Realism as a paradigm can be described as a theoretical and methodological
framework aimed at describing and possibly predicting events in international
relations. However, the development and application of international political
theory continues to be one of the major challenges faced by students of
International relations (Waltz 1990).
Kenneth Waltz (1990) in his “Realist
thought and neorealist theory” attempts to clarify some problems in the framing
and application of International political theory. Through examining
difficulties faced by economists and early 20th century political
scientists, and establishing that the former eventually made a breakthrough by
inventing concepts that permitted economic phenomena to be seen as distinct
processes thus allowing economy to be viewed separately from social and
political life. The argument is that “theory only becomes possible only if
various objects and processes, movements and events, acts and interactions are
viewed as forming a domain that can be studied in its own right”. This is what
Raymond Aron and Morgenthau believed to be impossible for students of
international politics to accomplish.
Aron (cited in Waltz 1990) came up
with a list of difficulties faced by international politics that include;
innumerable factors that affect the international system and the lack of
distinction between those that are internal and those that are external, the
fact that states act as the principal international actors cannot be endowed
with a single aim among others, the lack of distinction between dependent and
independent variables and lack of accounting identities and no possibility of
prediction and manipulation with identified means leading to specific goals.
However, it is important to note that
Aron’s arguments are not independent but based on the success of economic
physiocrats whose field of study is not necessarily the same as international
politics. As much as he identified the differences between economics and
international politics, he failed to link their differences and the
consequences of their differences to theory construction. Just because economy
succeeded in this manner, does not mean international political theory cannot
succeed in another manner from a different perspective with different
philosophical underpinnings.
Nevertheless, the prospects of
development and application of International political theory remain dim in the
wake of competing world views and relative weaknesses levelled on each
prospective theory. For instance, Morgenthau on his part attempted to deal with
the situation by seeking to derive explanatory principles from facts. To help
him, he forged concepts like ‘national interest’ and ‘interest defined as
power’. Just like Child, Morgenthau has been criticised for failing to take the
next important step to develop the concept into a recognizable theory. Without
a concept of the whole, Morgenthau could only deal with the parts and according
to Waltz (1990); he confused the problem of explaining foreign policy with the
problem of developing a theory of international politics. Waltz believes that the
theoretical ambition of Morgenthau was hindered by his belief that the
international political domain cannot be marked off from others for the purpose
of constructing theory. He states that in fact, to isolate a realm is a
precondition to developing a theory that will explain what goes on within it. This
suggests that it is possible to develop a theory from a neorealist perspective
because of the possibility of marking off international politics by looking at
the nature of the international structure as a whole (Waltz 1990).
One of the recurrent problems in
international politics is concerned with the level of analysis. The debate is
whether analysts should begin their analysis with the study of the international
system as a field of forces or whether to look at it as a rule governed order
internalised by the nation-states. The idea that the international system can
be thought of as a system with a precisely defined structure is neo-realism’s
major point of departure from traditional realism, Neorealist’s argue that
international politics can be understood only if the effects of the structure
are added to traditional realism’s unit level explanations. While Waltz
acknowledges that interaction between causes at the unit level with those at
the level of structure, he only states that an explanation of the unit level alone
is bound to be misleading (Waltz 2000).What he fails to acknowledge is the
reverse. That due to the interaction of the units of analyses, an explanation
at the structure level alone can possibly mislead as well. This lack of
acknowledgment can be explained by his neo-realistic leanings. However, Waltz
logic of neorealism does not completely capture the main features of the
international political system since the system itself cannot be precisely
defined and therefore cannot be isolated or marked off from others for the
purpose of theory making.
The international system influences
the behaviour of states. It builds on realism in that the structure in which
states exists is anarchical with no formal authority because of the sovereign
rights of each state and that states have to rely on their own power to
safeguard their interests. The argument is that since the natural tendency of
states is to increase their power, the preservation of a decentralized system
is through balance of power (Mearsheimer 1994/5). This argument suggests that structural realism
is the best model for predicting state behaviour. Indeed changes have taken
place in the international system, yet the system remains what it was perceived
to be by realists. For instance; economic interdependence only changed the
interest of the key states that can shift the balance of power and act as a
special form of deterrence (Waltz 2000).
Critics may argue that despite the
fact that democracy does not change the system, it reduces conflict and despite
the fact that international institutions don’t change the system, they change
behaviour. Nevertheless, these shortcomings do not change the fact that the
system is unchanged. As much these arguments and available evidence are
inclined in favour of Waltz, it is not foolhardy to contemplate that the new
structures within the system are part of a long term process that is slowly and
surely changing the system.
The debate eventually comes down to
what theoretical lens one views the subject and the belief that a certain
approach can better explain what happens in the world. As clearly explained by
Waltz, theory is a picture of the world that one is concerned with but it’s not
the whole world and therefore no single approach can explain everything. Just
as it is in any area of scholarly inquiry, there are several ways in which
phenomena under study may be sorted and arranged for the purposes of systematic
analysis. The observer may choose to focus upon the whole system or the
constitutive components of the system. Whether or not the observer decides to
choose the whole or the constitutive units is a matter of methodological or
conceptual convenience often based on their theoretical leanings (Liska 1957).
This however, does not rule out cooperation and consensus in the quest to
develop international political theory. For instance, it has been suggested that
there should not be an almost completely negative "realist" theory of
the world that causes states to treat each other as enemies because they live
in fear of one another, instead, a middle ground should be met in order to
bring in institutions to govern over states and their behaviours towards one another
(Mersheimer 1994/5). It is therefore necessary for the scholarly community to work with different levels of analysis
to answer different questions. As one is confronted with the system, its sub-systems,
one may choose which direction to take in terms of level of analysis, however,
this should not be merely a function of whim, habit or familiarity. The scholar
should be prepared to evaluate the relative conceptual and methodological
utility of the various alternatives and the implications of the final level of
analysis selected (Singer 1961).
