Power politics

Last updated

Power politics is a theory of power in international relations which contends that distributions of power and national interests, or changes to those distributions, are fundamental causes of war and of system stability. [1] [ additional citation(s) needed ]

Contents

The concept of power politics provides a way of understanding systems of international relations: in this view, states compete for the world's limited resources, and it is to an individual state's advantage to be manifestly able to harm others. Power politics prioritizes national self-interest over the interests of other nations or the international community, and thus may include threatening one another with military, economic, or political aggression to protect one nation's own interest.

Techniques

Techniques of power politics include:

Machtpolitik

The German version is Machtpolitik. It celebrates the idea of conflict between nations as a means of asserting the national will and strengthening the state. This idea is somewhat related to "Realpolitik", but it specifically acknowledges that the German Empire was established through the use of force by the Prussian military and Otto von Bismarck's diplomacy. It also reflects a romanticized view of military virtues and the belief that international conflicts have a moral purpose. For instance, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, who was instrumental in Prussia's victories over Denmark, Austria, and France, once expressed a Machtpolitik sentiment by saying that "war is a part of the divine order of the world." This concept is also linked to militarism and social Darwinism. [2] [3]

Cyclical theories of power politics

George Modelski

George Modelski defines global order as a 'management network centred on a lead unit and contenders for leadership, (pursuing) collective action at the global level'. [4] The system is allegedly cyclical. Each cycle is about 100 years' duration and a new hegemonic power appears each time:

  1. Portugal 1492–1580; in the Age of Discovery
  2. The Netherlands 1580–1688; beginning with the Eighty Years' War, 1579–1588
  3. The United Kingdom (1) 1688–1792; beginning with the wars of Louis XVI
  4. United Kingdom (2) 1792–1914; beginning with the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars
  5. The United States 1914 to (predicted) 2030; beginning with World War I and two. [5]

Each cycle has four phases;

  1. Global war, which a) involves almost all global powers, b) is 'characteristically naval' [6] c) is caused by a system breakdown, d) is extremely lethal, e) results in a new global leader, capable of tackling global problems. [7] The war is a 'decision process' analogous to a national election. [8] The Thirty Years War, though lasting and destructive, was not a 'global war'. [9]
  2. World power, which lasts for 'about one generation'. [10] The new incumbent power 'prioritises global problems', mobilises a coalition, is decisive and innovative. [11] Pre-modern communities become dependent on the hegemonic power. [12]
  3. Delegitimation. This phase can last for 20–27 years; the hegemonic power falters, as rival powers assert new nationalistic policies. [13]
  4. Deconcentration. The hegemony's problem-solving capacity declines. It yields to a multipolar order of warring rivals. Pre-modern communities become less dependent. [14] A challenger appears (successively, Spain, France, France, Germany, and the USSR) [5] and a new global war ensues.

The hegemonic nations tend to have: 'insular geography'; a stable, open society; a strong economy; strategic organisation, and strong political parties. By contrast, the 'challenger' nations have: closed systems; absolute rulers; domestic instability; and continental geographic locations. [15]

The long cycle system is repetitive, but also evolutionary. According to Modelski, it originated in about 1493 through a) the decline of Venetian naval power, b) Chinese abandonment of naval exploration, and c) discovery of sea routes to India and the Americas. [16] It has developed in parallel with the growth of the nation-state, political parties, command of the sea, and 'dependency of pre-modern communities'. [17] The system is flawed, lacking in coherence, solidarity, and capacity to address the North-South divide. [18] Modelski speculates that US deconcentration might be replaced by a power based in the 'Pacific rim' or by an explicit coalition of nations, as 'co-operation is urgently required in respect of nuclear weapons'. [19]

Modelski 'dismisses the idea that international relations are anarchic'. His research, influenced by Immanuel Wallerstein, was 'measured in decades... a major achievement' says Peter J. Taylor. [20]

Joshua S. Goldstein

Goldstein in 1988 posited a 'hegemony cycle' of 150 years' duration, the four hegemonic powers since 1494 being;

  1. Hapsburg Spain, 1494–1648; ended by the Thirty Years War, in which Spain itself was the 'challenger'; the Treaty of Westphalia and the beginnings of the nation-state.
  2. The Netherlands, 1648–1815; ended by the challenge from France of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, the Treaty of Vienna and introduction of the Congress System
  3. Great Britain, 1815–1945; ended by Germany's challenge in two World Wars, and the postwar settlement, including the World Bank, IMF, GATT, the United Nations and NATO
  4. The United States, since 1945. [21]

Goldstein suggests that US hegemony may 'at an indeterminate time' be challenged and ended by China (the 'best fit'), by western Europe, Japan, or (writing in 1988) the USSR. The situation is unstable due to the continuance of Machiavellian power politics and the deployment of nuclear weapons. The choice lies between 'global cooperation or global suicide'. Thus there may be 'an end to hegemony itself'. [22]

Goldstein speculates that Venetian hegemony, ceded to Spain in 1494, may have begun in 1350. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features and sees limited potential for cooperation. The anarchic state of the international system means that states cannot be certain of other states' intentions and their security, thus prompting them to engage in power politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hegemony</span> Political, economic or military predominance of one state over other states

Hegemony is the political, economic, and military predominance of one state over other states, either regional or global.

