Introduction

World politics has conventionally been understood in international terms. Although the
phenomenon of patterns of conflict and co-operation among states of the world existed
throughout the history, the term international relations was not coined until the UK
philosopher Jeremy Bentham used it in his ‘Principles of Morals and Legislation’.
The academic discipline of international relations emerged in the aftermath of World War 1,
the most important emphasis being laid on desire to find ways of establishing enduring
peace. However, the nature and focus of the discipline has changed significantly over time.
The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is commonly said to mark the beginning of modern
international politics which established sovereignty as the distinguishing feature of the
state.
Making sense of global politics also requires that we understand the theories, values and
assumptions through which world affairs have been interpreted. The two mainstream
perspectives on global politics are Realism and Liberalism. Both grounded in positivism,
Realism and Liberalism can be viewed as mainstream perspectives based on the fact that
they have dominated conventional academic approaches since  the inception of the field of
international politics. Here in this paper, we’ll be focusing on Realism and how and why it
holds a dominant power in the study of international relations.

What is realism?
Realism has been the most important approach of international politics over the years. It
has been the dominant way of explaining international behaviour. Realism is not concerned
with the ideal world, it represents the relations between nations as they are. Realists make a
bold claim in defence of their tradition that ‘Individuals are essentially selfish and they seek
power to serve their interests and to prevail over others’. As Morgenthau wrote, “Power is
the control of men over the minds and actions of other men.”
Realism emerged as a reaction to ‘idealism’ in the classical period, in the 20 th century, after
the First world war and again during the cold war. Idealism is a liberal tradition that
emphasizes international law, morality and international organisations rather than power.
They suggest that human nature is basically good and with good education and effective
international organisations, the future of International politics would be free from power
politics with its principals flowing from morality.
Realists however follow a pessimistic approach. They highly criticised the idealists and called
them ‘utopians’ who being overly optimistic, completely ignored the role of power in search
of rational solutions to settle the disputes peacefully. Explaining international relations in
terms of power, the realists claim that the outbreak of World War 2 was an eminent
example of failure of idealists approach and they view the world as a dangerous place where
violence is unavoidable. The exercise of power by states towards each other is often called
‘real politik’ or just ‘power politics.’ As Scott Burchill wrote, “International realism is
characterized by conflict, suspicion and competition between nation states.”
Realism undertook many prominent scholars as its advocates. The earliest scholars of
realism were Indian Scholar Kautilya, Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu and Greek philosopher
Thucydides. Much later Italian scholar Nicolo Machiavelli and English philosopher Thomas
Hobbes also contributed to the evolution of realism. Their ideas are called classical realism
though Morgenthau is considered as the principal classical realist. British professor E H Carr
had prepared the ground on which Morgenthau developed his theory.
REALISM

CLASSICAL REALISM STRUCTURAL REALISM/NEOREALISM

CLASSICAL REALISM
Classical realism represents a whole worldview of international politics encompassing
several generations of theorists ranging from Thucydides, Machiavelli, and E.H. Carr to HJ
Morgenthau, the most famous high priest of post-war Realism.
(i)The central argument of classical realism rests on the assumption that international
politics is driven by an endless strive for power which is inherent in human nature.
(ii)It believes in the egoistic traits of human beings as well as the state and claims that the
state system operates in context of international anarchy. [egoism + anarchy = power
politics.]
(iii)Classical realism particularly puts a lot of emphasis on the art of statecraft because a
rational statecraft serves national interest.
(iv)The concern about the national interest is primary for them. From a realist perspective,
they don’t reject the nationally-based concepts of political morality like protecting the life
and well being of its citizens, it rejects the universal moral principles that supposedly apply
to all states in all circumstances since it gets in the way of pursuing of national interest.
(v)Although Realism is commonly associated with the idea of endless war, ‘Classical’ Realists
have often opposed war and aggressive foreign policy. In their view, wars should only ever
be fought if vital national interests are at stake,

Some of the Classical realists and their beliefs and theories are-

1. Kautilya
Kautilya was an ancient Indian scholar who was probably the first person to to make a
systematic effort to formulate the rules of statecraft. Writing in 4 th century BC, Kautilya
concentrated on use of power in terms of goal attainment. According to him, propaganda,
espionage and Assasination were the prescribed techniques of control as he accepted the
anarchy in the international system.

2. Sun Tzu
The Chinese realist Sun Tzu, about 2000 years ago, explained how morality and moral laws
were of less use when faced by an armed and dangerous enemy. He showed the rulers how
to advance using power and how to protect their interests.

