The theory of realism has had a profound influence on the study of international politics as it is applied in practice. Realism is shaped by power politics. Realist theory premises the state as the primary actor in international relations. States operate to achieve two interrelated goals: power and security. Power increases and guarantees security, while security enables states to acquire and consolidate more power.
The realist theory of IR was shaped by thinkers greatly influenced by the politics of the Second World War. The realist scholarship was highly critical of the inter-war idealist school of thought, dubbed “utopian” for its optimism in cooperation between nations and a collective security framework. Realist scholarship emphasises the notion that war is the natural condition for states. Carl Von Klauswitch writes, “War is politics by another means.” Hans Morgenthau resonates, “Politics is a struggle for power over men.” To realists, war is undesirable but natural.
Historical Background for Realist School of IR
The realist theory dates to antiquity, with state behaviour & practices conforming to self-interest and driven by power relations. Kautilya (375-283 BCE), Thucydides (460-406 BCE), Sun Tzu (544-496 BCE), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) are together considered the founding fathers of political realism. Despite the different periods, these thinkers emphasised international politics as a continuous struggle for power.
The classical realist theory begins with Thucydides’ representation of power politics as a law of human behaviour. Writing in the context of the Greek city-state system, Thucydides, in his History of the Peloponnesian War, notes that there is a particular “natural order of things” between “strong” and “weak” states. Thucydides was both an active participant and an observer of the Peloponnesian War, a conflict between Athens and Sparta.
Thucydides noted that the leading cause for the Peloponnesian War was “the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta.” This is a classic case of how the distribution of power can shape the behaviour of state actors. Thucydides notes that Sparta’s national interest was “survival”, and the growing power of Athens meant a direct threat to its existence. He views human nature as the primary cause of the motivations of fear, honour, and self-interest.
Kautilya, popularly known as Chanakya, also provided theories of statecraft, diplomacy, strategy, and power in his Arthashastra (300 BCE). Unlike the realism professed in Western societies, Kautilya noted that the state’s primary objective is the welfare of its people. Kautilya’s Mandala Theory provides a six-fold policy for interacting with neighbours, including coexistence, neutrality, alliance, double policy, march, and war. He also employed various tactics to achieve these objectives, including conciliation, gift and bribery, dissension, deceit and pretence, and war.
In Machiavelli’s realism, the need for survival necessitates that state leaders distance themselves from moral notions. He argued that these principles were harmful if adhered to by the state leaders. Machiavelli’s moral scepticism is heavily derived from his writing of Il Principe (The Prince) in the Florentine Republic. To be successful in politics, he argued, one had to act based on human nature and not on what it should be. To Machiavelli, the need for survival was derived from human nature. Machiavelli provided some realist maxims: it is better to be feared than loved; a prince should act like a lion and a fox; it is necessary to learn not to be good.
Thomas Hobbes provides realists with an insightful account of human nature in a hypothetical state of nature condition. During the English Civil War, Hobbes provided a profound sense of man’s life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Hobbes argued that without a higher authority to provide security, there is always a state of war – every man against every man. Hobbes wrote, “the state of nature is the state of war.” According to Hobbes, the condition of international politics closely resembles a state of war.
These thinkers make up for the classical realist tradition, irrespective of the time at which they were writing. In their writings, we find that statism, survival and self-help make up for the realist theories. Statism is the idea that the state is the legitimate representative of the people’s collective will. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) provides realists with the state as the primary unit of sovereign power in international politics. However, outside the state’s borders lies the state of anarchy, where there is no world government.
Under an anarchic international system, a state’s survival depends on the power it wields. States with more power have better chances of survival, and those with less power tend to lose their existence. Therefore, power is critical for realists. Self-help is a fundamental principle of state action, as states will act in their own self-interest. According to realists, every state must ensure that its survival is its responsibility.
What is Classical Realism?
Writing against the inter-war idealist optimism, E.H. Carr, a realist thinker, provides a comprehensive critique of the League of Nations and liberal international relations theory. In his classic work, The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939, Carr demonstrates how liberal conceptions of a rational and moral world order (utopia) needed to be replaced by an analytical approach to politics that centred on power (realism).
Hans J. Morgenthau was one of the most essential and profound scholars of the realist theory of IR. In his seminal work, Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau always emphasised that international politics is a “struggle for power” like any other form of politics. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics are, “power will always remain the immediate aim”. To Morgenthau, humans were hardwired to pursue power and would do anything to attain and increase their power. Like individuals, he claimed, the goal of every state was to maximise its power.
Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Realist Theory of IR
1. Politics is governed by Objective Laws, which have roots in Human Nature
2. National Interest defined in terms of National Power
3. Interest is always Dynamic
4. Abstract Moral Principles cannot be applied to Politics
5. Difference between the Moral Aspirations of a Nation and the Universal Moral Principles
6. Autonomy of the “Political”
Morgenthau identified three patterns of power among states: to attain, increase, and project their power. He noted that these three patterns were the root cause of humanity’s lust for power. For realists, national interest is always defined in terms of power. And the most critical interest of every other state is to sustain and survive the anarchic structure of the international system. Morgenthau, like his contemporaries, argued that national interest and universal moral principles do not go along.
