Introduction
Political realism is the belief in power as the main reason behind the action of a state. This theory also puts forward the fact that the state is the most important entity; other factors are not important. Worth noting is that the theory does not consider the world community. It assumes that there is no world authority and only individual nations matter (Ken, 1995).
Marxists believe that state economies are a result of that state’s interactions with the outside world. It puts forward the argument that market forces are not the only factors that influence state economies. In addition to the latter beliefs, it does no believe n aggregate measurements of the economy.
Idealists are concerned with preserving the existing order because they think that new ideas will result in a worse situation. At the same time, liberalists are concerned with the change they desire.
Contribution of political realism in light of the alternatives
Political realism is too presumptuous.
The reason for the above statement is because the underlying principle behind this theory is that politics is rational and that there is a reasonable explanation for the actions of states in politics. However, this is contrary to human nature, which is itself irrational. Yet states are run by these irrational humans who may not always make sensible choices. An example of this is when political leaders apologize in public for a decision they made, clearly showing that they were not rational (Richard, 1993).
Another great assumption of the theory of political realism is that power affects what states do or decide. By making this assumption, an observer is put in the position of trying to read a political leader’s mind, which is itself an exercise in futility. This is because motives are almost impossible to predict. In contrast to this theory, Marxism tries to focus its attention on the explanation of state decision rather than the motive behind it as in realism (Kimberly, 1999).
Political realism focuses on self-interest by states and does not consider the historical background or the cultural background behind foreign policy and state actions. By so doing, the theory does not put decisions into perspective. For example, a state may not opt for war if it has never engaged in it before as part of its history- it may be known as a peacekeeper and will not just act out of its own interest but will put the nation’s history into consideration. Idealism considers this fact and allows for other players to be the driving force behind a nation’s action.
The theory assumes that states do not have a moral obligation and only act out of rationale even though this may be detrimental to their citizens. However, this is not the case in real-life situations. Idealism has put that into consideration and knows that political leaders act out of a sense of ethics and integrity. This integrity may vary from individual to individual, but the underlying fact is that it does exist (Princeton, 1988).
Nations do not live in isolation, and their actions are influenced by what other nation’s value. This, however, does not apply in the theory of political realism, yet it quite crucial in explaining policies. For example, Colonial Britain continued its prolonged rule in South Africa up to the ’90s, yet other African countries had attained their independence in the 60s. Because of mounting pressure from external forces, Britain had to change its policies to conform to the external world outside South Africa’s border. Marxism is actually based on this fact as it attempts to explain a countries economic situation with regard to external influences. The interdependence between nations cannot be ignored, yet realism assumes that states are self-reliant in terms of decisions (Francis, 1980).
Political realism does not consider other standards for weighing decisions. Its only benchmark is a political one. Sometimes nations have to consider legal aspects in their decision-making. Some countries may belong to an international organization such as the United Nations, where they have signed treaties that bind them to those obligations. Decisions must therefore be in conformity to international agreements. Failure to adhere to these regulations will lead to stiff penalties in international courts of law. One such example in history was the attack of Finland by Russia which led to their expulsion from the League of Nations since they had violated their terms of the agreement.
Conclusion
Political realism has some similarities to Marxism. Some of these include; the fact that there is a clear national economic interest in existence; however, the importance placed in these national interests is what brings the two theories at odds (Richard, 1988).
In light of the above facts concerning the assumptions of the political realism theory, l would recommend that a theory that offers an explanation on international relations be adopted rather than one that has preconceived notions on what the motive behind a policy is. Marxism, in my view, is more practical than the theory of political realism. This does not mean that Marxism does not have its fair share of flaws.
References
- Francis, P. (1980): The Political Economy of War and Peace: The Sino-Soviet-American Triangle and the Modern Security Problematique; London press
- Ken, B, (1995); International Relations and the Concept of the Political: Polity Press
- Kimberly H.N (1999): Citizenship and the Modern Subject; Macmillan publishers
- Richard K. (1988): The Critical Social Theory of International Politics; a journal by Richard.
- Princeton, N. (1988); State Sovereignty, Global Civilization, and the Rearticulation of Political Space: A journal by the Princeton University, Center of International Studies
- Richard, A. (1993); World Order and the Reconstitution of Political Life: The Constitutional Foundations of World Peace, Albany, NY: SUNY Press