3. Thucydides
Thucydides was a famous Greek thinker who after watching the inevitable conflicts between
Greek city states and non Greek empires, concluded that ‘man is a political animal but these
political animals are highly unequal in power’. In his famous study of Peloponnesian war, he,
through the leaders of Athens, said that Justice in international relations doesn’t mean
equal treatment for all, but it’s about knowing your proper place and adapting to the reality
of unequal power distribution. Thucydides added the elements of ‘foresight’, ‘prudence’,
‘caution’ and ‘judgement’ to the classical realism as he emphasized that before any decision
is made, the ruler should carefully think about the likely consequences.

4. Machiavelli
Italian realist Machiavelli focused starkly on the action of ‘staying in power’ and to ‘focus on
war’ more than anything else. According to Jackson and Sorensen, his Classical realist theory
is basically ‘a theory of survival’. Machiavelli wrote that ‘power’ (lion) and deception (fox)
are the two essential means for the conduct of foreign policy. To defend the interests of the
state and to ensure its survival, the ruler has to be a lion but that also requires him to be
cunning to act in his self interest, hence he must also be a fox. According to Morgenthau,
the world is a dangerous as well as an opportunate place. Here, the ruler must anticipate a
menace and do intelligent calculation of one’s own power against the rival’s power to
survive. Machiavelli said that a ruler shouldn’t be reactive, but proactive, in other words, he
must not wait for things to happen and act before his rivals do. A ruler must have a mind
ready to enter into evil because for the protection of state, he might have to go against
charity, humanity, religion etc.
To conclude, Machiavelli’s writings are manuals on how to thrive in a completely immoral
and chaotic world.

5. Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes, in 17th century, made an important contribution to the theory of realism.
Hobbes is popularly known for his theory of ‘social contract’ on origin of states. In his
theory, he discussed a ‘free for all’ situation in which due the absence on any law and order,
every man is free but with this freedom comes the insecurities and threats as this state of
freedom is actually a state of perpetual warfare where every man is the enemy of every
man. Hobbes advocated that an all powerful monarchy (hence, power) is the only way to
solve this problem and suggested that the citizens should give up their freedom and enter
into a social contract to establish a leviathan to come out of the fearful state of nature.
International politics these days is anarchy based on sovereign states and is a condition of
an actual potential war. Hobbes was of the view that these states could enter into global
contracts i.e. military power and international law, both are important to bring about
‘domestic peace’ which, greater emphasized than security and survival, was the core value
of Hobbesian theory.

6. E. H. Carr
20th century realist EH Carr’s famous work “The Twenty Year’s crisis” was published in 1939
as a response to the failed beliefs of post world war idealists. His work should be primarily
understood as a critique of liberal internationalism or what he called ‘Utopian thinking’.  In
response to the first world war, the idealists sought to abolish war, restructure international
diplomacy, replace secret diplomacy by public consent, formation of league of Nations for
the peaceful resolution of conflicts and picture the international politics free from power
politics, immorality and violence.
According to Carr, “the passionate desire to prevent war determined the whole initial
course and study of international politics” and as a result of which, ‘wishing’ prevailed over
thinking’.  The failure of league of Nations to prevent Japan’s invasion of Manchuria or
Hitler’s destruction collapsed the belief of many liberals who believed that world could be a
peaceful place just by wishing. Carr believed that realism was a necessary corrective to the
exuberance of utopianism. According to him, just as domestic peace is a necessity for the
people in power to guarantee their own security and predominance, international peace is
an oppressive tyranny and a slogan for those players powerful enough to impose their will
on subordinate societies. Carr was convinced that morality was not irrelevant, but the
shaping of the international order could only be done by facing the reality which was ‘the
pursuit of power’ by nation states which took the form of ‘national interests’ or ‘foreign
policy’ later on.

7. Hans J Morgenthau
Morgenthau, a German by birth, fled to United States as a refugee during Hitler’s Nazi
regime. Morgenthau is the pioneer and the most prominent scholar of classical realism. He
defined national interest in terms of power as he said that ‘men and women are, by nature,
political animals who are born to pursure power’. This lust for power inevitably brings men
and women into conflict with each other. Morgenthau identifies himself with the view he
calls as realism. According to this approach, in a world where conflicts are perpetual to
improve the world one must work with this forces not against them. Morgenthau
emphasizes on the ‘art of statecraft’. He argued that the practical conduct of politics should
be informed by the ‘Six Principles of Political Realism’, they are following:
(i)Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature. (ii) The key
to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
(iii) The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept
of interest remains consistent. (iv) Universal moral principles do not guide state behaviour,
although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action. (v)
Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation; there is no universally agreed set of
moral principles. (vi) The political sphere is autonomous, meaning that the key question in
international politics is ‘How does this policy affect the power of the nation?’

