John Herz brings out the idealist assumptions and their failure in the hard reality of security dilemma and persistence of realism in the sphere of international politics. Since the beginning of known history men, nations and their leaders have grappled with the ‘security dilemma’. This urge for security from being attacked, subjected has driven states to strive to acquire more and more power and this in turn renders the others more insecure. The two major ways of reacting to this situation are-
Political Realism
Political Idealism
Political Realism recognizes the phenomena which are connected with the urge for security and competition for power. Political idealism assumes that a harmony exists, or can be realized between the individual concern and general good. Power is something that can easily be channelized, diffused and utilized for the common good and it can be ultimately eliminated altogether from political relationships. John Herz has analysed nationalism and internationalism with regards to their basic idealist assumptions and their failure in the world of realist phenomena.
Idealist Nationalism
Rise of sovereign nation states gave push to the idea and ideal of a system of equal, free and self determining nationalities and all living peacefully side by side in harmonious mutual relations. Thus Idealism stands in contrast to nationalism that developed with the rise of exclusive, aggressive, expansionist and imperialistic national policies which is called ‘Integral Nationalism’, which represents political realism in its extreme. Idealist nationalism had its source in the doctrine of national self-determination that produced the idea of individual self-determination. Thus the fundamental rights of nationalities were considered to be the same as those of man, namely freedom from interference and oppression. It was assumed that once such freedom had been achieved in a system of self-determining nation-states; there would be no longer any reason or justification for international friction and war. But this idealistic assumption and the unanswered question as to whom these nationalities were to do battle with were soon answered by history. Not perceiving the common enemy, they would turn against each other. This turning against each other as one of its major reasons was the security dilemma of politically disintegrated units and their ensuing competition for power. Nationalities having established themselves as nation-states inevitably became competing units. How did it happen that earlier nationalism, with its vision of international peace and harmony could have so completely overlooked this phenomena.
Some explanation can be found in Political Idealism itself, its inclination to expect the millennium ‘totally and radically different situation’. Humanitarian Nationalism expected the golden age of international brotherhood to come true once nationalities were set free to determine their fate in liberty. But the mechanical balance of power politics of absolutist cabinets was more suitable for safeguarding peaceful relations than was a policy based on emotional impulses, aims and claims of nation-states.
Idealist Internationalism
Among movements expressive of idealist internationalism, Herz has accounted for those movements which were genuinely Universalist. According to Herz, French or Bolshevik revolutions were conceived as a world embracing development and such movements were truly world revolutionary in the strict sense. Puritan revolution in England and American Revolution were considered as a cause of one single nation. But world revolutionary appeal and propaganda were essence of French revolution. The revolution was considered as world religion and it was France’s mission to impose upon humanity. However, while overestimating the importance of revolutionary movements and sympathizing groups abroad, one vastly underestimating the hostile reaction the revolution was bound to evoke in a Europe still largely feudal and monarchist. When the people of Europe failed to respond to the message, disillusioned revolutionaries claimed the right to force them to be free. The declaration of national convention of April 17, 1793 stated that France will not interfere in any way in the affairs of other powers- marked the real end of world revolutionary period and beginning of national real-politik. The revolution had now become the revolution of one single country.
The history of Workers’ International is yet another confirmation of the prevalence of power-political realist phenomena over utopian idealism. The idea of a classless society, which was to result from the concerted international action of the proletarians of all countries, combined internal and international utopianism in one comprehensive structure. The Second International conceived the task of different socialist parties as one of opposing capitalistic wars and turning them into struggles for the overthrow of capitalistic system. But despite its apparent strength on the eve of world war, the Second International proved impotent in 1914. The great majority of Workers’ representatives voted for war. The allegation f self-defense was indicative of profound dilemma connected with the security factor. Realistic appraisal of power phenomena led the Soviet Regime (under Stalin) to abandon its world revolutionary ideology. Stalinism adopted the Realist fact that one country in which revolution had succeeded was forced to live in same world with its counter revolutionary neighbours. Soviet Union now acts with at least the same degree of insistence on self preservation, sovereignty, security and power considerations as do other countries. Whatever appeared as Soviet Internationalism has in reality became subservient to a national cause. Thus it shows that security and power dilemma would have its impact on actual policies in a collectivized world as it has had in capitalistic and pre-capitalistic worlds.
Internationalism in the field of political thought has commonly taken the form of a general idealism, relatively independent of socio-political creeds. Its nature is apparent from the assumption that international integration in certain fields of society will inevitably be followed and implemented by the socio-political integration of mankind in one community. War and power politics are considered as anachronisms. But this simply overlooks the opposite tendency growing out of the technical interdependence of the sovereign units in the world. Faced with growing interdependence and also with security dilemma, their attempted way-out is to expand their individual power, economically and strategically. In view of the security dilemma of competing powers, attempts to reduce power by mutual agreement, for instance through disarmament are bound to fail.