Realists have, over the years, accepted the balance of power as an essential element of the international system, which helps preserve the liberty of states. Balance of power means that when a state’s survival is threatened by a hegemonic state or coalition of stronger states, it should establish a formal alliance and seek to preserve its survival by checking the power of the opposing sides.
The balance of power enables an equilibrium in the international system, where no power can dominate over the other. The classic example of such a system is the Cold War competition between the East and the West, as instituted in the collective security of the Warsaw Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
What is Neorealism?
In the 1979 work of Kenneth Waltz, Theories of International Politics, structural realism (neorealism) emerged as a theory of international relations. Writing during the Cold War period, Waltz begins with international politics as a struggle for power. In his Man, The State and War (1959) and Theories of International Politics (1979), Waltz provides a scientific explanation for international politics.
In his 1959 work, Waltz classified the causes of war into three categories or levels of analysis:
1. individual level
2. state level
3. systemic level
At the individual level, according to Waltz, wars are caused by the nature of political leaders, such as state leaders, who are driven by human nature. This is consistent with classical realism. At the state level, he examines the domestic composition of the states – drawing on Lenin’s theory of imperialism, non-democratic structures, and other relevant concepts.
Waltz argues that the systemic level, characterised by the anarchic nature of the international system, causes nations to compete against one another and engage in war. He does not attribute the struggle for power to human nature.
Instead, Waltz argued that security competition, interstate conflict, and the structure of the international system.
Neorealists define the structure of the international system in terms of three elements:
1. Organising Principles
2. Differentiation of Units
3. Distribution of Capabilities
Waltz identified two organising principles: anarchy in the international system and hierarchy in the domestic political system. He also argued that the units of the international system – whether democratic or otherwise – do not matter in the functioning of sovereign states.
However, to Waltz, the third element, “distribution of capabilities,” defines the state’s behaviour in international politics. Neorealists argue that the relative distribution of power in the international system will help understand war and peace, alliance politics, and the balance of power.
For instance, during the interwar period between 1919 and 1939, multiple great powers existed, resulting in a multipolar international system. The Cold War era between 1945 and 1989 had two great powers (the USA and the USSR). And there was a balance of power.
However, since the end of the Cold War, there has been a consensus among scholars that the international system has moved towards a unipolar structure, with the United States at the helm. But, with the American pursuit of isolationism, China’s influence on the rest of the world, and the growth of non-governmental entities and their influence on the international system, the polarity question today is somewhat conflictual.
Waltz argues that states must be concerned about the capabilities of other states. To him, power was not an end in itself, as perceived by the classical realist, but a means to an end, with the ultimate goal being security. He writes that the ultimate concern for a state is not power but security. For neorealists, states are not power maximisers but security maximisers. This form of thinking was later known as defensive neorealism, the realism professed by Ken Waltz.
John Mearsheimer, in his work The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, propounds another variant of neorealism, known as offensive neorealism, which offers a different account of the power dynamics that shape the international system. Mearsheimer is different from Waltz in his assessment of state behaviour. He argues that states are power maximisers and that they understand that the best way to survive in an anarchic international system is to be the “most powerful state in the system”. In Mearsheimer’s neorealism, states can never know the intentions of other states. Therefore, he argues, states constantly seek to accumulate power, and cooperation between states becomes difficult. Becoming the only global hegemon in the international system is the ideal form of survival.
What is Neoclassical Realism?
Since the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR in 1989, several neorealist scholars have moved beyond thinking about the nature of international politics in terms of international structure and domestic politics. They claim that it is essential to think of politics in terms of the relative distribution of power and state identity, the perception of state leaders, and state-society relationships.
Neoclassical realism is a term coined by Gideon Rose in his 1998 essay for World Politics, combining classical realism and neorealism. To neoclassical realists, the concepts of perception and misperception, the intentions of other states, and domestic variables all affect decision-making in foreign policy. Some of the most prominent thinkers of neoclassical realism include Fareed Zakaria (1998), Robert Jervis (1999), Gideon Rose (1998), and William Wohlforth (1993), among others.
Even though there are several variations to the realist theory of IR, there are some essential elements upon which the theory rests. These elements, as discussed earlier, in parts, are statism, survival, and self-help. Realists emphasise that the state is the leading and essential actor in the international system. Sovereignty enables states to make and enforce laws within a territory, making states the main actors. Realists argue that states compete for power and security in the international system.
The second element, survival, unites all strands of realist theories, for they claim that the ultimate concern for all states is survival in the international system. Even though realists disagree on whether states are power-maximisers or security maximisers, they agree that states act in a manner they deem necessary to survive in the international system. As Henry Kissinger writes, “A nation’s survival is its first and ultimate responsibility; it cannot be compromised or put to risk.”
Third, self-help is again an essential aspect of the realist theory. Since there is no overarching authority over states, it becomes imperative for states to help themselves in times of crisis.
Cover Photo: By Staff Sgt. Kyle Davis – U.S. Army, Public Domain, Link | Wikimedia Commons