NEO CLASSICAL/ STRUCTURAL REALISM/ CONTEMPORARY REALISM

Contemporary Realism, also called Neo-realism and Structural Realism, is a more recent
strand of Realism that developed during the 1980s under the influence of Kellneth Waltz.
While Neo-realists continue to acknowledge the central importance of power, they tend to
explain events in terms of the structure of the international system rather than the goals
and make-up of individual states. The structure of the international system, like the ordering
principles, the functional differentiation of the Units, and distributions of capabilities, for the
Neo-realists, is a major determinant of state behaviour.
Unlike the classical Realists who trace the causes of war to the innate human nature, the
Neo-realists tend to explain international conflict within the framework of the anarchic
structure of the international system. This basically means that there is no overarching
central authority to enforce rules and norms or protect the interests of the larger global
community. In other words, it is not so much the innate human nature as the anarchical
system, which nurtures fear, jealousy, suspicion, and insecurity in the international system.
This form of Structural Realism is most often associated with Kenneth Waltz’s landmark
book, Theory of ‘International Politics’. According to Waltz: anarchy prevents states from
entering into co-operative agreements to end the state of war. The condition of anarchy-
absence of s “higher power” over and above the sovereign nation-states to ensure peace
among them is often viewed as synonymous to a state of war. By the state of war, structural
Realists do not intend to convey the impression that large-scale war is a daily occurrence in
international politics; rather, the possibility that a particular state may resort to force
indicates that the outbreak of war is always a likely scenario in an anarchical environment
The structural Realists insist that conflict can emerge even if the actors have benevolent
intent towards each other, form of a state, for example a democracy or a totalitarian state,
or the personality of the leader is less important in accounting for the phenomena of war.
However, Kenneth. Waltz’s theory of Structural Realism is not the only version of Neo-
realism. A second group of contemporary Realists, prominent among whom is Joseph
Grieco, have integrated Waltz’s ideas with the ideas of traditional Realists such as Hans
Morgenthau to construct a contemporary or MORDERN REALIST profile. Grieco represents a
group of Neo-realists or mordern Realists who are critical of neo-liberal institutionalists who
claim states are mainly interested in absolute gains. Grieco claims that all states are
interested in both absolute and relative gains and in the questions of how such gains are
distributed in the international system.
There is yet another version, the third version of Neo-realism, which is increasingly
becoming popular as security studies. This form of Neo-realism is further divided into two
sub-groups- OFFENSIVE NEO-REALISM and DEFENSIVE NEO-REALISM. Like traditional
Realists, the offensive Neo-realists believe that conflict is inevitable in the international
system and leaders must always be wary of expansionary powers. They believe in the
motivation of states being the accumulation of power and that if the balance of power is
disturbed, war will break out. The defensive Neo-realists, on the other hand, recognise the
costs of war and argue that it invariably results from irrational forces in a society. They say
that the state prioritises security over power and will reluctantly go to wars. Moreover, they
argue that it is the presence of the expansionary forces in the international system, always
willing to use force, which makes it impossible to co-exist in a world without weapons. They
do, however, concede that co-operation can take place but is likely to be successfuI only
among the friendly states.

CRITIQUE OF REALISM

1. Realism’s assumption of IR as anarchic negates the possibility that there could be a

transnational institutional arrangement for cooperation and even enforcement of
international decisions but the very existence of the United Nations since 1945 and
its deterrent role in preventing another world war did not qualify the political
condition of anarchy exactly as Realism had imagined it.
2. Realism is criticised for treating state as the sole actor in international politics. Even
in the context of a post-Cold War political environment where the actors have
become pluralised with blurred boundaries of participation, Realism’s state as the
sole wielder of power was heavily challenged.
3. Realism stretches the power seeking tendency of the states to the extent that it
makes occurrence of conflict and war inevitable. This approach denies that states are
capable of cooperation and mutual help. Whereas, the new perspectives see states
both as aggressive and cooperative.
4. The simplistic view of human nature as being inherently selfish and unchanging has
been criticised, in particular by more progressive approaches such as Green Thought
and liberalism. Here it is claimed that the nature of the society one lives in can
 change over time and can thus change human nature or at least allow humans to be
less selfish.
5. In emphasising the centrality of the state and the national interest, realism
encourages people to view the world from a very narrow, ethnocentric perspective.
6. While realism has a cyclical view of history (a repetition of patterns of behaviour) it
has failed to successfully make any specific predictions. Most startlingly, realists
failed to predict the end of the Cold War.