Failure of idealist internationalism, connected with economic or laissez-faire liberalism
The assumption that wherever and whenever the trading class with its commercial interests came to the fore, it developed an international pacifist ideology based on the assumption that once the irrational, monopolistic and nationalistic obstacles to free exchange of goods among nations were eliminated, all nations would readily realize their common interest in peace. England in 17th century was filled with pacifist ideology of commercialism. But it was economic as well as in the political realm that realist obstacles to the implementation of laissez-faire idea were found. Exactly as in the domestic sphere, accumulation of economic power by monopolies has prevented a genuinely free enterprise system from functioning, so in the international realm complete freedom of exchange could not prevail over the tendencies of monopoly and exclusiveness. Thus tariffs became powerful instruments for preservation of vested economic interests in actual war as those of armaments manufacturers and alleged business interests induced governments as a pretext for power politics. Even if Capitalism had not developed inherent oligarchic and imperialist trends, the security dilemma inherent in the system of sovereign nation-states has presented Capitalism from forming a genuinely free enterprise system on an international basis.
Arguments by collectivists
According to collectivists, in a structure of planned economies the causes of international friction and wars would be eliminated. However laissez-faire liberal F.A.Hayek criticizes the collectivist argument by saying that if the resources of different nations are treated as exclusive properties of these nations, they inevitably become the source of friction and envy between whole nations. From the above analysis, it seems that the two extremes- utopian idealism and realism were the only existing as possible approaches to the problem of politics. But there have also been possibilities of synthesis i.e. combination of political realism and political idealism. Herz suggests calling such an approach Realist Liberalism. The term ‘Realist’ indicates that the system or policy in question must start from and accept the factual insights of political realism.
Term ‘liberalism’ here is broader than the liberalism of 19th century (free trade and constitutionalists). It includes terms such as liberal, democratic, humanitarian and socialist. It is not pledged to any specific economic theory or to any particular theory of best form of government. In short, it opposes all the natural forces and trends which are the direct or indirect consequences of the security and power dilemma. Thus, realist liberalism is the theory and practice of ‘realisable ideal’. According to Herz, a system of collective security, as the realization of the balance principle, came closer to the practical realization in the inter-war period. The security dilemma today (1950) is perhaps more clear cut than it was ever before. It would appear that from the point which concentration of power has never achieved, it can only either proceed to actual global domination by one power unit or recede into diffusion and disintegration.
Political Realism
Political Idealism
Political Realism recognizes the phenomena which are connected with the urge for security and competition for power. Political idealism assumes that a harmony exists, or can be realized between the individual concern and general good. Power is something that can easily be channelized, diffused and utilized for the common good and it can be ultimately eliminated altogether from political relationships. John Herz has analysed nationalism and internationalism with regards to their basic idealist assumptions and their failure in the world of realist phenomena.
Idealist Nationalism
Rise of sovereign nation states gave push to the idea and ideal of a system of equal, free and self determining nationalities and all living peacefully side by side in harmonious mutual relations. Thus Idealism stands in contrast to nationalism that developed with the rise of exclusive, aggressive, expansionist and imperialistic national policies which is called ‘Integral Nationalism’, which represents political realism in its extreme. Idealist nationalism had its source in the doctrine of national self-determination that produced the idea of individual self-determination. Thus the fundamental rights of nationalities were considered to be the same as those of man, namely freedom from interference and oppression. It was assumed that once such freedom had been achieved in a system of self-determining nation-states; there would be no longer any reason or justification for international friction and war. But this idealistic assumption and the unanswered question as to whom these nationalities were to do battle with were soon answered by history. Not perceiving the common enemy, they would turn against each other. This turning against each other as one of its major reasons was the security dilemma of politically disintegrated units and their ensuing competition for power. Nationalities having established themselves as nation-states inevitably became competing units. How did it happen that earlier nationalism, with its vision of international peace and harmony could have so completely overlooked this phenomena.
Some explanation can be found in Political Idealism itself, its inclination to expect the millennium ‘totally and radically different situation’. Humanitarian Nationalism expected the golden age of international brotherhood to come true once nationalities were set free to determine their fate in liberty. But the mechanical balance of power politics of absolutist cabinets was more suitable for safeguarding peaceful relations than was a policy based on emotional impulses, aims and claims of nation-states.
