/rebuttal of these concepts.
Defining realism
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013), realism has its foundation in theories proposed by Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. It is widely believed that human nature gave birth to classical political realism. Human beings are “inherently egoistic and self-interested to the extent that self-interest overcomes moral principles”. This dimension is predominant in realism. Thucydides observed that realists prioritised self-interest over morality. Classical realism was widespread in the twentieth century and now this theory has been largely swapped with neo-realism. Neo-realists consider anarchy as the determinant factor. They identify the international arena to be a self-help system devoid of any rule-makers or an enforcing authority. Individual state has the right to pursue its own interest and power. Both classical realism and neo-realism have received criticism from IR theorists that base their theories on a “liberal, critical and post-modern perspective”. IR theorists’ state that the constraints imposed on politics by human nature are severe and the absence of an international government results in “a conflict-based paradigm of international relations, in which the key actors are states, in which power and security become the main issues, and in which there is little place for morality” (as cited in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013).
Realism is apparent in the US in President Barack Obama’s administration and also his predecessor George H. W. Bush’s political movements. President Obama’s restraint to be involved in the war in Syria and Iran; his experimental attitude towards the Arab Spring, putting an end to the Iraq war and instigating withdrawal from Afghanistan displays a realistic stance. Safeguarding US interests, security, and efforts toward developing the nation’s international commitments and power represents incorporation of realism in US politics (Hadar, 2013).
Defining classical realism and neo-realism
Neo-realism- According to Jakobsen (2013), neo-realism is also called structural realism and forms an important theory in international politics. This theory is associated with Kenneth Waltz’s 1979 book Theory of International Politics. As noted above, the first principle of neo-realism is based on anarchy or absence of a world government. The second principle is the “distribution of capabilities across the units inhabiting the international system”. Power structure varies significantly across states and between states. These capabilities are either functionally differentiated or undifferentiated depending upon the amount of power that each state possesses. Differences in power result in the “variations in the types and magnitude of structural constraints that states face, thereby effectuating variation in how states behave”. Often, the principles of neo-realism fail to explain several instances of modern day politics. Waltz theory on neo-realism cannot account for many types of state behaviour and interaction. It fails to explain peculiarities of individual war; rationale behind occurrence of such war or its avoidance, power balancing or seeking, demolition of states or formation of alliances. Neo-realism has no explanation for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the closure of Cold War (as cited in Jakobsen, 2013).
Classical realism- The basic nature of states is based on power and states are power seekers that persistently struggle for dominance over another. This power struggle is similar to the one that human faces. It is the inherent characteristic of both domestic and international politics and is “manifestations of a struggle for power" (Morgenthau, 1985: 101). Carr (1946) expands on Morgenthau’s explanation of power struggle and argues that states comprise two elements of human nature: morality and power. Carr (1946) notes that in “consistent realism”; the ethical principles of conduct are overridden by a greater need and concern for survival. The goals that are set by the states can be achieved in any way and provides justification behind rebuttal of moral principles. When the security of the state is at stake, the use of force is fully supported irrespective of its influence over morality (Carr, 1946).
Classical realism is a reflection of the balance of power theory. Morgenthau (1985) argues that the balance of power represents either a position of equilibrium or disequilibrium. Equilibrium represents a condition where the power of one state is balanced by the power of one or a group of states. The Cold war between the US and the Soviet Union is an example of a state of equilibrium. On the other hand, disequilibrium depicts a situation in which the distribution of power among the opposing states is misbalanced. The dominant state abuses power and neutralises other states. The ruling state tends to be the deciding force. Among the US and the Soviet Union; the US emerged as the dominant state after the Soviet Union collapsed. This condition can be compared to a man’s nature to overpower the “minds and actions of other men” (Morgenthau, 1985).
Comparing and contrasting classical realism and neo-realism
As the definitions suggest, there are significant differences between classical realism and neo-realism. The only similarity is that both the theories are based on power struggle and state behaviour, and forms an integral part of world affairs.
Jepson (2012) argued that the most evident factor in differentiating these two forms of theories is by studying the “determinants of state behaviour”. Realists consider the constant struggle for attainment of power as the impetus in politics. Jepson (2012) noted what Morgenthau emphasised and said that the will to become the dominant force is practically unlimited. Impact of nationalism, ideologies, imperialism in diverse forms, and the diplomatic approaches of the domestic government are consistently present in classical realism. The “plurality of influences upon state behaviour” is the central factor in classical realism. Even Waltz identified power politics and the state to be the pivotal aspect in international politics, but, he denied the involvement of the domestic government; thus, pushing ahead the ‘self-help’ ideology as the only factor in determining state behaviour (as cited in Jepson, 2012).
Here, let us consider the 2003 invasion of Iraq. After analysing this attack from the perspective of classical realism and neo-realism, it can be pointed out that it is anarchy that creates divisions and causes the world superpowers to breach the international law to pursue their individual requirements. But, neo-realism fails to provide any significant explanation behind the rationale and factors affecting the need to invade and its follow up to a war. When states opt for multilateral action, there are different political, economic and military pressures that contribute to international affairs. Classical realism has better explanation for explaining this invasion (Jepson, 2012). Morgenthau (1985) recognised the importance of ideology and nationalism, which are key themes of the expression of the ‘war on terror’. The actor (in this case, the US) incorporates ideologies to attain its immediate goals. It is ‘universalistic nationalism’ that lets the states to exert its individual values and “standards of action” upon other states (Jepson, 2012).
