Political Realism Is More Appropriate Than Political Idealism


Regarding the history of growth and development of International Relations theory, we can divide it in to four significant phases. They are not separated division of each other, but one phase is evolution and development of previous phase. Therefore, we can say these divisions were created for convenience for study the theory. The divisions mentioned as follows,

First one is Historical Phase, which existed for longtime before the beginning of First World War. Before the 1914 there were dominated monarchical political systems around the world. The theory of international relations was not important very much. Always greediness of conquer other’s land and using others resources by for was apparent. Diplomacy existed at that time but not in proper manner. In this phase, main interest was in the understanding of relations among States /nations through history, diplomacy and law. Under this phase more intellectuals (like Plato, Aristotle, Karl Marx, and Rousseau) taught various kinds of political and economic philosophies, which paved the way to evolution of phases in international relations. However, the analytical methods were in formulating stage.Because of these reasons they couldn’t answer the questions of resolving war via international relations.

Secondly, the Organizational Phase, which formed as a result of First World War. Enormous destruction that it cause, urged intellectuals to study on international relations in a new way. Prevention of war was the main objective that they critically concentrated on. Regarding Idealist thinkers attitude, then US president Woodrow Wilson suggested a necessity of International Organization, which could resolve the international disputes and maintain peace by the eliminating the cause of war. As a result of that League of Nations established. This could be the first political idealist approach that world has ever attempted.

League of Nations did useful service at the beginning but later failed to fulfill the main objective. Because of it’s idealist visions some times it couldn’t use in the practical world. For instance, Italy invasion of Abyssinia and Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the League of Nations only could warn Italy and Japan but nothing changed. These idealist ideas mostly expected the respect to the virtue of a country, although in practically only rarely can be seen. So, finally League of Nations becomes ineffective and Idealists were severely criticized by thinker called themselves as Realists. Despite Idealist thoughts the Second World War couldn’t be prevented. Thus, Realist ideas began to rise.

Thirdly, the Cold War Phase was created by post the Second World War situations. Just after the WWII it weakened previous imperial powers (UK and France), and cause emergence of two super powers (USA and USSR).Tension grew between them. Arms Race, Space Race, achieving nuclear power, proxy wars demonstrated this tension. Not only between those two countries but also countries belong to each other’s ideological camps (Capitalist and Socialist).Even there was the UN it couldn’t pay much intervention these struggle for power. By the balancing of power both parties stopped the Third World War happening. In this period realist ideas took priority to resolve a incident.

Finally, the Scientific Phase. After the 1960s the development of science and technology many analysts looked at international relation as a science, more like social science. By Creating new methods of theories and this phase evolve until today.

Political Idealism and Political Realism

Idealism dominated the study of International Relations from the end of the First World War until the late 1930s.Sometimes referred to as Utopianism in other word Liberal Internationalism. Immanuel Kant, Richard Cobden, John Hobson and Woodrow Wilson are few of among notable liberal idealists.

Idealists are out of touch with practical thinking, may be more sophisticated to use in practically, they always given priority consideration about moral principles than practical activities and also nave about physical world around them. They were seeking a perfect world in future.

As I mentioned before, idealism come to prominence in reaction to the massacre of the WWI.Analysts study the problem, peace groups formed and debated, universities began to teach international relations as a crucial subject, and many intellectuals began to try to educate people about the benefits of developing an Internationalist Orientation.

Considering thinking of idealists, we can give more prominent place to Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”, a set of principles that he produced to the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919.This document provided an outline for stopping WWI and establishment of League of Nations.

The idealists believe enforcing Parliamentary Democracy will liberalize the world order and will strengthen the International Law. League of Nations was the first step for anarchical world government for peaceful world, according to the idealist analysts. But its impractical application could not prevent the WWII.

A major characteristic of idealism is the belief that what unites human beings is more important than what divides them. They believed in Cosmopolitan ethics rather than national interests and customs and urged the people to reform international system which based on States.

According to our knowledge their was a good example for using idealist ideology to prevent war. In 1938, Britain, France, Italy and Germany signed Munich Pact, the matter over annexation of Sudtenland region of Czechoslovakia from Germany. It kept peace between countries but strengthened war-like Germany.

Idealism fell in to disrepute with the collapse of the League of nations and the outbreak of the WWII.

According to the Realists, realism has been for very long time, since 5th century B.C.Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbs and Max Webber are few of them. But modern theoretical approach was begun very recently around 1930s and 1940s.

E.H.Carr and Hans J.Morgenthau are significant characters among modern realists. They claimed there was no natural harmony of interests among states and that it was foolish and even dangerous to hope that the struggle for power among states could be tamed by international law, democratization and international commerce. And they say that this believes made the way the way to WWII and Hitler became more powerful.

Realism always like a pessimistic ideology, but it consists with reality of human beings. That’s why it creates grim and suspicious image of international politics. Among realists there are slight differences each and everyone but we can crystallize their ideas as follows,

“A precarious form of order through the balance of power not cosmopolitan justice is the best we can hope for in the international anarchy: a realm of continual struggles for power and security among states.”