Idealist Internationalism
Among movements expressive of idealist internationalism, Herz has accounted for those movements which were genuinely Universalist. According to Herz, French or Bolshevik revolutions were conceived as a world embracing development and such movements were truly world revolutionary in the strict sense. Puritan revolution in England and American Revolution were considered as a cause of one single nation. But world revolutionary appeal and propaganda were essence of French revolution. The revolution was considered as world religion and it was France’s mission to impose upon humanity. However, while overestimating the importance of revolutionary movements and sympathizing groups abroad, one vastly underestimating the hostile reaction the revolution was bound to evoke in a Europe still largely feudal and monarchist. When the people of Europe failed to respond to the message, disillusioned revolutionaries claimed the right to force them to be free. The declaration of national convention of April 17, 1793 stated that France will not interfere in any way in the affairs of other powers- marked the real end of world revolutionary period and beginning of national real-politik. The revolution had now become the revolution of one single country.
The history of Workers’ International is yet another confirmation of the prevalence of power-political realist phenomena over utopian idealism. The idea of a classless society, which was to result from the concerted international action of the proletarians of all countries, combined internal and international utopianism in one comprehensive structure. The Second International conceived the task of different socialist parties as one of opposing capitalistic wars and turning them into struggles for the overthrow of capitalistic system. But despite its apparent strength on the eve of world war, the Second International proved impotent in 1914. The great majority of Workers’ representatives voted for war. The allegation f self-defense was indicative of profound dilemma connected with the security factor. Realistic appraisal of power phenomena led the Soviet Regime (under Stalin) to abandon its world revolutionary ideology. Stalinism adopted the Realist fact that one country in which revolution had succeeded was forced to live in same world with its counter revolutionary neighbours. Soviet Union now acts with at least the same degree of insistence on self preservation, sovereignty, security and power considerations as do other countries. Whatever appeared as Soviet Internationalism has in reality became subservient to a national cause. Thus it shows that security and power dilemma would have its impact on actual policies in a collectivized world as it has had in capitalistic and pre-capitalistic worlds.
Internationalism in the field of political thought has commonly taken the form of a general idealism, relatively independent of socio-political creeds. Its nature is apparent from the assumption that international integration in certain fields of society will inevitably be followed and implemented by the socio-political integration of mankind in one community. War and power politics are considered as anachronisms. But this simply overlooks the opposite tendency growing out of the technical interdependence of the sovereign units in the world. Faced with growing interdependence and also with security dilemma, their attempted way-out is to expand their individual power, economically and strategically. In view of the security dilemma of competing powers, attempts to reduce power by mutual agreement, for instance through disarmament are bound to fail.
Failure of idealist internationalism, connected with economic or laissez-faire liberalism
The assumption that wherever and whenever the trading class with its commercial interests came to the fore, it developed an international pacifist ideology based on the assumption that once the irrational, monopolistic and nationalistic obstacles to free exchange of goods among nations were eliminated, all nations would readily realize their common interest in peace. England in 17th century was filled with pacifist ideology of commercialism. But it was economic as well as in the political realm that realist obstacles to the implementation of laissez-faire idea were found. Exactly as in the domestic sphere, accumulation of economic power by monopolies has prevented a genuinely free enterprise system from functioning, so in the international realm complete freedom of exchange could not prevail over the tendencies of monopoly and exclusiveness. Thus tariffs became powerful instruments for preservation of vested economic interests in actual war as those of armaments manufacturers and alleged business interests induced governments as a pretext for power politics. Even if Capitalism had not developed inherent oligarchic and imperialist trends, the security dilemma inherent in the system of sovereign nation-states has presented Capitalism from forming a genuinely free enterprise system on an international basis.
Arguments by collectivists
According to collectivists, in a structure of planned economies the causes of international friction and wars would be eliminated. However laissez-faire liberal F.A.Hayek criticizes the collectivist argument by saying that if the resources of different nations are treated as exclusive properties of these nations, they inevitably become the source of friction and envy between whole nations. From the above analysis, it seems that the two extremes- utopian idealism and realism were the only existing as possible approaches to the problem of politics. But there have also been possibilities of synthesis i.e. combination of political realism and political idealism. Herz suggests calling such an approach Realist Liberalism. The term ‘Realist’ indicates that the system or policy in question must start from and accept the factual insights of political realism.
Term ‘liberalism’ here is broader than the liberalism of 19th century (free trade and constitutionalists). It includes terms such as liberal, democratic, humanitarian and socialist. It is not pledged to any specific economic theory or to any particular theory of best form of government. In short, it opposes all the natural forces and trends which are the direct or indirect consequences of the security and power dilemma. Thus, realist liberalism is the theory and practice of ‘realisable ideal’. According to Herz, a system of collective security, as the realization of the balance principle, came closer to the practical realization in the inter-war period. The security dilemma today (1950) is perhaps more clear cut than it was ever before. It would appear that from the point which concentration of power has never achieved, it can only either proceed to actual global domination by one power unit or recede into diffusion and disintegration.
No comments:
Post a Comment