Political realism in international relations theories
“We know that nobody takes over the world with the intention of leaving it. Power is not a means, but an end in itself. A dictatorship is not established to safeguard a revolution;The revolution is made to establish a dictatorship. The objective of persecution is nothing more than the persecution itself. Torture is only the same torture. And the object of power is nothing more than power ".
George Orwell
Every day it is heard in the media discussing internal conflicts in states and tensions between them;Frequently there is talk of free trade agreements, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Organization of African Unity, the United Nations and the bloody wars in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the NATO interventionsin Kosovo;On Yankee imperialism, and the powerful Russia, the Venezuelan crisis and the contradictions of Colombia against the scourge of drug trafficking and peace dynamics in its post -conflict process.
These great political issues are mediated by the way states are related to each other, from there the theories of international relations are born from multiple theoretical approaches, some of them from classical perspectives and that at the time were instituted as hegemonic lines forUnderstand international relations, idealism and political realism.
The study of international relations as an autonomous discipline is recent- although it has a long tradition- and concrete, in marked in the great world wars of the twentieth century, it tries to explain and describe how the interaction between the states is. Lerma in a 1991 text indicates:
The theory of international relations has a short scientific career. In its four decades of existence, various schools, trends or currents have occurred, giving rise to a series of debates. The debates, essentially three, constitute the pulls of this discipline. The debate between idealists and realistic originates with the birth of matter, in the preamble of the Cold War. Next, the sixties contributes so far qualified as great debate that took place between traditionalists and scientists or Behaviorists. Finally, the eighties has behaved the appearance of the third and current discipline debate. Paraphrasing the title of a book that addresses this theme.
Political realism has a philosophical, historical and political tradition that is clearly defined and defined under the proposals of some classical authors: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hamilton, and. H Carr, Morgenthau and L. J Herz, among others. Luis Gold wants to approach the context in which political realism arises in the following terms:
Realpolitik expression began to be used in Germany in the mid -nineteenth century. She was originally used to denote the analytical and conjectural nuance (at the expense of the merely normative) that had the reflections on effective behavior – that is, historical and concrete – of political actors. The analytical approach was intended to extract practical rules that serve to guide the action itself. Such emphasis and such purpose explain the fact that their cultivators have been and are aulic advisors, allergic political scientists to normativism, historians and diplomats.
The question that arises is what should we understand by political realism in international relations? To understand the problem, the precision and clarification that the matter of the academic Pauselli is relevant in her book Theories of international relations and the explanation of external aid, in which she collects fundamental topics of the traditional authors of this current and that expresses this is:
Realism explains international reality from the primary interest of the states to maximize their survival, security or power (as an instrument for the other first two objectives), both from the final objective of the domination of other nations (Morgenthau 1986),or of the characteristics of the structure in which they are inserted. In this sense, it is necessary to differentiate between the postulates of classical realism and neorealism or structural realism.
Power and war are erected as fundamental analytical categories for political realism, with which, it aims to understand how relations between actors in the international arena, but, this trend has a positivist and axiomatic research model. From the origin of international relations there has been an antagonistic relationship between realism and idealism. Now, Mónica Solomon warns that important debates have been given, which must be discerned to historically and ideologically understand international relations, the author in question divides them into five debates: the first, realistic criticism of idealism;the second, globalist and statist perspectives;The third, Neorrealism and neoliberalism -due to the same, is also called the neo -Ene -;the fourth, reflectivist or dissident trends-critical theories, postmodernism and feminism;and the fifth, constructivism and international society. Focusing on that first debate referred to, a brief approach on what this consisted of:
The debate between realism and idealism has its origins in the postwarmInternational relations to the extent that he could not anticipate or avoid the conditions that gave rise to a second global war war.
Since then, and until today, political realism has been one of the most recurring ways to understand the world of international relations as well as to justify certain international political impact decisions that are taken at certain conjunctures;However, before a universal principle, we must understand political realism as "analytical model, elaborated from the study of factual reality, which aims to establish what is the rationality that governs the field of politics".
The two great lines of thought that have traditionally dominated the consideration of international relations, the realistic and the idealist, have always revolved around the phenomenon of power. If the first has enthroned power and its increase as the engine and explanation of international relations, the second has simply been, in most cases, a reaction of condemnation of power, based on the idea that power,As an engine of international life, it can and should be eliminated and replaced through the implementation of international institutions. Both currents have reached this day, so that power continues to be the axis on which the dominant consideration of international relations revolves.
At present, the thought of political realism in international relations or rather neo -Relationship in the international arehegemonic currents as with dissidents (critical theories, feminisms and postmodernism).
It is important to notice that much of what was said by political realism is based on the six principles of Morgenthau’s political realism exposed in his book writings on international politics, which are succinctly:
- Politics is governed by objective laws that are its roots in human nature.
- Concept of interest defined in terms of power.
- The concept of interest defined as power is an objective category with universal validity, but does not give it a meaning established once forever.
- Aware of the tension between moral imperative and the demands of political action.
- He refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a nation concentrates with moral laws that govern the universe.
- Different political realism and other schools of real and deep thought.
However, the classical theory of political realism has currently allowed neorealism with multiple nuances:
“Realism is not a monolithic theory, but is classified as classical realism and structural neo -realism, in offensive and defensive realism. Offensive realism is called opportunism and technological by Lieber (2005), from whose perspective technology is that states employ to pursue their policies. In technological opportunism, the states rarely see the developments of the new technology as means to preserve the status quo or point out benign intensions, but as an opportunity ”.
Conclusions
Political realism is articulated with many other issues of great breath, such as multipolarism of the 21st century, as Vidal de la Rosa reviews it in its 2010 article that is titled: to be or not to be) political realism and theMultipolarism of the 21st century:
Realism is associated with an ancient tradition of understanding relations between states. In other words. The State is the decisive actor. As is known, since the nineteenth century it was called Realpolitik to this position. Realpolitik emerged as well as geopolitics and both of the fallacy that the State, a priori, can be considered as an individual. This error is very common and has been demolished by contemporary political science. The State is not a conscious actor. There is no reason for state as there is no rational state (as Hegel wanted) and since there is no something like a ‘reflexive modernity’. They are simple rhetorical errors. What does exist are political classes that must govern institutional complexes and maneuver in an agitated world where there are other ruling classes that promote interests of the states that command. As these relationships can be cooperative and/or conflictive and always a mixture of both reasons, realism is easily definable as the ability of that class, or better, of its members, of understanding where they are sitting, what they expect from theothers, what resources they have and with what ability or efficiency they can use them.
Political realism in international relations theories is of an irrelevance, despite its declines and moments of splendor, it has not been relegated as obsolete theory in the interpretation of relations between the actors of the international level, but increasinglySome of its budgets are reaffirmed, especially in the impossibility of completely eliminating war dynamics between states, in part this theory has put in check the utopia of democratic liberalism in believing that we advance in human perfectibility and in eradication ofThe great conflicts between the states and that we will live in a harmonic world, of peace and world security. However, this theory becomes more important to the extent that dialogue and discusses with reflectivist or dissident theories – critical theories, feminisms and postmodernisms-.
Leave feedback