REALISM

Introduction: The term realism is mostly used as a synonym for power politics.
Realism is an approach to study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-states and
makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests. The national interest is generic
and easy to define all states seek to preserve their political autonomy and their territorial integrity. It takes different
form when these two interests are secured. For instances, some states may have an interest in securing more
resources or land, other states may wish to expand their own political or economic systems into other areas, some
states may merely wish to be left alone only.
Generally speaking, the national interest must be defined in terms of power. National power has an absolute
meaning since it can be defined in terms of military, economic, political, diplomatic, or even cultural resources. But
for realist it emphasizes on relative and not absolute power. It derives from the realist conception of the
international system which is for the realist, an anarchical environment. All states have to rely upon their own
resources to secure their interests, enforce whatever agreements they may have entered into with other states or to
maintain a desirable domestic and international order. There is no authority over the nation state, nor, for the
realist, should there be.
The implications of this refusal to recognize greater authority are important to recognize. The political realists’ fears
centralized authority, unless that authority is derived from the power of his or her own states. The decentralization
of the international system permits greater diversity then would be the case with an empire. On the contrary, the
natural tendency of states is to increase their power, then the preservation of a decentralized system must be
purchased with force.
The use to preserve the decentralized system is regulated by a system called the balance of power. Such a system
works only if the major powers agree, at least tacitly, that they agree that the preservation of state autonomy is an
important objective. If the major powers do agree, wars will still occur within the system, but those wars will be
constrained by the limited objectives of each major state. If one major power does not agree with the limited
objectives, the wars will be much larger and more open-ended. According to realism, states work only to increase
their own power relative to that of other states.
In fact, realism have claimed that the world is a harsh and dangerous place. The only certainty in the world is power.
A powerful state will always be able to outdo and outlast weaker competitors. The most important and reliable form
of power is military power. Politician have practiced realism as long as states have existed. Most scholars and
politicians during the cold war viewed international relations through a realist lens. Neither the United States nor the
Soviet Union trusted the other and each sought allies to protect itself and increase its political and military influence
abroad. Realism has also featured prominently in the administration of George W Brush.
Political realism in international relations
A theory of international relations is a set of ideas that explains how the international system works. Unlike an
ideology, a theory of international relations is backed up with concrete evidence. The two major theories of
international relations are realism and liberalism.
●In the discipline of international relations there are contending general theories or theoretical perspectives.
Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual
side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasis.
● Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own
security, act in pursuit of their own national interests and struggle for power. Negative side of the realists’ emphasis
on power and self-international is often their skeptic.
● National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics is sometimes a sphere without
justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states.
All the realists do not deny the presence of ethics in international relations. It can be distinguished between the
classical realism that is radical or extreme realism. While classical realism emphasizes on national interest and
cannot be justified by reason of the state. Nor does it involves the glorification of war or conflict.
The classical realists do not reject the possibility of moral judgment in international politics. They are critical of
moralism that does not take into account of political realities. They assign supreme value to successful political
action based on prudence, the ability to judge the rightness of given action from the given alternatives on the basis
of political consequences.
Realism encompasses a variety of approaches and claims a long theoretical traditions. The 20 th-century classical
realism has today been replaced by neorealism, which is an attempt to construct a more scientific approach to the
study of international relations. But both are criticized from IR theorists representing liberal, critical and post-
modern perspectives.
Roots of the realist tradition (general features of realism in international relations)
International relations realists’ emphasis the constraints imposed on politics by the nature of human beings, whom
they consider egoistic and by the absence of international government. Factors contributing to a conflict-based
paradigm of international relations are states, in which power and security become the main issues and little place
for morality. The set of premises concerning state actors, egoism, anarchy, power, security and morality that define
the realist tradition are all present in Thucydides.
Realists view human beings as inherently egoistic and self-interested to the extent that self-interest overcomes
moral principles. It is debated that considerations of right wrong have “never turned people aside from the
opportunities of aggrandizement offered be superior strength.”
Realists and neorealist consider the absence of government of government, literally anarchy to be the primary
determinant of international political outcomes. Lacking of common rule-making and enforcing authority means that
international arena is essentially a self-help system. It is pertinent to note that each state is responsible for its own
survival and is free to define its own interests and to pursue power. Thus, anarchy leads to a situation in which
power has the overriding role in shaping interstate relations.
Realism envision the world of states as anarchic, they likewise view security as a central issue. To attain security,
states try to increase their power and engage in power-balancing for the purpose of deterring potential aggressors.
Wars are fought to prevent competing nations from becoming militarily stronger. For instance, Thucydides would
locate the cause of the war in the changing distribution of power between two blocs of Greek city-states.
Realists are generally skeptical about the relevance of morality to international politics and it leads them to claim
that there is no place for morality in international relation. Therefore, this creates tension especially the states who
own morality that is different from customary morality or that morality.
Key assumptions of realism
1. It is assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self-centered and competitive. It is contrast
to other theories of international relations such as liberalism.
2. The international system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions;
states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher
controlling.
3. It also assumes that the sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations,
or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs.
3. Each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own national interest, and the primary interest of each
state is to ensure its own security.
4. In the pursuit of security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are
determined by their relative level of power.
5. The overriding national interest of each state is its national security and survival.
6. Relations between states are determined by their comparative level of power derived primarily from their military
and economic capabilities.
7. There are no universal principles which all state can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must be ever aware
of the actions of the states must be ever aware of the actions of the states around it and must sue a pragmatic
approach to resolve the problems that arise.
8. The injection of morality into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the
escalation of conflict.

