Comparative Analysis Of Liberalism And Realism

The different relations between different states and their behaviour have often been hard to be digested, comprehended and explained. Analysing historical events and comparing them with the current international matters, there are quite many similarities to be paid attention to as well as many differences in the ever evolving international arena. As a result of the intricacy of the world, there have been numerous efforts at producing a system to be able to unravel the way the international relations work. Numerous theories have been created, many have not been able to explain and some have been proven to provide accurate explanations. The two primary theoretical systems which are liberalism and realism will be further discussed in this essay. The two schools of thought will be further explained and compared, analysing the advantages and disadvantages of each theory, examining historical events, covering the Cold War and the two big wars of the 20th century, and the current international environment.

For the sake of getting a better analysis of each theory and to relate it to the current and past affairs, one must first comprehend the fundamental background and arguments backing each theory. Classical realism occurred at an extremely dark period in Europe. Conflicts between states were happening on a regular basis, poverty was widespread, future was plagued by hopelessness and basically violence was often a considerable option in fulfilling one’s goal, be it a goal of the state or an individualistic one. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli portrayed a dark, negative illustration of the world that is not filled with hope for a better future. Both scholars rationalized in the same way although they lived in different periods and places. They both were of the opinion that human nature is inherently selfish and evil, military power and combat readiness are important at all times, and that peaceful inter-state cooperation could only occur if there was balance of power on the international scale. The theory that is known now as realism came into existence after the ideas of Hobbes and Machiavelli attracted many followers upholding the same notion. The fundamental components that underlie this theoretical system are the belief in evil human nature, anarchy and the significance of the power of a state which includes military power. It is a theory rooted in the presumption that the action between states is selfish and dependent on a system of self-help, therefore one only needs to help oneself because there is no hope for mutual cooperation. It asserts that countries only focus on their own interests and that makes the state the most significant actor or the greatest power. Also it is crucial for states to be ready for any war or conflict, hence military strength of the state is part and parcel of the primary goals too, even more crucial than economic capability. Realism considers world power anarchic in nature and believes in relative gains. In other words, a number of participants gain more than a portion of others. Realists will not accept a trade-off or a relation in which the other participant will benefit more because of the fact that it unavoidably puts the state in a vulnerable and insecure situation. Therefore, the fundamental elements of realism comprises the evilness of human nature, the significance of the power of the state and the anarchical condition of the world. Simply put, realists believe in looking at the world for what it is and working in whatever condition it is in to produce the greatest results to attain self-interests. They do not believe in changing the world.

Liberalism contrarily illustrates an entirely different view of the world. It does not believe in the pessimism of realists and uphold the notion of a better and peaceful future of the world. The existence of classical liberalism started during the Enlightenment period of Europe where the dark ages had ended. Philosophers such as Kant and Rousseau who upheld liberalism, disagree with the belief that human nature is inherently brutal. Rather, they believed that cooperativeness and the ability to create solutions in a non-violent and peaceful way are embedded in the nature of human beings. Hence, violence and war were not a considerable option to solve a dispute or conflict. It was only a circumstance that required states and individuals to have correct and appropriate tools to come up with a peaceful resolution that benefit all in a contrasting situation through consensus. It is an idea rooted in the presumption that countries are driven by progress and also considers the international institutions and individuals the most important actors in international relations, not just states. This philosophy upholds unity and collaboration of human kind, and therefore intensely opposes military power. Rather, liberalism immensely support international institutions and customs or practices that are rooted in peace. Simply put, optimism is the essence of liberalism and liberals believe that the use of lethal force by the military is not reasonable and can never be justified. This theory also puts emphasis on absolute gains, suggesting that all participants should be in advantageous positions. Liberals claim that there should not be any reason why a person or state should not participate in a cooperation and partnership or trade in which the other participant will benefit more, given that both parties will have absolute gains. Furthermore, unlike realists, liberals oppose the idea of zero-sum game. No participant should suffer an absolute loss in a conflicting situation. A dispute should be settled within a judicial framework in which an agreement is reached by both sides that can benefit each other.

As previously stated, liberalism intensely upholds cooperation with collective gains. This notion is accompanied by the trust in firm international institutions not only to provide states with tools to resolve conflicts, but also to produce a complex interdependence in the international sphere which can result in the existence of a strong and firm international connections and further guarantee peace. As a result of the liberals’ emphasis on the significance of international institutions, the functions of the state pale in comparison with the realists’ perspective. The transnational relations and dependence is produced through the significance of institutions which is immensely crucial in liberalism.