However, Realism greatly criticized by scholars. In1960s and 1970s scholars believe that this realist ideology was too harsh about human being and decided it should be modified according to economical liberalization and development of science and technology.


Some people (mostly realists) suggested that idealism is an expression of the political philosophy of the satisfied great powers. According to E.H.Carr, a leading realist author, that the idealists are also nave about the role of power in international relations and also he said,”Not all states had an interest in peace. Those who dominated the international system were more likely to pursue peace because it was in their interest to maintain the international status quo. Contrary to the behalf of the idealists, then, there was no natural harmony of interests among states”.

If we think that idealism totally invalid to today’s politics, it is wrong. Nowadays people accept the liberal thinking in international relations than Cold War time; and also try to experiment by using it (e.g.:-European Union).But in practically until control human ambitions “idealism” would not work effective in international politics.

Today, intellectuals are asking that is there any validity of realism to modern globalizing world. My idea is yes. It is valid because we still experiencing conflicts among human beings. Last five decades there was many intrastate wars than interstate wars, also killing more than killed in WWII. So, realists are more forward at the moment, and idealist should wait until their “utopia” will become true. Therefore, I agree the idea “Political Realism is more appropriate than Political Idealism in understanding and explaining International Relations”.

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand: The Need for American Nationalism

“United we stand, divided we fall.”

Long ago in yesteryear, the Founding Fathers first defined the American spirit-one of unity, freedom, and prosperity that many Americans still embrace. Yet amidst the 2016 presidential election season, their famous remarks appear sinfully construed, distorted. Even in the supposed impartial atmosphere of public high school, a looming animosity shrouds my politically-engaged peers. Nearly every day, I find arguments and strained friendships over why their candidate is superior and yours, inferior. American nationalism has degraded among our youth, among all voters, of course at a time when only a sole American identity can deter emerging foreign opponents. Be I the mischievous student, the words “divided we stand, united we fall” would already graffiti bathroom walls. Nationalism, in this sense, does not resemble patriotism altogether, but rather is the essential cooperation and coordination of the American people and their representatives to set and reach common goals for US betterment.

However, our own polarization has backlogged these ambitions, turning debate into prolonged debacle. Now more than ever, regardless of your personal views on businessman Donald J. Trump, now president-elect, must Lady Liberty’s character remain intact-as one cooperative country for progress and togetherness-else her copper visage will continue to fracture.

Political hostility, primarily from Republicans, has already paralyzed much progress. And in 2016, their rivalry has only intensified, Pew Research Center reports. The hive minds of each major party continue to lock horns, but when the dust clears, no-one gains. These fiery bouts morph into growing obstacles that hinder the democratic, law-making process. We can look to the scramble over a Supreme Court chair as a recent example. In March, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS in order to fill a vacancy left by deceased Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the GOP-dominated Senate refuses to hold a confirmation hearing, largely due to his liberal (albeit moderate) stance. Even in the case of an essential government function, the partisan branches display an adamant unwillingness to work together. Republican senator Lindsey Graham encapsulates his party’s agitation against Garland’s nomination: “Even if you [Obama] picked me, Lindsey Graham, I would lead the charge against me because you were the one who picked me… ” Now seven months later in December, the Supreme Court still remains a seat short. Although this Senate roadblock has shown few short-term consequences, long-since-begotten antagonism between the Democratic Party and the GOP unmasks itself yet again, reviving along with it their obstructionist directives. Extrapolate these relations to times of crisis such as direct engagement with ISIL, which soon-to-be President Trump has proposed along the campaign trail. With the government at odds with itself, how could we establish initiatives to resolve impending threats?

Despite our differences, we Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike must learn to compromise. The Framers of the Constitution were locked in bitter dispute: North vs. South over commerce regulation, but like many great resolves, the delegates discovered a middle ground, splitting commerce into three constituents, regulating only two. Take note politicians, and follow their wise path. There is no need to reinvent the political process; we just need to return to our educated, Washington-esque roots. However, with legislative and executive power shifting to the GOP come January, the two branches are more likely to work together for resolutions, unlike under the current Obama administration where GOP congressmen barred much of the POTUS’s plans. The need for compromise appears minimized by slim majority control, with a dissenting other half. Yet, the new Republican Congress has promised to undo much of the progress made in Obama’s eight years. Instead of building upon the imperfect framework that Obamacare and other policies laid out, congressional opponents seek to repeal them in their entirety and again go back the drawing board. Similarly, China and Cuba are disquieted. How a Trump presidency might potentially damage fragile, preexisting Cuban and Chinese relations is unknown.

The thawed Cold War revealed the United States as the global superpower, but recently, the well-known American allure has faded; industrialized Europeans outrank us in crucial aspects such as education, infrastructure, and healthcare. We are behind not because of our lack of resolve, but because of an onslaught of political obstacles and perpetual opposition. Every general election cycle this procedure repeats: progress made, progress lost, progress made, progress lost. Even at the federal level, nationalism sees itself poisoned, fallen, and forgotten amid partisanship’s brawls to the people’s detriment, where solely the antidotes of commonality can launch revival.

