Power Politics: The Framework Provided
Understanding contemporary world politics is by no means an easy feat. To merely begin the process, one must first have an ample knowledge of historical as well as modern trends in international relations, the issues at hand both now and in the past and major events that affect the field. Several groups and styles of thinking have developed throughout the centuries to make attempts at comprehending world politics and most successfully carrying out international relations. One of these styles of thinking is often called power politics and can be referred to as realpolitik or realism. This school of thought focuses on ways in which power affects the international arena by assessing how states influence each other as the most important actors in world politics. Realpolitik pays attention to political power matters such as military preparedness and industrial capacities, ignoring issues of morality, ideology and other social aspects as reasons for actions of states. In this way, realism sets up a strong framework for understanding short-term, interstate relationships, yet leaves the comprehension of deeper, long-term issues weak in the background.
Power politics maintains that human nature is generally selfish. This belief comes from their understanding of the trends in international relations. They feel that in the international field, states are the most important actors which act upon their own individual interests. Therefore, a state is deemed powerful if it has the ability to maintain its national interests by influencing other states. These trends date back thousands of years to the beginning of war. Once states came into existence, selfishness caused territorial expansion and war to soon follow. Countries began developing armies to carry out their interests with force, and their neighbors had to respond with their own armies. This began the trends that lead to power politics. The need to focus on defense superseded the need to address more liberal issues.
Power politics are not only used in matters of war and defense. The general definition of power can be seen as a state’s ability to get its way, making other states do things that are in the interest of the first state. In realpolitik, states use militaristic, economic, and diplomatic strengths to influence other actors from whom they desire something. The ge...
... middle of paper ...
...ely analyze a modern issue is the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. When Iraq invaded Kuwait within the last decade, it was in the national interest of the United States to get involved due to the location of the conflict. With the annexed nation an important actor to keeping Iraq from having control of the Persian Gulf’s oil, the US used its superior military force to support its own national interest. This example shows us that a nation with a severely higher GDP and a preferable army can use force to influence other states.
Despite the fact that power politics helps to analyze many of the world’s issues, it fails to analyze and represent others. As previously mentioned, realism ignores many of the important issues within the field of international relations. These issues include sub-state actors, alternate goals of states, the importance of change in the global arena to improve the quality of the world, and the collective good. It is because of the complexities of the international stage that we must not assume that one view of world politics is correct and the others are wrong. We must take into consideration each school of thought in order to understand how the world works.
Power is what the government wants, with the power it can caused conflict. Like how one of the reasons the Roman empire fell due to overexpanded their empire, which lead that there was too much power for the Roman government
Political machines were supported by continuing immigration, sustained by patronage, enlarged by wealth, and in the end were weeded out by reformers progress for public rather than private good, and caused by the need for public works and skilled workers, after the population of cities expanded.
The arrogance of power is an insightful read for those who wish to put today 's global events in perspective. Although it was originally written in 1966 and may be considered dated, Fulbright’s eloquently written arguments are timeless and are important sources to help us gain a greater comprehension of what makes what Fulbright would consider a wise and strategic foreign policy. This book would be of great assistance in developing an objective view of American foreign policies as seen from abroad.
The US imperialism has intervened in several countries to open more doors for investment, control, and profit. On this way, military has acted as a catalyzer. Moreover, the national policies in market
Despite the fact that the theory of 'soft power' was coined at the end of the twentieth century , the idea has been diligently used by politicians, fifty years prior, throughout the Cold War, hence the name. Joseph Nye wrote a book which described soft power in depth. He divided power into thre...
a member of the judiciary such as a judge, the authority is not in the
Political power has been an issue plaguing man since the beginning of politics itself. How to gain it, how to hold it, how to properly use it, how to exploit it. Throughout time power has been exercised by those that hold it over those that do not. As with anything, problems are sure to arise. These problems call for solutions if peace is to be restored. The primary perils of political power are a strong desire to keep it, a devotion to anything other than justice, an unwillingness to stand for the right thing, and ruling in a merciless manner. The remedies of political power can be (but are not limited to) confidence that laws are just, a willingness to negotiate, the sharing of power, and staying strong in what is just and right.
It is not about “what you do”, “it is about who you are and who you know”. As employees, we have all heard sayings like this before when it comes to the business world. The “power and politic” mindset is a direct result of the type of tug of war experienced for millions of years; from prehistoric times through modern day. Ever since Ugha smashed Mugha in the head with a club back in prehistoric times, politics have been around in the workplace. Politics are a subliminal fight for survival and it actually happens in personal lives as much as it does in our work lives. Politics can go hand in hand with power, just as night follows the day. Many of the political situations that occur within a corporation are a result of growth and change. However, part of the task of becoming a viable asset to a corporation is to look beyond the surface and find out where the company is heading as a result of these changes. In this way, employees can position themselves to be a positive part of the growth and change.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realism and facets of power in international relations. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. D. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43-63). London: Routledge.
The level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. System-level analysis considers a "top-down" approach to studying world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The individual-level analysis examines human actors on the global stage.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Power is one of the key concepts in the great Western tradition. It is at the same time, a concept on analytical levels, and a notable lack of agreement. It is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people. With a political power, you have the ability, an ability held by individuals and groups in a society that allows them to create policies. Political power controls political behavior of others, to lead and guide their behavior in the direction desired. But can power also mean having a sense of liberty? Liberty is the independence and freedom from physical restraint and force. It is also a concept that protects all individuals, frees man, and protects the state. These are significant topics, so what is the relationship between