Political Realism Created by Mike Lauletta, May 1996, POSC 474

Realism is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-
state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interest diguised as moral
concerns.
At it's most fundamental level, the national interest is a generic and easy to define; all states seek to preserve
their political autonomy and their territorial integrity. Once these two interests have been secured, however,
national interests may take different forms. 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.
Generally speaking, however, 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 cultural
resources.
This emphasis on relative, and not absolute power, derives from the realist conception of the international
system, which is, for the realist, an anarchical environment. All states have to rely upon thier own resources
to secure their interests, self-help, to enforce whatever agreements they may have entered into with others
states, or to maintain 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 realist
fears centralized authority, unless that authority is derived form the power of his or her own state. The
decentralization of the international system permits greater diversity than would be the case with an empire
Since, however, the natural tendency of states is to increase their power, the preservation of a decentralized
system must be purchased with force.
The use of force 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 the preservation of state autonomy
is an important objective. If the major powers agree, wars will still occur within they system, but those wars
will be constrained by the limimited objectives of each major state. If one major power does not agree with
the limited objectives, then wars wil be much larger an more open-ended.

Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism

1. Politic's, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature which
is unchanging: therefore it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these objective laws.
2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power which infuses
rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics
possible. Political realism stresses the rational, objective and unemotional.
3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid but not
with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. Power is the control of man over man.
4. Political realism is aware of the moral signifigance of political action. it is also aware of the tension
between moral command and the requirements of successful political action.
5. Political realsim refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that
govern the universe. It is the concept fo interest defined in terms of power that saves us from the moral
excess and political folly.
6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere. He asks "How soes this policy affect
the power of the nation?" Political realism is based on a pluralistic conception of human nature. A man who
was nothing but "political man" would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints.
But, in order to develop an autonomous theory of political behavior, "political man" must be abstracted from
other aspects of human nature.