While military strength and the balance of power are at the centre of the approach to peace according to realists’ belief, liberals have an opposing viewpoint. The degree of military control and power that the state has will not result in state or international peace. Rather, the liberals consider democratization a way to achieve peace, in which individual rights and freedom are given to citizens as tools for them to get involved in the state’s decisions and actions, and through the formation of international law.

One of the other ways to peace promoted by the liberals is through the establishment of the free market that would facilitate international trade. The economist and philosopher by the name of Adam Smith was one of the first pioneers of this idea. He was of the opinion that the “invisible hand” of the economy would guide the markets to the most fruitful and favourable result if the state is not involved in it. He used the term “laissez-faire” which fundamentally implies leaving the market untouched to run on its own. Neo-liberalism which is the new form of liberalism came into existence years later through this firm idea. Neo-liberals still uphold the same fundamental principles and ideas as classical liberals, but put a greater emphasis on the international and global economy with a much smaller function of the states.

Referring to these two short definitions, the high degree of contradiction between both theories can be seen and analysed, simply put, realism and liberalism illustrate and explain the world and the way it works in very different ways through very different approaches. Nevertheless, the points and accuracy of both theories have been proven throughout the years with significant events that have happened in the past which have dramatically changed the landscape of the history of the world. Both theories have flaws, but they also have advantages that can fix each other’s flaws. Realism has failed to explain the decreasing significance of the transnational relations, a world that is gradually turning into a borderless realm. Furthermore, till the birth of neo-realism, realists did not put much focus on the increasing amount of international organizations and institutions. On the other hand, liberals do have a solid explanation of the factors stated above but are unable to explain the happening of numerous disputes, even with the existence of international organizations that play important role in peace making. They are also unable to explain the massive inequality and the increasing rate of poverty in the world. Both of the theories provide solid outlooks and the next section of this essay comprises the subject on how both theories dramatically fail and pale in comparison with opposing theoretical system and how the two theories flourish in the explanation of current and historical events.

It is important to understand the series of events that occurred that resulted in the start of Cold War before analysing which of the theories illustrates and explains the time of Cold War better. Therefore, both of the biggest wars of the 20th century which are World War I and World War II must be studied and looked at through the lens of both theories in order to decide which of the two theories was most eminent during the period.

The destruction that happened as a result World War I was apparent to the whole world and left behind a horrifying portrayal of war. It broke out when a Serbian nationalist who wanted to liberate his ethnic group from Austrian dominion murdered Archduke Ferdinand who was from the Austrian-Hungarian empire. Nevertheless, his death only served as an excuse for numerous political disputes and violence that were going on between states to occur. These disputes resulted in a catastrophic picture of Europe, where over ten million combatants died and three huge empires were dismantled. This war entirely changed the world and the face of Europe, and also resulted in the establishment of the League of Nations and the emergence of the Soviet Union.

A great example that would help realists prove the theory and presumptions regarding the behaviour of the world is World War I. One of the most dominant states during that period which was Germany, aspired and attempted to achieve the success that was already firmly held by England through industrial revolution. This influenced Germany to seek for more dominance and power by attempting to broaden their territory on the international scale. It can be said that Germany strived to fulfil the goals of only its own national interests, instead of global, making use of its military capability and power without considering the impact it can have on others. Realists’ theory is supported by this. Also, defensive realists’ arguments that assert that the anarchical nature of the international system pushes states to have moderate policies to obtain security are inaccurate because World War I was not a result of a defensive attack, since Germany was aware of the tactical upper hand of the strategic defence level and they were already predicting the occurrence of a long war. Simply put, the Germans were in a state of readiness when World War I erupted.

On the other hand, World War I was merely “the war to end all wars” from the viewpoint of liberals. U. S. President Woodrow Wilson was of the opinion that another destructive war could break out if power politics continued to be practised by states, therefore liberals attempted to reconstruct the international system by taking several steps. A part of the steps or actions was to form international institutions for the sake of suppressing raw power struggle. The League of Nations was formed at the end of World War I, and it manifested this portion of the liberal thought. Nevertheless, assumptions of the realists emerged once again and the liberal assumptions fell when World War II started.