Limitations
1. The realist theory neglects those factors that influence the quality and quantity of power used by the state. For
example, the domestic compulsions that affect national power, the nature of regime, the structure of power beliefs
and values which account a great deal for nation’s goal are either left out or ignored.
2. Morgenthau equates politics with power, but politics should deal with all other variables of social sciences.
3. Morgenthau places too much emphasis on the interests and power. A power monism does not account for all
politics even in world affairs.
4. The realist did not explain the forces behind the new institutions beginning to be constructed in Western Europe
in 1950s and 1960s, where the cooperative pursuit of mutual advantage rather than narrow self-interest appeared
to dominate.
5. Finally, to say that international behavior comes out of human nature does mean anything. In fact, international
behavior is often indeterminate-defies all these laws.
6. It forgets that same facts or realities may mean different things to different people.
7. The post- realism suggests that realism is a form of social scientific and political rhetoric. It opens rather than
closes a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations.
8. Democratic peace theory also advocates that realism is not applicable to democratic states relations with each
other, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another.
9. it brings out the fact that their contentions and conclusions were frequently at odds and even contradictory at
times because nations and their leaders think and act in terms of interests defined as power but o the other ,
statesman are urged to exercise prudence and restraint as well as to recognize the legitimate national interests of
other nations.
10. Realists have recently reconstructedand reformulated it as a general theory known primarily as neo-realism
which emphasizes the archaic nature of global society without governance rather human nature and the unending
desire for power in its explanation for why states behave and interact as they do.
11. Many of the assumptions of the realist school of thought were not testable or empirically verifiable and it did not
have a methodology for the resolution of its competition claims. Example, arm race between USA and USSR known
as the cold war and the bloody wars in the Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
12. Realism did not account for a number of significant new developments in the field of international relations. It
denounced that realism’s tendency to ignore ethical principles and worried about the material and social from costs
that some of its policy prescriptions seemed to impose such as retarded economic growth resulting unrestrained
military expenditure.

Six principles of political realism

1. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in
human nature. In order to improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The
operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure.
2. Realism assumes that its key concept of interest is defined as power. It is an objective category which is universally
valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. The idea of interest is indeed
of the essence of politics and is unaffected by the circumstances of time and place.
3. The concept of interest defined in terms of power provides the link between reason trying to understand
international politics and the facts to be understood. It sets politics ass an autonomous sphere of action and
understand apart from other spheres, such as economics (understood in terms of interest defined as wealth), ethics
aesthetics, of religion. Without such a concept a theory of politics, international or domestic, would be altogether
impossible, for without it we could not distinguish between political and nonpolitical facts, nor could we bring at
least a measure of systematic order to the political sphere.
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension
between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the
universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry.
6. The international system is regarded an anarchic and based on self-help, the most powerful units set the scene of
action for others as well as for themselves. These major powers are referred to as poles; hence the international
system (or a regional subsystem) at a particular point in time may be characterized as unipolar, bipolar or multipolar.