Rationale alone-not these party lines-can decide an American future with certainty. We must participate in cultured debate akin to the classical Athenian body politic, ecclesia. Once we set the bitterness of party collective thought aside, our globalized enlightened individualism works towards a cooperative national identity. GOP Ohio governor John Kasich garnered much applause stating, “The Republican party is my vehicle, not my master.” If we can decide for ourselves what our political views are, polarization along party lines ceases to exist.

As a country, we do not share any one agenda. Instead, we remain a nation of varying viewpoints, ideals, and values; this national identity is what defines the American spirit. In a globalized world where no region is a single culture or color, or where 800 unique languages are spoken in just New York City, or where the average household contains items originating from all four corners of the Earth, nationalism seems impractical. Nevertheless, all still share citizenship’s common bond, in spite of our distinctive identities. Under nationalism, these traits are what enable congressmen to understand different points of view and collaborate. The presidential debates and speeches of mainstream politics leave much to be desired; they lack newness, innovation. In contrast, a diverse but nationalist Congress can present fresh perspectives likely to gain momentum in assembly. What is truly good for the nation now takes precedence over adherence to party platform. Just this year, Obama signed the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act, which lays out a process to instate tax cuts on manufacturers to compete in the global market. Both Democratic and Republican congressmen sponsored the bill. Although Congress and the POTUS rarely co-op, their work together is fruitful. The act seeks to address a $1.8 billion loss in the economy due to tax hikes on manufacturers over a span of years.

However, we must not conflate the true promise of nationalism with hatred. Donald Trump’s election to the office of the presidency has stirred divisive controversy. He inspires a sense of unity among his followers, yet with hostile undertones. Terms like sexism and white supremacy have once again stolen the political spotlight. In truth, there is no place in nationalism or patriotism for prejudice and discrimination. Nationalism, instead should provide a base of unity for strength and solidarity. For example, a few years ago, a student in my school district was alarmingly diagnosed with lymphoma. Nevertheless, the community of Sparta Township responded. A student-teacher effort raised funds to pay the majority of his medical bills, alleviating his family’s economic hardship. At home football games, the student section wore lymphoma awareness lime T-shirts displaying their support. He was able to galvanize a student body without disunity, in the process, defining a healthy schoolwide identity. American nationalism does the same-for 300 million individuals as a collective people, regardless of the world’s new heterogeneity. Events like Apollo 11, WWII, the Miracle on Ice, all enabled the American populace to strive for a common goal of survival and success just as my classmate did, but in a global context.

In the open and optimistic American mind, political discourse and dissent are often met with welcoming praise. It is core to our governance and our constitutionality. Free and diverse speech is prized for its ability to invent, alter, revise, and reinvent US policy and legislation. But these American values have also created a toxic byproduct, an unruly Frankenstein, composed of frustrated filibusters and congressional gridlock. Resolutions vanish every four years, and our once tightly-knit nationalistic backbone appears shattered. No longer do Americans grieve or celebrate or thrive together. The US must reacclimate itself to a world of advanced opponents and tough competitors through the unlimited potential of collaboration-disregarding trivial differences but anointing the ingenious ones. We must step away from political infighting and return to the wise passions of our Founding Fathers, so we may once again be united as we stand.

Political Influence While Starting A Business In India

As in any part of the world, political influence is highly essential to start a business in India. Especially if you are planning to start a multi billion business, some sort of political patronage is an absolute necessity. Not only for safeguarding the interest of the company but even to begin the process of getting the required sanctions, one requires hold in the high echelons of politics and administrative circles.

Indian society is highly plural. It is the biggest democracy in the world with multi party political system. In population, India is second to China, with nearly 1200 million people. This is the most important consumer market in the world. It is a fast developing world. India is the third largest economy in the world and second fast growing economy in Asia. It has the tremendous potential of development with huge intellectual human force. With all these advantages and the huge market potential, world super entrepreneurs are looking for business establishments in India. With the overcrowded population and the millions of hard working and qualified personals, India offers a very cheap work force to the world. Many have realized the business potential in India, started exploring the unique opportunities of investments.

During the last couple of decades, India has opened its market to world. It has absolutely become an open global market. Banking sector, Insurance sector and all fields of industrial and business are now open for multi national investment. Of course there are many obstructions to cross. And mostly all issues can overcome and establish business if you have the political patronage.

India has a plural political system. With numerous political parties, national level and state level, it is very difficult to get a consensus among all parties for starting any business. Also these political parties have patronage of many factors, caste, creed and ideologies. There are political parties with left centric communist ideologies; they are totally against direct foreign investments. But other parties, who are main ruling coalition partners, have right centric ideologies and open for foreign investments. In most of the states, mostly local political parties are ruling. Political parties require financial patronage from big business establishments.

Many constituent states have realized the need for foreign investments in their state for a growth oriented economic situation. Hence the climate has changed a lot in India. So many privileges are offered to entrepreneurs to start business. With all these facilities, still political patronage is a must to start a business in India. Even after establishing the business, for a proper running of the business, political help is essential. It is mainly to sort out issues related to local taxes, labor problems and many such issues affecting the normal working of the companies.