A REVIEW OF THE REALIST QUANDARY

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 20^th 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).