Key concepts in the realist approach

1. National interest
One of the key concepts of the realist approach is none other than foreign policy because it plays a primary source
for the wellbeing of the national interest. But there are certain circumstances that arises in this matter because of
the time and space. For example when Napoleon and Hitler tried to serve their own county according to their
national interest it failed and downfell.Moregenthau has been a systematic and consistent supporter of the premise
that diplomat strategy or foreign policy should be motivated by national interest rather by ideological consideration.
He equates national interest with the pursuit of state power, where power stands for anything that establishes and
maintains control but one state over another. This power control relationship can be achieved through coercive as
well as cooperative techniques. He was criticized for constructing two abstract and on imprecise concepts of power
and interest. But he stands firm on his view that great abstractions such as power and interest cannot and should
not be quantified. Further, political action is not finite, precise and clearly observable. Therefore, if we look
accurately the political concepts there are vague and imprecise.
National interest is intricately intertwined with the question of national survival. Morgenthau puts it the minimum
requirement of nation-states is to protect their physical, political and cultural identify against possible
encroachments by other nation-states. It is this sole objective of survival, argues Moregenthau which justifies a
whole range of cooperative and conflictive policies such as competitive armaments, balance of power, foreign aid,
alliances, subversion and economic and propaganda warfare.
But it does at times become a licenses for the countenance of atrocities on the weaker nations. It is not rigorously
defined. For instance, national interest is a necessary criterion of policy appears too obvious with the result that no
one would ever argue that the state ought to act in opposition to its national interest.
2. National power
Power could be defined as ‘man’s control over the minds and actions of other men’. The realists have two views
regarding the concept of power. Firstly power is a relational concept in the sense that one does not exercise power
in a vacuum, but always in relation to another entity. Secondly power is seen as a relative concept. It means that in
the international system it may not be enough to calculate one’s own power capabilities, but also the power of other
states. However holding a power of states presents a serious challenge. The challenge gets further aggravated as it is
merely calculated in terms of the number of troops, tanks, aircrafts and naval ships that a particular country possess.
This will lead to further build up of physical force to outstripping the power of the perceived enemy country.
Contemporary structural realist like k. Waltz has suggested that capabilities can be ranked according to their
strength in the following areas: size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military
strength, political stability and competence.
However, critics point out, resource strength need not always lead to military victory. For instance in the 1967 six-
day war between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, thedistribution of resources clearly favored the Arab coalition
and yet the supposedly weaker side annihilated its enemies forces and seized their territory. Even power as
capabilities has proved even less successful at explaining the relative economic success of Japan over China. Its
exclusive focus upon state power is also another problem. For realists states are the only actors that really count. As
a result transnational corporations, international organizations and religious denominations are rarely taken
seriously in the realist framework. Moreover, itis not clear that these non-states actors are autonomous from state
power.
3. National security
The concept of national security or national survival is treated as fundamental value in the foreign policy of all
states. Classical realists stress the ensuring national security and survival must be considered as the supreme
national interest to which all political leaders must adhere. Henry Kissinger says the nation’s survival is its first and
ultimate responsibility; it cannot be compromised or put to risk’. Waltz also says that beyond the survival motive, the
aim of states may be endlessly varied. Despite the unanimity recent developments in the realist thinking indicate a
raging controversy over the question of whether states are in fact principally security or power maximizers. It will
have a significant for the prospects of international peace and co-operation. Defensive realists argue that it is
security which is the principal interest of the states and that they seek to obtain only as much power as it is sufficient
to ensure their own survival. While offensive realists on the other hand argue that the ultimate goal of all states is to
achieve a hegemonic position in the international system. Therefore states would always desire more power and are
willing if the opportunity arises and such action would jeopardize their own security.
Different theories in the realist approach
Theory of conflict
The main arguments of the realists to recognize the central importance they attach to human nature is essentially
conflicting. Because of its inherent conflicting nature of human beings it leads to a constant struggle for power
among them. The structure of the international system which is marked by perpetual conflict and perennial
condition of uncertainty in the absence of a central authority, has no space for friendship, trust and honour.
In a domestic politics, there is a pattern of authority exists to enforce private agreements and public laws but in
international politics there is not as such arrangements. As a result, anarchic international system, realist view each
state is forced to help itself and give priority to its own national interest as state survival and territorial defense.
Issue of national interest understood in terms of state survival leads to a constant struggle for power among the
states. Power broadly understood in terms of both material, psychological, military and economic capabilities. The
realists focus on the role of power and the nature of world politics as inherently conflictual in nature. Therefore
realists argue that power exists only in relative sense and all countries cannot maximize their power at the same
time a constant struggle for power and more among the states characterizes the nature of world politics.
However international system is not characterized by relentless conflict and unending war.
2. Theory of balance of power
Realists argue that security can only be realized through self-help. But when a particular country seeks to ensure its
own security by acquiring weapons and other means, it certainly create insecurity of other states. Wheeler and
booth, security dilemma exists when the military preparations of one state create unresolvable in the mind of
another. In other words states find it extremely difficult to trust one another and often suspect the intentions of
others. As a result, the military preparations of one state are to be invariably matched by neighboring states.
Balance of power is all about fashioning a pattern of interaction amongst states that tend to curb aggression and
expansion by tendering them impracticable. It means while pursuing their nation interest and nation security, states
do enter into alliances which when properly against one another may guarantee prolonged periods of peace and
security. But it is impossible to predict how long would such peace and stability last. Many times it breaks down and
follows by a war.
Even a self-help system, the balance of power can emerge even in the absence of a conscious policy to maintain the
balance.
But all varieties of realism belief that the balance of power is not a stable condition whether it the contrived balance
of the concert of Europe in the early 19 th century or the more fortuitousbalance of the cold war. The precipitating
factor for the breakdown of such a balance of power could neither be war or peaceful change. Hover, the relists
argue that a new balance of power soon replaces the old ones. Due to continual collapsing state can only mitigate
the worst consequences of the security dilemma but cannot escape it altogether. The realists attribute the reason
for the existence of such conditions to the absence of trust in the international system.
3. Theory of deterrence
The theory of deterrence is a new name for balance of power in the modern nuclear age. It also known as nuclear
diplomacy and it refers to some very specific aspects of diplomacy that emerged after the 2 nd world war. Late 1940s
until the end of the 1980s, world politics was dominated by the ideological confrontation between USA and USSR.
Each superpower supported by network of allies sought to undermine and defeat the other by all means short of a
real or a hot war.
Nuclear diplomacy refers to the interactions between states that possess nuclear weapons where one or more states
threaten to use them to dissuade an opponent from undertaking an action. In other words the theory of deterrence
is based on the assumption that in a nuclear age possession of nuclear weapons by one state or one block of states
would deter the enemy state or the enemy camp from making first use of the nuclear option in the course of a likely
war.