Realism and Liberalism - Essay Example

?Realism and Liberalism Introduction International relations are both a public policy and an academic discipline concerned with the relationship between countries. Sovereign states exist independently and semi autonomously thereby implying that such countries make their own governance decisions without interference from another foreign state. However, the countries often interact in a number of way a fact that validates the existence of policies governing the international relations of the countries. Among the most common forms of inter countries relationship is through the establishment of multinational corporations such as Coca cola that is American yet access the international market. Additionally, countries interact through the activities of intergovernmental organizations, international non-governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations among others. The nature of the operation of such organizations dictates that countries coexist peacefully and have a mutual understanding of the legislations of each other in order to address any form of conflict arising from the interactions through the international citizens (GRAY, 1995). Several theories explain the nature of relations between different countries often explaining the best forms of such relationships. A conducive relationship should encourage development of the different countries. Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state making its own legislations without the coercion or interference of other countries (Hutchings, 2010). One such theory is realism, the theory espouses for the truthful representation of the different countries without any attempt by the state to conceal their political, economic or social nature. Realists believe that by presenting itself factually, a country makes itself open for interpretation by others who therefore decide to conduct businesses with it regardless of its current state. Despite their autonomous states, countries depend on each other. Through trade, citizens travel from country to country thereby validating the inter country relationships. This implies that the regulations and policies in a specific country affect every citizen in the country some of who are often from other countries (NAAMAN ZAUDERER, 2010). Because of this, countries strive to develop effective working relationships with each other, the world is currently a global village and people invest in any country with a possible market for the products or services regardless of the nationality of the investor. In the event of an internal conflict for example, not only the citizens of the country are likely to suffer the consequences for some international citizens in the country may also fall victim of such squabbles and often lose their investments. For such unprecedented occurrences, countries strive to formulate effective policies to safeguard the interest of the different countries that interact on different platforms through their citizens. Such possibilities therefore validate the increasing amount of interest that the international community obtains in the event of an economic, political or social crisis in the country. Some countries forcefully intervene in creating peace in such regions as was the case in Ivory Coast, a North African state in which the incumbent presidential had forcefully clung to office despite having lost an election. Realism opposes romanticism a theory commonly applied in the early French society in the country through which its officials gave a deceptive representation of the country’s political structure to the international society thereby creating a virtual state with a different preventability from the truth. Realists revolted against the poor representation that portrayed the country as stable thereby giving the actual representation of the country. They fearlessly revealed the poor commercial policies that had resulted in acute food shortages and widespread poverty of the people while the elite political society lived of the jobless population burdened by inconsiderate tax regimes and exploitative political structures. The elucidation of the country by the realists thereafter led to the successive governance of the country resulting in the creation of the economically stable France of the modern day. Another of the most preferred theory of international relations is the liberalism. This is a political philosophy developed on the principle of equality and liberty. Just like realism, the theory dictates that every country is free and liberal and therefore enjoys its autonomy by determining its own policies and laws. The theory opposes the interferences by other superior states on the affairs of the developing countries thereby making it more difficult for the leaders in the countries to govern effectively. The theory of liberalism asserts that every country is equal owing to their sovereignty and exists singly as an entity and should therefore interact with others just as such. The theory therefore calls for respect for all leaders of every country regardless of the specific country sizes. The two theories may therefore apply in a fusion. While liberalism requires the equality among the countries, realism dictates effective and factual assessment of the countries thereby creating a peaceful environment one that enables the interaction based on equality despite the different economic, political and social structures. The two theories promote ethical concerns in the establishment of relationships between countries. Different countries have different structures of governance and economic strengths. However, multinational corporations find markets in different countries regardless of their social or economic structures. They exist indecently and operate as business entities. In doing this, the operations of the business institutions are subject to the existing relationship between the two countries. This therefore requires the establishment of a working relationship between the governments of the two countries thereby creating a conducive environment for international trade (RIDDLE, 1955). Similarly, non-governmental organizations exist oblivious of the intergovernmental relationships. However, the extent of their activities in the different countries relies on the nature of the relationship between the different countries in which they operate. By constructing equality and liberty among the