QUESTION NO.

01

COMPARE AND CONTRAST POLITICAL

IDEALISM AND POLITICAL REALISM AS
MAJOR CLASSICAL APPROACHES TO
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Diploma in IR (Weekend)
Module 01
Index No: DS/18/A/44/E
hashinisankalpani@gmail.com
071-6328573
Deadline : 12th August 2018
International Relations is an academic discipline that focuses on the study of the actors in
international politics, including state and non-state actors. Approaches in international
relations are considered to be a set of ideas that explains how the international system works.
There are number of approaches such as realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism,
feminism and the Green Theory. The two major classical approaches out of those are realism
and idealism. Realism in international relations see the world as it is and it argues that
international politics is a struggle for power and a quest for survival which results in conflicts
between states while idealism sees the world in a more optimistic manner which considers it
is possible to build a world of peaceful coexistence and well-being which can be only
achieved through oral values and cooperation of human kind.

Idealism accepts the possibility of creating the world free from the evils such as war, hunger,
inequality, tyranny, suppression and violence by depending upon reason, science and
education. The idealist approach advocates morality as the means for securing the desired
objective of making the world an ideal place.

It believes that by following morality and moral values, nations can secure their own
development and make the world peaceful. Thus, idealism advocates the need for improving
relations among nations by removing the evils of international environment.

The first idealist thinker is considered to be Plato who was a great Greek philosopher. Apart
from him other most recognized supporters of idealistic approach are Mahatma Gandhi,
Woodrow Wilson, Bertrant Russel, Richard Cobben, Margret Mead, E.H. Car and Feviwic.
Their main intention was to spread the idealistic approach around the world. In Hedley Bull’s
article entitled The Theory of International Politics 1919-1969, the author recorded the
existence of a group of authors that he defines as “Idealists”. They are generally characterized
as a set of theorists who believed in the idea of progress and the possibility of evolution in
international relations that would give rise to a more peaceful world (Bull 1972).

There are several assumptions of the idealistic approach which are significant. According to
the idealists, human nature is basically good. They always help each other in need and this
optimistic nature helps to build up a good coordination among the nations in international
relations.

The idealist approach states that the bad human behavior makes the states to indulge in war
and violence. According to them, violence can be prevented through good intentions. They
emphasize that the wars are the worst feature of international relations. Even though realists
believe that the wars are inevitable, idealists state that the wars and the international factors
which promote those can be eliminated from the world.

In United States, the Democratic party is associated with idealism since World War I.

Eg: Woodrow Wilson worked to promote democracy and his idealism led him to push
hard for the creation of the League of Nations which is an international organization
that would fight aggression and protect the weak from the strong. Scholars use the
term Wilsonian to describe a person or group who advocates promoting democracy
overseas in the name of idealism.

Idealists acclaim that the international organizations should not promote wars but they must
be committed to preserve international peace, international order and international law in
order to eliminate the evils of the world such as war, hunger, tyranny, suppression and other
bad things.

The idealists totally reject the totalitarianism and they are more focused on the establishment
of World State. According to them, the world can be made a peaceful place through
education, reason and science. Idealists are basically following the moral principle in
international relations.

Even though idealism sees the world in an optimistic manner, the extreme idealism is highly
criticized by the scholars. Idealists are always in an imaginary view point in which they
consider the uncertain future rather than the past or the present.

“The critique of the “Idealist Illusion” is not only pragmatic, but also moral. Idealist
diplomacy often becomes fanatical. It divides states into good and bad, in to peace
loving and belligerent, and imagines a definitive peace through the punishment of the
first and the triumph of second.”

(Raymond Aron (2004)

Idealists have an extreme faith on the nature of individuals which is highly criticized by the
scholars. They emphasize more on the moral principles and according to many critics moral
principles and international politics cannot go together. Even though they have number of
suggestions for solving the problems related to international relations with idealism, those
seem to be difficult in implementing in the reality.
Thus, even though the idealists stresses the need for states to pursue moral goals and act
ethically in the international arena in order to be free from the dishonesty, trickery and
violence, it seems to be an unreachable goal.

The next major classical approach to International Relations is the realist approach.
According to realism, the states work only to increase their own power relative to that of
other states. Realism is revolved around the two elements security and power. Even though
the realistic approach was there in the 18th and 19th centuries, it became prominent after the
World War II. Some of the scholars such as Hans J. Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger, George F.
Kennan, Kenneth Thompson, Max Weber and Arnold Wolfers are prominent when
discussing realism. Morgenthau is considered to be the father of realism.

“the desire for power is the distinctive element of international politics, like all
politics, international politics is by necessity power politics”

-Morgenthau (1985)

According to the realists, the world is a harsh and a dangerous place. The only certainty in the
world is power and a powerful state will always be able to over go the weaker states. Security
is the other most important aspect. Realists state that the primary interest of a state is self-
preservation. Therefore, a state must seek power and must always protect itself in order to be
secured.

The realists believe that a state’s security or the sovereignty can be undermined by the moral
behavior. Therefore unlike the idealists, realists consider the moral principles as negative
points. According to them, the peace can be preserved only through the management of
power by balance of power, collective security, World Government, diplomacy and alliance.

During the period of Cold War, most of the states looked at the international relations through
a realist angle. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union trusted each other and both the
parties were committed to protect themselves by increasing power.

Niccolo Machiavelli is one of the most prominent realists and in his book The Prince (1513),
he states that moral values are very dangerous in politics and to act morally will bring about
disaster.

Even though realism happens to be the most practiced approach in international relations,
there are criticisms just as for idealism. Most of the scholars criticize this approach for the
over emphasis of power which can be disastrous at many instances and for the total ignorance
of the importance of values and morals. According to the critics, the above mentioned
features can lead the way for frequent wars.

Thus, there are huge differences between the idealist and realist approaches. When
considering the human nature, idealists think that the human nature is basically good whereas
the realists think that the humans are evil in nature. Unlike the idealists, realists state that the
human instinct for power is unquenchable and they think a state, in order to be secure, they
must increase their power. Even though the idealists emphasis on the moral principles,
realists consider moral values as a threat to the state. While realists are promoting the military
power and war, idealists focus on eliminating war and the international factors which
promote evil.

Thus, a debate about the idealists and realists in the international arena considering their
different perspectives of the human being, his existence and their activities related to the field
of international relations is there. From the late 1930s, a number of theorists of realism
reacted against the view that the world could be governed on idealist principles and the vice
versa. However, in conclusion, both realist and idealist thinking as the two major classical
approaches to International Relations are considered extreme positions because the idealists
rejects the importance of power in international relations whereas realists emphasize on
power regardless of the moral principles.
References

Crawford, R. (2000). Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline.
Londres: Routledge.

Morgenthau, H. (1985). Politics among Nations – The Struggle for Power and Peace. Nova
Iorque : McGraw-Hill.

Fernades, R. (2016) Idealism and Realism in International Relations: An Ontological Debate,

JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, Vol. 7 , No 2 November 2016- April 2017.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations

Ghai, R. (2010) International Politics, Theory and Practice, New Academic Publishing Co.

Bull, H. (2008) International Theory : The case for Classical Approach, The John Hopkins
University Press.

Altshuler, R. (2009). Political Realism and Political Idealism: The difference that Evil Makes.
Stony Brook University Press

Carlsnaes, W. Risse. T and Simons, AB (2012). Hand Book of International Relations. New
Delhi