Realism vs. Liberalism

The theoretical paradigm of Realism, while it seems fairly undemanding and forthright, has many subcategories and underlying components, which allow it a greater level of complexity. Often viewed as being pessimistic and cynical, Realism exists as the polar opposite of Liberalism. Founded on the belief that people are genuinely decent and that individuals should maintain a certain degree of autonomy, the theory of Liberalism possesses qualities of sanguinity and confidence. Thus, herein lies the necessity for a paradigm which serves as a compromise of two such extreme viewpoints. Regionalism, in cooperation with both Realism and Liberalism, allows geographically similar states to embrace a mutual sense of identity and mutual objectives.

Established as an ideology by which to contrast from Liberalism, Realism is comprised of the following conceptions: the international realm is anarchic and consists of independent political units called states (Beavis 10); states are the most important units of action, inherently possessing some offensive military capability or power which makes them potentially dangerous to one another; states can never be sure about the intentions of other states (Keohane 25); the basic motive driving states is the survival and maintenance of sovereignty; states are instrumentally rational and think strategically about how to survive (Beavis 10).

In cooperation with the theory of Realism, comes that of Neorealism. Kenneth Waltz’s TheTheory of International Politics is a major point of reference for Neorealism, in which he sought to “systemize political realism into a rigorous, deductive systemic theory of international politics” (Keohane 15). Waltz believed that by removing the normative aspects of realism and replacing them with a universal approach which would emphasize the proper demarcation of structures and interacting units. In removing the standard aspects from realism, which included the confidence in the will of the state or a state’s consideration for a fellow actor, Waltz argued a more scientific approach to international politics was attainable (Cullifer 22). Thus, the realist theory was adapted in order to coincide with Waltz’s belief that prior theories failed to provide an accurate account of international politics due to the lines between system level and unit level.

In addition, Waltz’s conception of international politics solely involves the relations of sovereign states, operating on a principle of self-help while existing in an anarchic structure (Waltz 91). This conception of international politics demonstrates his use of four inter-related realist assertions – the sovereignty of the state, the primacy of the state-as-actor model, the fact of anarchy, and an international system based upon the assumption that states will continuously seek to ensure their survival (Cullifer 23). Also, Waltz noted that coexistence in a situation of self-help can only be achieved through the recurrent balance of power of states against each other (Waltz 94).

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Liberalism, which focuses on the natural goodness of human beings, favoring the civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. The liberalist theory maintains that any state is merely one actor on the world stage, and as a result of that fact, states should work together through the cooperation promoted by institutional mechanisms and bargaining (Beavis 7). By following one such standard, states would essentially render impotent the predisposition to center interests simply on terms of military, making the world more interdependent and balanced as a whole. Also, just as Kenneth Waltz believed that it was necessary to improve the Realist paradigm, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye took on the responsibility of enhancing and building upon the Liberalism theory.

The theory of Neoliberalism, according to Keohane and Nye, explains regional integration as a rational response by states to the dynamics of the new realities created by globalization and increased interdependence in the post Cold War era. This theory is also seen as a shift towards maximizing state welfare and interests through such cooperation. For states to form regional cooperative mechanisms is for states to attempt to avoid negative consequences from interdependence as well as to facilitate intra-regional trade linkages while simultaneously reducing costs of operating within international rules and the procurement of public goods (Keohane and Nye 19).

Fundamentally, regional integration is viewed as an incremental process through which collective action problems are resolved and formalized within institutions. Thus, the increasing of levels of interdependence between states would force cooperation and integration. Simultaneously, such economic interdependence would result in significant benefits for both parties, providing incentive for additional states to partake and adopt a Liberalist model. As a result of the aforementioned notions, the Regional approach comes into play.

Regionalism is multilateral model which encourages the expression of a common sense of identity and purpose as well as the creation and implementation of institutions that aim to execute collective goals. In order to achieve some sort of medium ground in the midst of extreme forms of Realism and Liberalism, the regional approach is not only a helpful mechanism, but also a necessary practice.

Consider, for instance, the African Union. Repeatedly, the sovereignty of African nations in undermined by the West, leaving the African people completely exploited and dependant. Yet, the AU, consisting 53 African nations, strives to promote cooperation and integration among the independent nations of Africa in the hopes of overcoming such obstacles. In fact, President Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya was recently named chairman of the AU, and he is armed with big plans of transforming Africa as we know it. Colonel Qaddafi is an ardent supporter of a long-held dream of transforming Africa, a collection of post-colonial fragments divided by borders that were drawn arbitrarily by Western powers, into a vast, unified state that could play a powerful role in global affairs. He has repeatedly proposed immediate unity and the establishment of a single currency, army and passport for the entire continent (Polgreen 1).

Essentially, the relationship between Realism and Liberalism can be as a comparison of the real versus the ideal. The theory of Liberalism presents many appealing concepts; however, in reality such ideal appear to be completely not viable. While it would be a wonderful thing to share balance equally via cooperation and integration, countries like the United States would never support such a notion due to the fact that their supreme power and consequential “authority” would be completely diminished. Thus, the need for the regional approach has risen as a means to find a reasonable balance between the real and the ideal.

Works Cited

Beavis, Mark. IR Paradigms, Approaches and Theories. The IR Theory Knowledge Base.

7 February 2009. http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm.

Cullifer, Julie. The Sovereign State as Political Community: A Revisiting of the Post- Structuralist Critique of the Neorealist State. 2009.

Keohane, Robert O. Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics. Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press. 1995.

Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. Power and Interdependence. 2nd Edition. New York: Longman. 1989.

Polgreen, Lydia. Qaddafi, as New African Union Head, Will Seek Single State” The New York Times. 2 February 2009.

Walz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1979.