countries thereafter providing a real representation of the affairs in a country to the international society, the two theories align themselves with the deontological arguments in morality and ethics. Deontology is the study of morality and ethics refers to set of morality system that compel the effective consideration of the characteristics of the moral issues in an event adhering to the rules and legislations governing the existence of the event thereby making independent and equally moral choices and decisions. The two theories discourage domination of smaller or economically weaker countries by the stringer countries, as has often been the case. By creating equal sovereignty, the theory of liberalism dictates that the decisions of each country have a specific influence on the nationals and should not therefore attract unnecessary international attention. The economic disparity among countries has often created avenues for exploitation. The economically stronger countries use aids and grants as administrative tools or rewarding loyalty while punishing defiance. Such countries dominate over the weaker countries compelling them to formulate and implement policies that favor the stronger economies before they receive the grants. The theory of liberalism discourages such forms of manipulations by calling for equality in which every country formulates its internal policies depending on the prevailing factors of the country. This way, the country takes responsibility of the consequences of such policies without having to blame another. Additionally, such policies often favor the locally prevailing factors thereby favoring the citizens. The stronger economies impose their requirements on the smaller economies in order to benefit their already developed economies at the expense of the smaller economies thereby discouraging their growth. Deontological moral systems demand the adherence to the moral rules in determining the moral obligations. Every citizen in a country has a duty and responsibility to his or her country. In doing this, the citizens should act morally by considering the consequences of their actions. Morality refers to the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and therefore conduct oneself appropriately (RASKIN, 2003). The theory of realism demands for the factual representation of the facts in a country in the international community, thus creating a state in which the global community learns of the factors prevailing in a country. The theory opposes the theory of romanticism, which sugarcoats the facts in a country thereby representing the country in accordance to the requirements of a few in the society. Creating such a factual representation of the country is an obligation of every citizen since they all have access to the international community in different capacities. Deontological moral systems therefore demand that in such interpersonal interactions between the citizens in the countries, the citizens consider a number of factors in assessing their behavior. Revealing certain details about a country makes the country vulnerable the morality system therefore requires the consideration of both the written laws of a country and the conventions of morality thereby considering the ramifications of portraying a country in a particular way to the international community. While being factual about the representation of the country is encouraging, it is more likely to shape attitudes about the country in a particular manner thereby possibly influence the relationships between the international communities and the country negatively. Additionally, some of the governance details may expose the country to external inversion thereby risking the lives of thousands of the citizens. Additionally, deontological morality stresses the importance of the reasons for a particular action. This way, it may possibly validate a negative action. The interaction between countries occur through the citizens who travel to the different countries thereby communicating the difference in the governance and economic factors about the countries (Donaldson, 1992). Additionally, the government portrays their countries in specific ways that they deem fit depending on the prevailing factor in the country. By considering the reasons for exposing the country in a particular manner, the system of morality permits possible lies at times. The theory of liberalism asserts that each state is independently capable of making its decisions on its own without foreign intervention. In fact, the theory considers foreign intervention as interference in the internal governance affairs of the country. This way, the government may conceal the truth in order to protect the sovereignty of the country. In such a situation, the system of morality does not consider the act of deceptions being immoral but considers the reasons for the lie thereby validating the deceptions. The theory of consequentialism, on the other hand, assesses what s defined as morality. The theory asserts that a negative action never results in a positive outcome and therefore any action that results in a positive outcome is possibly moral and ethical (Ellis, 1992). The two theories explaining the nature of the relationship between countries promote the creation of liberal international societies in which the citizens have access to the basic resources and therefore live quality lives. The attainment of such a society is an international responsibility for the poor economic standards of the poor nations often burden the developed countries. The developed countries share such responsibilities through the constant request for aid and grant finances, which the countries could possibly use in elevating their economies in different perspectives. It is therefore important that every country becomes concerned with the actions of the government in their countries. The consequentialist school of thought validates such actions provided the result is a more peaceful and developed society. This validates the need for realist representation of the countries especially in poorer economies. Poor countries in Africa and other parts of Asia have weak institutions of leadership and governance most of which enact policies that favor their own interest (NARVESON & DIMOCK, 2001). This results civil wars and the mass murder of the innocent, in such situations it becomes essential that realist movements arise to give the international