The biggest political problem of our time is observable in the global sphere of politics, as the ongoing debate between the dichotomies of conversing ideologies: realism and liberalism is evident, and is exacerbating many other current political issues and conflicts. In ‘western’ individualist societies, such as the UK, America and Western Europe, governments tend to adopt a more liberal approach (Siedentop, 2014), with a focus on expanding trade and collaboration over international borders, enabled by globalisation (O’Connell, 2007); whereas in collectivist societies, such as Russia and China, these nations have adopted a more realist approach with political actors and governing bodies tending to focus more on obtaining their own wealth (Kelly, 2004). It can be argued that realism is the superior ideology because it accepts the world how it is, providing a rational approach for countries to govern from in this competitive international landscape. However, it can be argued that liberalism is superior because it is more progressive, enabling countries to strive more towards a tangible utopia rather than constantly involving themselves in self-interested conflict to gain wealth and power. 

Arguably, these incompatibilities of realism and liberalism, regarding ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ worlds, derives from the Cold war (Wohlforth, 1995), which debatably continues to haunt the political landscape today as the tensions are somewhat unresolved, with the presence and continuity of ‘proxy warfare,’ for example conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, as an attempt of Russian imperialism (Walt, 2018), driven by the incompatibilities between these polar-opposite political realms, otherwise the world could collectively reach agreements in a diplomatic manner, and conflicts would not occur. Therefore, it can be argued that the debate between realism and liberalism is the biggest political problem of our time, because it over-arches the majority of global conflicts, and drives many current disputes. This essay aims to identify the problems caused by this debate, for example understanding why the two ideologies are in conflict with each other, including some potential solutions governments should consider in terms of resolving the issues as a pragmatic response. 

Power is a notable theme in politics, and is a prominent topic in the field of debate, being a central focus of political disparity and conflict, making it a key feature to mention in this essay. It can be argued that realism acts as the superior ideology in relation to power, because it rationally explains the nature and survival of states in a competitive global landscape (Kantorowicz, 1934), with innate tendency to obtain more power as a method of survival and protection. This theoretical and pragmatic protection of the state against others is based on military domination (Bloor, 2022) as states are ‘naturally suspicious of each other’ (Bloor, 2022) making this a viable option for sceptical nations to turn to, in order to defend their existence and prominence. Chinese governments have recognised this, imposing somewhat of a threat to liberal countries, most notably America, who are unprepared for this impendence on their unipolar hegemony (Amadi, 2019; Mearschimer, 2019). Post-financial crisis, China began to emerge as a strong competitor on the world stage (Allison, 2020) as many western countries were struggling to recover, therefore shifting the power balance away from the west and towards China (Hill and Reynolds, 2023) as they capitalised on the vulnerability and deficiency of western economies during this time, as the speed of Chinese military operations was rapidly increasing (Allison, 2020), and their economy was exponentially improving (Mearschimer, 2019). Mr Xi identified this moment well, stating ‘it’s time for [them] to take centre stage in the world’ (2017), as Lord Robertson (2024) also expressed his concerns to the west as this Chinese economic threat marked a potential rivalry, highlighting the difference in approach to this conceivable Chinese dominance.  

However this accumulation of military power can be detrimental to democracy, with increasing threat of global nuclear war, making the entire political landscape extremely volatile, as certain nations possess the power to essentially end humanity (Docherty, 2019). This argument can be somewhat discredited however, as this possession of such power arguably creates a more peaceful global landscape, demonstrated in Mutually Assured Destruction (McNamara), in which multiple opposing states theoretically obtain the power to end the world, therefore this threat discourages them from actually operating these nuclear weapons as the implications are far too incomprehensibly great (Slade, 2016). 

Bloor (2022) explores realist ideas, which suggest states themselves are the highest actors and need stability and order as a main objective, encouraging a build-up of military arsenal. He suggests that these sovereign states possess the power to turn to military operations which is not a power that ‘non-states’ enjoy, however the threat of nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction suggests that this is an unlikely resort. Sovereignty is a core realist theme, as identified in the 1648 Westphalia treaty stating every state is sovereign over their own territory.  

