‘Political realism’ serves as an important frame­work for how nation-states conduct themselves to guarantee their continued existence and security. This perspective posits that the international order is essentially anarchic, lacking a central authority. Accepting this reality compels states to develop strategic responses to stabilise their position and fulfil their existentialist purpose in a competitive environment.

Over time, in this regard, political realism has evolved into several branches, as perceptions of anarchy and the drivers of state behaviour continue to evolve. ‘Classical realism’ focuses on the inherent drive within human nature for power, while ‘neorealism’ emphasises the external constraints imposed by the global structure that influences human nature. ‘Neoclassical realism’ bridges these ideas by looking at how domestic factors and individual leadership influence a state’s reaction to external pressures. Meanwhile, ‘liberal realism’ attempts to find a middle ground, by acknowledging the role of international norms even within an anarchic system.

Realism has remained a vital subject of academic study and practical statecraft for centuries. However, significant tensions exist within these various realist frameworks.

Neorealism, for example, is divided into two competing perspectives: ‘defensive realism’ and ‘offensive realism.’ Defensive realists argue that states should pursue only a limited amount of power to maintain their security, as an excessive build-up might provoke others and trigger a conflict. Offensive realists, on the other hand, contend that true security is only achievable by becoming the........

© Dawn (Magazines)