Political Realism
Political realism is a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political
relations. It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether
in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should,
strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents
that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a
prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own
interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps
only can pursue) power or self-interest.
Political realism in essence reduces to the political-ethical principle that might is right. The theory has a long
history, being evident in Thucydides' Pelopennesian War. It was expanded on by Machiavelli in The Prince,
and others such as Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau followed (the theory was given
great dramatical portrayed in Shakespeare's Richard III). In the late nineteenth century it underwent a new
incarnation in the form of social darwinism, whose adherents explained social and hence political growth in
terms of a struggle in which only the fittest (strongest) cultures or polities would survive. Political realism
assumes that interests are to be maintained through the exercise of power, and that the world is characterised
by competing power bases. In international politics, most political theorists emphasise the nation state as the
relevant agent, whereas Marxists focus on classes. Prior to the French Revolution in which nationalism as a
political doctrine truly entered the world's stage, political realism involved the political jurisdictions of ruling
dynasties, whilst in the nineteenth century, nationalist sentiments focused realists' attentions on the
development of the nation-state, a policy that was later extended to include imperialist ambitions on the part
of the major Western powers-Britain and France, and even Belgium, Germany and the United States were
influenced by imperialism. Nationalist political realism later extended into geo-political theories, which
perceive the world to be divided into supra-national cultures, such as East and West, North and South, Old
World and New World, or focusing on the pan-national continental aspirations of Africa, Asia, etc. Whilst
the social darwinist branch of political realism may claim that some nations are born to rule over others
(being 'fitter' for the purpose, and echoing Aristotle's ruminations on slavery in Book 1 of the The Politics),
generally political realists focus on the need or ethic of ensuring that the relevant agent (politician, nation,
culture) must ensure its own survival by securing its own needs and interests before it looks to the needs of
others.
To explore the various shades and implications of the theory, its application to international affairs is
examined.
Descriptive political realism commonly holds that the international community is characterized by anarchy,
since there is no overriding world government that enforces a common code of rules. Whilst this anarchy
need not be chaotic, for various member states of the international community may engage in treaties or in
trading patterns that generate an order of sorts, most theorists conclude that law or morality does not apply
beyond the nation's boundaries. Arguably political realism supports Hobbes's view of the state of nature,
namely that the relations between self-seeking political entities are necessarily a-moral. Hobbes asserts that
without a presiding government to legislate codes of conduct, no morality or justice can exist: "Where there
is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice… if there be no Power erected, or not
great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution
against all other men." (Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, Ch.13 'Of Man', and Part II, Ch.17, 'Of Commonwealth')
Accordingly, without a supreme international power or tribunal, states view each other with fear and
hostility, and conflict, or the threat thereof, is endemic to the system.
Another proposition is that a nation can only advance its interests against the interests of other nations; this
implies that the international environment is inherently unstable. Whatever order may exists breaks down
when nations compete for the same resources, for example, and war may follow. In such an environment, the
realists argue, a nation has only itself to depend on.
Either descriptive political realism is true or it is false. If it is true, it does not follow, however, that morality
ought not to be applied to international affairs: what ought to be does not always follow from what is. A
strong form of descriptive political realism maintains that nations are necessarily self-seeking, that they can
only form foreign policy in terms of what the nation can gain, and cannot, by their very nature, cast aside
their own interests. However, if descriptive realism is held, it is as a closed theory, which means that it can
refute all counter-factual evidence on its own terms (for example, evidence of a nation offering support to a
neighbour as an ostensible act of altruism, is refuted by pointing to some self-serving motive the giving
nation presumably has--it would increase trade, it would gain an important ally, it would feel guilty if it
didn't, and so on), then any attempt to introduce morality into international affairs would prove futile.
Examining the soundness of descriptive political realism depends on the possibility of knowing political
motives, which in turn means knowing the motives of the various officers of the state and diplomats. The
complexity of the relationship between officers' actions, their motives, subterfuge, and actual foreign policy
makes this a difficult if not impossible task, one for historians rather than philosophers. Logically, the closed
nature of descriptive realism implies that a contrary proposition that nations serve no interests at all, or can
only serve the interests of others, could be just as valid. The logical validity of the three resulting theories
suggests that preferring one position to another is an arbitrary decision-i.e., an assumption to be held, or not.
This negates the soundness of descriptive realism; it is not a true or false description of international relations
but is reduced to an arbitrary assumption. Assumptions can be tested against the evidence, but in themselves
cannot be proved true or false. Finally, what is the case need not be, nor need it ought to be.
That the present international arena of states is characterized by the lack of an overarching power is an
acceptable description. Evidentially, war has been common enough to give support to political realism-there
have been over 200 wars and conflicts since the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The seemingly
anarchic state of affairs has led some thinkers to make comparisons with domestic anarchy, when a
government does not exist to rule or control a nation. Without a world power, they may reason, war, conflict,
tension, and insecurity have been the regular state of affairs; they may then conclude that just as a domestic
government removes internal strife and punishes local crime, so too ought a world government control the
activities of individual states-overseeing the legality of their affairs and punishing those nations that break
the laws, and thereby calming the insecure atmosphere nations find themselves in. However, the 'domestic
analogy' makes the presumption that relations between individuals and relations between states are the same.
Christian Wolff, for example, holds that "since states are regarded as individual free persons living in a state
of nature, nations must also be regarded in relation to each other as individual free persons living in a state of
nature." (Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum Trans. Joseph Drake. Clarendon Press: Oxford,
1934, §2, p.9). Such an argument involves the collectivization of individuals and/or the personification of
states: realism may describe nations as individuals acting upon the world stage to further their own interests,
but behind the concept of 'France' or 'South Africa' exist millions of unique individuals, who may or may not
agree with the claims for improving the national interest. Some (e.g., Gordon Graham, Ethics and
International Relations, 1997) claim that the relationships between states and their civilians are much more
different than those between nation states, since individuals can hold beliefs and can suffer whereas states
cannot. If the domestic analogy does not hold, arguably a different theory must be proposed to explain the
state of international affairs, which either means revising political realism to take into account the more
complex relationship between a collective and individual entities, or moving to a alternative theory of
international relations.
Beyond the descriptive propositions of political realism, prescriptive political realism argues that whatever
the actual state of international affairs, nations should pursue their own interests. This theory resolves into
various shades depending on what the standard of the national interest is claimed to be and the moral
permissibility of employing various means to desired ends. Several definitions may be offered as to what
ought to comprise the national interest: more often than not the claims invoke the need to be economically
and politically self-sufficient, thereby reducing dependency on untrustworthy nations.
The argument in supporting the primacy of self-sufficiency as forming the national interest has a long
history: Plato and Aristotle both argued in favour of economic self-sufficiency on grounds of securing a
nation's power-nations, they both reasoned, should only import non-necessary commodities. The power of
this economic doctrine has been often been used to support political realism: in the eighteenth century
especially, political theorists and mercantilists maintained that political power could only be sustained and
increased through reducing a nation's imports and increasing its exports. The common denominator between
the two positions is the proposition that a nation can only grow rich at the expense of others. If England's
wealth increases, France's must concomitantly decrease. This influential tier supporting political realism is,
however, unsound. Trade is not necessarily exclusively beneficial to one party: it is often mutually
beneficial. The economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo explained the advantages to be gained by both
parties from free, unfettered trade. Nonetheless, the realist may admit this and retort that despite the gains
from trade, nations should not rely on others for their sustenance, or that free trade ought not to be supported
since it often implies undesired cultural changes. In that respect, the nation's interests are defined as lying
over and above any material benefits to be gained from international collaboration and co-operation. The
right to a separate cultural identity is a separate
Political realists are often characterised as a-moralists, that any means should be used to uphold the national
interest, but a poignant criticism is that the definition of morality is being twisted to assume that acting in
one's own or one's nation's interests is immoral or amoral at best. This is an unfair claim against serving one's
national interest, just as claiming that any self-serving action is necessarily immoral on the personal level.
The discussion invokes the ethics of impartiality; those who believe in a universal code of ethics argue that a
self-serving action that cannot be universalized is immoral. However, universalism is not the only standard
of ethical actions. Partiality, it can be claimed, should play a role in ethical decisions; partialists deem it
absurd that state officials should not give their own nation greater moral weight over other nations, just as it
would be absurd for parents to give equal consideration to their children and others' children. But if morality
is employed in the sense of being altruistic, or at least universalistic, then political realists would rightly
admit that attempting to be moral will be detrimental to the national interest or for the world as a whole, and
therefore morality ought to be ignored. But, if morality accepts the validity of at least some self-serving
actions, then ipso facto political realism may be a moral political doctrine.