The current ISIS beheading spree can be attributed to the absence of a world government and the rulers of ISIS have already considered anarchy as predominant in their perusal of politics. The ISIS is beheading journalists, humanitarian aid workers, special envoys- all from the US and the UK. They are justifying their acts as revenge against the British and American government. To make matters worse, they are circulating videos of the beheaded bodies; playing football with the heads, raping women and butchering anyone and everyone who is not from the Islamic state. They are forcing people to take up Islam and enforcing hegemony at the cost of peace and harmony. All that the Obama administration does here is to sit mum and witness the slaughtering as a mute spectator. It is never possible to progress with such brutal acts in the presence of an international government. The ISIS is recruiting workers from all over the world. In a latest development, one Areeb Majid has been arrested by the Indian police upon his return from Mosul. Authorities suspect that the ISIS possibly let Majid free in order to propagate jihad in India. Going by these instances, it can be stated that it is anarchy that is provoking the ISIS to act in this way; thus, this wicked phase can be identified with neo-realism. But, structural realism has no explanation for the reason behind ISIS brutality. Classical realism can explain the reasons behind these terrorising acts of the Islamic state. It is the egocentric human nature that tends to overshadow humanity or morality in order to achieve their individual interest. The purpose of these atrocious mass killings is to convince the world superpowers that the Islamic state possesses great potential and resources, and it is time that Islam is given its due status. Owing to the harsh treatment of the Muslims by the Americans and British; now they are giving back to them by kidnapping, raping and slaughtering. They claim it to be a holy war. But, nothing is holy in this war. Raping and killing is not supported by Islam. Their actions are due to the aggression of the state. They are mercilessly trying to attain the goals regardless of human ethics and preaching of Islamic prophets.
Considering contemporary politics, it can be stated that it is classical realism that still dominates international politics. Though the notions of ‘self-help’ among states are widespread, but, there are specific reasons behind such occurrence. Such incidences can be best explained by classical realism. Moreover, the credit of a superpower still remains with the US, and the Obama administration has often showed his realistic stand. McCluskey (2012) argued that often, President Obama was criticised when he acknowledged various sectors like education and healthcare to be crucial factors and spent a massive amount on these sectors to boost economic growth. Obama tried convincing for class warfare and the federal education budget turned out to be a colossal waste. An estimated amount of $16 trillion national debt is at risk and the President’s overtly realistic approach runs the threat of incurring further harm to the already troubled economy. But, the middle class section continues to support this reform; thus, encouraging class warfare.
The Cold War is supposedly the only example that can be best explained by structural realism. Waltz always supported the avoidance of ‘hot war’ expecting that nuclear collision will destroy both the states. Here, the aspects of bipolarity and nuclear deterrence are highlighted. Bipolarity represents a hope of peace. Neo-realism is a theory of bipolarity and is also a theory of the Cold War. It bases its claims upon multi-polarity and unipolarity that ultimately led to World War I and World War II (Aliyev, 2011).
On the other hand, the tumultuous situation in the Middle East is an example of classical realism. Governments of Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria deployed “armed violence against unarmed citizens”. Here, Libya was chosen for intervention owing to the “foreign policy doctrine of realism and the national self-interest of the various nations attacking Libya”. The conflict in Libya hardly followed any ethics or offered any humanitarian assistance to international relations. Widely tagged as “classical national interest or realpolitik”, this conflict traces back to the theories of classical realists. Libya shares proximity with the European Union and possesses potential natural resources that made Europe powerful. Also, Europe was scared of the late Gaddafi emerging victorious and sponsoring state terrorism in Libya (Kazianis, 2011).
Conclusion
After a thorough research, it can be stated that modern day politics is significantly dominated by principles of classical realism. Machiavellianism still holds immense prominence in international politics and the emerging differences between classical realism and neo-realism redefine international affairs in modern context. These ideologies pave the way for further research and help to comprehend world affairs. Also, political leaders stick to these theories in order to justify their acts and decisions.
Since, realism is associated with the human mind; it can lead to further investigations in regard to Brown’s (2009) observation that human perceptions and behaviours are greatly judged by physical processes in the brain. An analysis of the differences in realism theories noted above reflect the variations in perusal of world politics based upon state characteristics.
References
Aliyev, H. (2011, May 16). Neo-Realism and Humanitarian Action: From Cold War to Our Days. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. [Online]. Available at: http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/1173. (Accessed: 12/12/2014).
Brown, C. (2009). Structural realism, classical realism and human nature. International
Relations. 23 (2). [Online]. Available at: http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/95799.pdf. (Accessed: 12/12/2014).
Carr H. E. (1946). The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939. New York: St Martin's Press Inc.
Hadar, L. (2013, January 28). Is Barack Obama Really a Realist? The American Conservative. [Online]. Available at: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/is-barack-obama-really-a-realist/ . (Accessed: 11/12/2014).
Jakobsen, J. (June 11, 2013). Neorealism in International Relations – Kenneth Waltz. Popular Social Science. [Online]. Available at: http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/11/06/neorealism-in-international-relations-kenneth-waltz/. (Accessed: 12/12/2014).
Jepson, V. (2012, Jan 24). The Differences Between Classical Realism and Neo Realism. E-International Relations Students. [Online]. Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/01/24/the-differences-between-classical-realism-and-neo-realism/. (Accessed: 12/12/2014).
Kazianis, H. (2011, June 6). Intervention in Libya: Example of “R2P” or Classic Realism? E-International Relations Students. [Online]. Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/06/06/intervention-in-libya-example-of-%E2%80%9Cr2p%E2%80%9D-or-classic-realism/. (Accessed: 12/12/2014).
McClusky, N. (2012, May 1). The Reason Obama Is Pushing for More Federal Education Spending. CATO Institute. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reason-obama-is-pushing-more-federal-education-spending?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=86ede6520a-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=86ede6520a&mc_eid=f56e72ed92. (Accessed: 12/12/2014).
Morgenthau. J., H. (1985). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (April 2, 2013). Political Realism in International Relations. [Online]. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/. (Accessed: 11/12/2014).
