However, how can a society be democratic without being majoritarian? How is a dictated policy not mandated? At what point do an individual’s needs outweigh the needs of the many. Communitarian views also hold to the beliefs that ‘exclusive pursuits of private interests’ is destructive to and erodes the experiment called democratic self-government. Further it contends that individual rights cannot remain intact without a communitarian perspective; that human dignity and the social dimension are recognized equally.
Finally, we will attempt to give an explanation to the conceptual nature of this situation with respect to the liberal theory. Realists portray States’ behavior as a struggle for power resulting from the anarchical structure of the international system. States are unitary actors with the objective of safeguarding security and sovereignty with military capabilities. Suspicion prevails so states continuously envision and prepare conducive to fight or counter fight in an environment conducive to conflict. States are concerned by their position in the balance of power, i.e.
Pluralism vs. Realism In our society, various interpretations of international relations influence our views of the trends between nations. These perspectives aid us in orienting our research and readings by placing emphasis on specific actors or concepts, or by disregarding and ignoring others. Through differing understandings of international interactions, the occurrences in the world are analyzed differently. These ways of thought are known as paradigms, which present a set of assumptions, and concepts that constitute a way of viewing reality. Two major dissimilar paradigms used to analyze international politics are realism and pluralism.
Waltz argues in favor of this reinterpretation in order to make political realism a more accurate theory of international politics. He suggests a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a restriction on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is comparable to a microeconomic model in which firms accept both their prices and quantity based on the market. Neorealists endeavor to simplify explanations of behavior with a view to explaining and predicting general tendencies better. They stress the structure of the international system in their analyses as a clarifying feature over states, which are emphasized by earlier realists, and over the natural characteristics of human beings.
Liberal internationalism Two main bases; The first is the fear of and international ‘state of nature’ Idea that self-determination is a mixed blessing, While preserves self-government it creates a world of sovereign nation states controlling own freedoms and interests, possibly at the extent of other nations. In conditions of international anarchy, self-restraint may not be enough to ensure enduring peace. Two forms of prevention have been proposed First being international independence with the intention of promoting cooperation; (this is why liberal s support free trade between free nations) material cost would be huge in conflict, war would therefore be unthinkable. Libs also proposed a supernatural body/ bodies to bring order to otherwise lawless international structure. Seen in social contract theory; government is the solution to problem of disorder.
As he states, the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz finds it imprudent for states to search for global hegemony “because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p73). Since the question of power is not answered by the defensive theory, interest shifts towards the other model. Accordingly, offensive realism finds it admissible to certify that survival is the ultimate goal, and power is just the tool (measurable) to ensure that end is fully realized: “The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival.” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p74). That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future.
Let us first establish parameters of these two perspectives: Realism: is the view that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest creating a dynamic among countries that is a struggle for power. (Rourke, J p.20) Idealism / Liberalism: is the view that the people and nations of the world are driven by mutual interests seeking to cooperate to achieve common goals through international organizations and according to international law. (Rourke, J p.23) As we move into the study of international politics and relations it is apparent that both of these schools of thought understand that people and countries have defined goals. All people, societies, and states are striving to achieve security and stability and that is the goal of both realism and idealism. The security and stability that states are seeking comes once a balance of power has been achieved.
From these I consider to be essential the balance’s significance of ‘Distribution of Power’, seen as a competition among states, when one competitor overpowers the other (Haas, 1953:447); and its significance of ‘Equilibrium’, which suggests equality of forces among opposing states (Haas, 1953:448). On the other hand, while there are some theoreticians who acknowledge Morgenthau’s ideas concerning the ‘balance of power’ as an ‘equilibrium of forces’ as Nye(2013:82) highlights it in his book ‘Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation’ , there are also ideologists who share other views on the above-mentioned theory. They are followers of
At the heart of this essay, we will not only look at both sides of the debate, but also ultimately look to prove that both philosophies are quite practical, depending on the position of the nation in question, from a global financial standpoint. On one hand, we have Aldo Musacchio, who defines state capitalism as a system in which both democratic and autocratic governments apply extensive influence on their own economies, “through direct ownership or various subsidies”. He claims not to be an advocate of state capitalism; however, he advises liberalists to adopt some sort of a state capitalist system. He claims, “a hybrid form of capitalism – state support disciplined by the market” – provides state capitalism with new features and advantages. Firstly, it creates ‘National Champions’ that have fast risen up in the corporate world.
Can foreign policy be both “ethical” and Realist? “What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?”1 Foreign policy can be said to be the discourse of international politics – the means by which states present themselves, forge inter-state relationships and attempt to advance their own interests. However even a cursory examination of the topic yields several differing views on it, falling under the umbrella of several theories – Liberal Internationalism, Realism and Marxism, to name a few. Examining the Realist view in particular, raises the question of whether foreign policy is conducted purely for national self-interest, or whether it can have elements of morality and ethics factor into the justifications and motivations involved. Realism is the evolution of a long tradition of political thought, able to be traced as far back as Thucydides and his Melian dialogue; the core of Machiavelli’s famous treatise The Prince; keenly visible in the inter-war period of the 20th Century, and now seemingly ingrained in political thought as the “realistic” approach to politics, focused around the pursuit of power – “Man's control over the minds and actions of other men.”2 In the anarchic international system, with politically identical (that is, sovereign) states all jostling for position, the Realist view is one of self-help and a struggle for survival.