Morton Kaplan's Rules of the Balance of Power

1. All states act to increase capabilities but negotiate rather than fight.
2. All states fight rather than pass up an opportunity to increase their capabilities.
3. All states stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential state.
4. All states act to oppose any coalition or single state which tends to assume a position of
predominance within the system.
5. All states act to constrain states who subscribe to supranational organizing principles.
6. All states permit defeated or constrained essential national states to re-enter the system as acceptable
role partners or to pact to bring some previously inessential state within the essential state
classification. Treat all essential states as acceptable role partners.
From: Morton A. Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics (New York, 1957).

Balance of Power Theory

As a theory, balance of power predicts that rapid changes in international power and status—especially
attempts by one state to conquer a region—will provoke counterbalancing actions. For this reason, the
balancing process helps to maintain the stability of relations between states. A balance of power system
functions most effectively when alliances are fluid, when they are easily formed or broken on the basis of
expediency, regardless of values, religion, history, or form of government. Occasionally a single state plays a
balancer role, shifting its support to oppose whatever state or alliance is strongest. A weakness of the
balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring power. (Extract from 'Balance of Power,' Microsoft®
Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.)

Complex Interdependence Theory

The term 'complex interdependence' was developed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye and refers to the
various, complex transnational connections (interdependencies) between states and societies.
Interdependence theorists noted that such relations, particularly economic ones, were increasing; while the
use of military force and power balancing were decreasing (but remained important). Reflecting on these
developments, they argued that the decline of military force as a policy tool and the increase in economic
and other forms of interdependence should increase the probability of cooperation among states. The
complex interdependence framework can be seen as an attempt to synthesise elements of realist and liberal
thought. Finally, anticipating problems of cheating and relative gains raised by realists, interdependence
theorists introduced the concept of 'regimes' to mitigate anarchy and facilitate cooperation. Here, we can see
an obvious connection to neo-liberal institutionalism. See Keohane, R. and J. Nye. 1977. Power and
Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little-Brown, Boston. (2nd edition,1989).

Dependency Theory

Dependency theorists assert that so-called 'third-world' countries were not always 'poor', but became
impoverished through colonial domination and forced incorporation into the world economy by expansionist
'first-world' powers. Thus, 'third-world' economies became geared more toward the needs of their 'first-world'
colonial masters than the domestic needs of their own societies. Proponents of dependency theory contend
that relationships of dependency have continued long after formal colonization ended. Thus, the primary
obstacles to autonomous development are seen as external rather than internal, and so 'third-world'
countries face a global economy dominated by rich industrial countries. Because 'first-world' countries never
had to contend with colonialism or a world full of richer, more powerful competitors, dependency theorists
argue that it is unfair to compare contemporary 'third-world' societies with those of the 'first-world' in the early
stages of development.

Functionalism

A focus on purposes or tasks, particularly those performed by organisations. Some theorists have explained
the growth of organisations, particularly international organisations, as a response to an increase in the
number of purposes or tasks demanding attention. Neofunctionalism as a theory of regional integration
emphasizes the political calculation and pay-off to elites who agree to collaborate in the performance of
certain tasks (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York).