community the actual situations since most of such government often hide the facts of their weaknesses thereby economically burdening their poor citizens. In such a case, foreign intervention may become unorthodox including the possible detention of the serving presidents, as was the case in the Ivory Coast when an illegitimate president forcefully held onto power despite the transparent elections, which had favored his opponent. While the inversion of the country appeared to contradict the theory of liberalism, it is a result of realist portrayal of the events in a country. Furthermore, the results are beneficial to the citizens whose rights were disregarded. The fact that the results of the raid were beneficial justifies the action thereby validating the consequentialist theory. Consequentialism differs from deontological moral systems in that while the deontological morality validates the actions by the consideration of the behavior of an individual, the consequentialist system of morality validates the morality of a behavior by the outcomes of the conduct. The theory asserts that not every good action presents a good outcome. However, the outcome depicts the nature in which the action affected the system and therefore instead of blindly considering the actions, it becomes more realistic to consider the outcomes of the actions. Additionally, the system differs from the virtue morality, which considers the character of the agent of an action rather than the action itself, or the outcome of the action as is the case with the consequentialism. However, consequentialists do not consider the means employed most of which are often unethical. Most of the consequentialists’ arguments therefore contradict the dictates of the liberal theory of international relations (GRANT, 1985). The theory asserts that every country is autonomous capable of making its own internal decisions and implement its specific policies without foreign influence. Liberalists abhor foreign interference with the governance of another country owing to the fact that the country is independent and therefore develops its governance institutions independently. By forcefully intervening in the activities of another country, the intruder often breech a number of moral postulations by the liberal theorists. However, the consequentialist theorists do not consider such moral obligations. Despite the fact that countries are independent and therefore equal, the interest of the citizens in the country is of primary importance to every government. A government that does not therefore show respect to the wishes of the people depicts features of people who rule regardless of the dictates of the constitutions reasons that validate the foreign intervention, as was the case in Ivor Coast. The different theories therefore differ on certain factors some of which validate either consequentialism or the deontological moral system. However, each of the two has its effectiveness in explaining the actions of different countries and their relations with one another. While liberalism maintains the autonomy of a state, the theory does not describe the essence of the autonomous states in protecting the rights of the people. The theory maintains that a country is independent and therefore enjoys autonomy from foreign interference. The theory considers any form of external intervention on a local squabble as a foreign interference, which it strongly opposes. The realist theory is more effective since it believes in the portrayal of the facts in a country to the international society. As stated earlier, each country is part of the international society and has citizens from other regions, which would like to know the whereabouts of their citizens. It thus becomes essentials that a country describes to the international community its factual state of affairs. Realist theorists call for every country to help cover the events in a country more objectively and communicate them to the international community. The difference in the two theories makes them provide relative validity to the two moral systems. The consequentialist system, which validates the morality of an action from its outcome, is more relevant in explaining the results of the realist theorists. Realists believe in the factual representation of the state of affairs in a country (Lang, 2007). Through such frank portrayal of events in a country, the international community gain interest in the activities in the country thereby possibly defying the dictates of the liberal theorists in an attempt to save the citizens of the country from the oppressive leadership. This way, the actions of the realists become moral since they eventually save the population from oppression. The deontological moral system defines the morality of an action by the adherence to the moral rules and duties. This often dictates that countries relate with each other respectfully since they are equal. In retrospect, morality is relative and every theory has its explanation and relative accuracy in the explanations. However, the two theories of international relations have different ideologies, which consequently validate the two systems of morality. Consequentialism validates the morality of an action from its results while the deontological system refers to the moral rules and duties. Bibliography Donaldson, T. (1992). Kant's Global Rationalism: Traditions of International Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Ellis, A. (1992). Utilitarianism and International Ethics: Traditions of International Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. GRANT, D. (1985). Realism. London, Methuen. GRAY, J. (1995). Liberalism. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Hutchings, K. (2010). Global Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lang, A. (2007). Realism Reconsidered. The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. NAAMAN ZAUDERER, N. (2010). Descartes' deontological turn: reason, will, and virtue in the later writings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. NARVESON, J., & DIMOCK, S. W. (2001). Liberalism. Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers. RASKIN, M. G. (2003). Liberalism: the genius of American ideals. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield. RIDDLE, G. K. (1955). A critical examination of regent deontological ethical theories. Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1955. Read More