Realpolitik is the approach of conducting diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following ideological, moral, or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as pragmatism in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies" or "realistic policies".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International relations</span> Study of relationships between two or more states

International relations (IR) are the interactions among sovereign states. The scientific study of those interactions is also referred to as international studies, international politics, or international affairs. In a broader sense, the study of IR, in addition to multilateral relations, concerns all activities among states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs). There are several schools of thought within IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism and constructivism.

In international relations, power is defined in several different ways. Material definitions of state power emphasize economic and military power. Other definitions of power emphasize the ability to structure and constitute the nature of social relations between actors. Power is an attribute of particular actors in their interactions, as well as a social process that constitutes the social identities and capacities of actors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Great power</span> Nation that has great political, social, and economic influence on a global scale

A great power is a sovereign state that is recognized as having the ability and expertise to exert its influence on a global scale. Great powers characteristically possess military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence, which may cause middle or small powers to consider the great powers' opinions before taking actions of their own. International relations theorists have posited that great power status can be characterized into power capabilities, spatial aspects, and status dimensions.

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is a theory of international relations, rooted in research from the fields of political science, economics, and history. HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. Thus, the end of hegemony diminishes the stability of the international system. As evidence for the stability of hegemony, proponents of HST frequently point to the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, as well as the instability prior to World War I and the instability of the interwar period.

Collective security is a multi-lateral security arrangement between states in which each state in the institution accepts that an attack on one state is the concern of all and merits a collective response to threats by all. Collective security was a key principle underpinning the League of Nations and the United Nations. Collective security is more ambitious than systems of alliance security or collective defense in that it seeks to encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed globally.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social cycle theory</span> Type of social theories

Social cycle theories are among the earliest social theories in sociology. Unlike the theory of social evolutionism, which views the evolution of society and human history as progressing in some new, unique direction(s), sociological cycle theory argues that events and stages of society and history generally repeat themselves in cycles. Such a theory does not necessarily imply that there cannot be any social progress. In the early theory of Sima Qian and the more recent theories of long-term ("secular") political-demographic cycles as well as in the Varnic theory of P.R. Sarkar, an explicit accounting is made of social progress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Realism (international relations)</span> Belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing power

Realism, a school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.

Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity for three or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.

Global politics, also known as world politics, names both the discipline that studies the political and economic patterns of the world and the field that is being studied. At the centre of that field are the different processes of political globalization in relation to questions of social power.

Power transition theory is a theory about the nature of war, in relation to the power in international relations. The theory was first published in 1958 by its creator, A.F.K. Organski, in his textbook, World Politics (1958).

Robert Gilpin was an American political scientist. He was Professor of Politics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University where he held the Eisenhower professorship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Modelski</span> American political scientist

George Modelski was Professor of political science in the University of Washington. Modelski was a professor there from 1967 to 1995.

In international relations theory, the concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political globalization</span> Growth of the worldwide political system

Political globalization is the growth of the worldwide political system, both in size and complexity. That system includes national governments, their governmental and intergovernmental organizations as well as government-independent elements of global civil society such as international non-governmental organizations and social movement organizations. One of the key aspects of the political globalization is the declining importance of the nation-state and the rise of other actors on the political scene. The creation and existence of the United Nations is called one of the classic examples of political globalization.

Joshua S. Goldstein is professor emeritus of international relations at American University. He graduated with a BA from Stanford University in 1981 and earned his doctorate at MIT 1986. He was appointed professor in 1993. He was on the faculty at the University of Southern California and American University and was a research scholar in political science at University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Power Politics is a book by international relations scholar Martin Wight, first published in 1946 as a 68-page essay. After 1959 Wight added twelve further chapters. Other works of Wight's were added by his former students, Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbraad, and a combined volume was published in 1978, six years after Wight's death. The book provides an overview of international politics featuring many elements of Realpolitik analysis.

Global policeman is an informal term for a superpower which seeks or claims the right to intervene in other sovereign states. It has been used, firstly for the United Kingdom and, since 1945, for the United States, though it has been suggested that China has been seeking to take over the role in the 21st century.

References

  1. ↑ Lemke 2008.
  2. ↑ Ganguly 2014.
  3. ↑ Wight 2002.
  4. ↑ Modelski 1987, p. 8.
  5. 1 2 Modelski 1987, p. 40.
  6. ↑ Modelski 1987, p. 101.
  7. ↑ Modelski 1987, pp. 43–46.
  8. ↑ Modelski 1987, pp. 36–37.
  9. ↑ Modelski 1987, p. 45.
  10. ↑ Modelski 1987, p. 157.
  11. ↑ Modelski 1987, pp. 14, 83, 93.
  12. ↑ Modelski 1987, chapter 8.
  13. ↑ Modelski 1987, pp. 40, 119.
  14. ↑ Modelski 1987, pp. 119–120, 207.
  15. ↑ Modelski 1987, p. 90, pp. 220-225, chapter 7.
  16. ↑ Modelski 1987, pp. 41–43, 95.
  17. ↑ Modelski 1987, chapters 6, 7, 8; p. 153.
  18. ↑ Modelski 1987, p. 201.
  19. ↑ Modelski 1987, pp. 41–43, 230–233.
  20. ↑ Taylor 1989.
  21. ↑ Goldstein 1988, pp. 281–289.
  22. ↑ Goldstein 1988, p. 347.
  23. ↑ Goldstein 1988, p. 285.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.