Game Theory

A decision-making approach based on the assumption of actor rationality in a situation of competition. Each
actor tries to maximize gains or minimize losses under conditions of uncertainty and incomplete information,
which requires each actor to rank order preferences, estimate probabilities, and try to discern what the other
actor is going to do. In a two-person zero-sum game, what one actor wins the other loses; if A wins, 5, B
loses 5, and the sum is zero. In a two-person non-zero or variable sum game, gains and losses are not
necessarily equal; it is possible that both sides may gain. This is sometimes referred to as a positive-sum
game. In some games, both parties can lose, and by different amounts or to a different degree. So-called n-
person games include more than two actors or sides. Game theory has contributed to the development of
models of deterrence and arms race spirals, but it is also the basis for work concerning the question of how
collaboration among competitive states in an anarchic world can be achieved: The central problem is that the
rational decision for an individual actor such as a state may be to "defect" and go it alone as opposed to
taking a chance on collaboration with another state actor. Dealing with this problem is a central concern of
much of the literature on international regimes, regional integration, and conflict resolution (Viotti, P. and M.
Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Neoliberal Institutionalism

Encompasses those theories which argue that international institutions play an important role in coordinating
international cooperation. Proponents begin with the same assumptions used by realists, except for the
following: where realists assume that states focus on relative gains and the potential for conflict, neoliberal
institutionalists assume that states concentrate on absolute gains and the prospects for cooperation.
Neoliberal institutionalists believe that the potential for conflict is overstated by realists and suggest that there
are countervailing forces, such as repeated interactions, that propel states toward cooperation. They regard
cheating as the greatest threat to cooperation and anarchy as the lack of organisation to enforce rules
against cheating. Institutions are described by neoliberals as 'persistent and connected sets of rules (formal
or informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations' (Keohane, R.
'International Institutions: Two Approaches', in International Studies Quarterly 32, 1988). Robert Keohane is
the scholar most closely identified with neoliberal institutionalism.

Neorealism

Essentially, a systemic, balance of power theory developed by Kenneth Waltz in which states do not seek to
maximise power, but merely balance it. And because the international system is regarded as anarchic and
based on self-help, the most powerful units set the scene of action for others as well as 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 characterised as unipolar, bipolar or multipolar.

Pluralism

A tradition in international relations that argued that politics, and hence policy, was the product of a myriad of
competing interests, hence depriving the state of any independent status. Pluralism can be seen to derive
principally from a liberal tradition, rooted in Locke's 'Second Treatise of Government', and to pose an anti-
realist vision of the centrality of the state in world politics. Pluralists make four key assumptions about
international relations. Primarily, non-state actors are important entities in world politics. Secondly, the State
is not looked upon as a unified actor, rather, competition, coalition building, and compromise between
various interest groups including multinational enterprises will eventually culminate into a 'decision'
announced in the name of the state. Thirdly, pluralists challenge the realist assumption of the state as a
rational actor, and this derives from the second assumption where the clash of competing interests may not
always provide for a rational decision making process. Finally, the fourth assumption revolves around the
nature of the international agenda, where it is deemed extensive by the pluralists and includes issues of
national security as well as economic, social and environmental issues. Hence, pluralists reject the 'high
politics' 'low politics' divide characteristic of realism. They also contend with the predominance of a physical
conception of power inherent in realism.
Transnationalism

Interactions and coalitions across state boundaries that involve such diverse nongovernmental actors as
multinational corporations and banks, church groups, and terrorist networks. In some usages,
transnationalism includes both nongovernmental as well as transgovernmental links. The term transnational
is used both to label the actor (for example, a transnational actor) or a pattern of behavior (for example, an
international organisation that acts transnationally - operates across state borders). Theorists focusing on
transnationalism often deemphasise the state as primary and unitary actor (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.).
1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

World-Systems Analysis
World-systems analysis is not a theory or mode of theorizing, but a perspective and a critique of other
perspectives within social science. Its social origins were located in the geopolitical emergence of the Third
World in the late 1960s and the manifest insufficiencies of modernization theory to account for what was
happening. The unit of analysis is the world-system rather than a state or society, with particular emphases
on the long-term history and totality of the system. The notion of totality (globality, unidisciplinarity and
holism) distinguishes world-systems analysis from similar approaches such as global or international political
economy which look at the relationships between the two segregated streams of politics and economics.
Proponents of world-systems analysis also regard it as an intellectual movement, capable of transforming
social science into a vehicle for world-wide social change.