Liberal perspectives often reject these power politics, preferring a ‘democratic peace thesis’ (Bloor, 2022) placing emphasis on harmony in an international system. Liberals seem to recognise the decline in the effectiveness of militarism, with ‘soft power’ gradually replacing ‘hard power’ (Bloor, 2022; Lee, 2024) highlighting the importance of cohesion and diplomacy in the international sphere. This perspective is arguably naïve and somewhat impossible, as Mearschimer (2019), argues that liberalism only works on the basis of all countries being liberal, therefore sharing this ideology mutually, which realists may argue is intangible. Robertson (2024) provides a more hopeful outlook however, suggesting that we live in a liberal globe with realist outliers, and that is where the problems occur (not with the forcefulness of liberalism as the former suggests, but with the tension between the dichotomies).  

The international sphere of global politics is particularly relevant, as realist and liberal schools of thought tend to take very different approaches, entrenching the global, ideological divisions prevalent in society, driving current conflicts. Bloor (2022) highlights the liberal approach emphasising the importance of growth of international institutions, as they promote political cooperation over borders, favourably considering diplomatic efforts as organisations such as the United Nations promote international law, peace and stability. This pressing need for diplomacy has been widely recognised particularly in recent years, with Lord Robertson (2024) highlighting the benefits of investing in diplomacy, and Stiglitz (2015) suggesting the need has never been so great. This may be considered by potentially new governments such as the Labour party, who may reassess the placement of foreign policy diplomats (Lammy, 2023) which would most likely act as a welcome feature to the international political landscape, as it is dominated by countries with more liberal approaches, particularly in the western world, meaning it would improve these international functions of cooperation and peace-keeping. Global governance is integral as it is a prominent feature on modern day functions, with a great deal of sovereignty shared between international bodies, providing better support than independent relations with an absence of overarching authority (Rosenau, 1995) as it provides global cohesion, encouraging international connections. Globalisation is an integral function to world order, as not only does it enable the aforementioned diplomacy, but also enables economic developments (Chang, 2003), which realist values of nationalism and nativism combat (Amadi, 2020). This highlights the counter-intuitiveness of realism as in an attempt to improve their own living standards, economies and quality of life, they create destruction on a larger scale.  

In conclusion, it can be strongly argued that the divisions between realism and liberalism is the main political problem of our time because of the widespread societal impacts it has, which poses implications on all aspects of the political sphere, as well as socio-economic repercussions. There is no simple answer or solution to this debate without adopting an ethnocentric approach, and one must be inclined to avoid the obvious answers of simply investing in diplomacy and opening borders for migration (for example), because it is unrealistic and unlikely to occur without significant challenges which could spark further divisions. The unresolvable nature of these divisions intensifies the incompatibilities of the two ideologies at hand, entrenching its significance as a major issue in the global realm of politics, making it the most significant issue.  

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Allison, G. (2020) ‘China’s geopolitics are pumped up by its economic success’ financial times (04/10/2020) [online] available at China’s geopolitics are pumped up by its economic success | Financial Times (ft.com) accessed (20/09/2023) 

Amadi, L., 2020. Globalization and the changing liberal international order: A review of the literature. Research in Globalization, 2, p.100015. 

Bloor, K., 2022. Theories of Global Politics. E-International Relations, 1(1), pp.1-15. 

Castles, S., 1992. The Australian model of immigration and multiculturalism: is it applicable to Europe?. International Migration Review, 26(2), pp.549-567. 

Chang, H.J., 2003. Globalisation, economic development & the role of the state. Zed Books. 

Docherty, B., 2020. A’light for all humanity’: the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the progress of humanitarian disarmament. In The 2017 Nuclear Ban Treaty (pp. 35-58). Routledge. 

Docquier, F. and Rapoport, H., 2012. Globalization, brain drain, and development. Journal of economic literature, 50(3), pp.681-730. 

Hill, F. and Reynolds, M. (2023) ‘is Putin winning the war in Ukraine?’ politico [online] available at Is Putin Winning In Ukraine? Fiona Hill Says, ‘He’s About To. And It’s on Us.’ – POLITICO (accessed 12/12/2023) 

Kantorowicz, H., 1934. Some rationalism about realism. The Yale Law Journal, 43(8), pp.1240-1253. 

Kelly, C.R., 2003. Realist Theory and Real Constraints. Va. J. Int’l L., 44, p.545. 

Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian (2023) Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy [online]. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=realism-intl-relations (Accessed 24/03/2024). 

Lammy, D. (2023) ‘Labour party outlines vision for UK foreign policy overhaul’ financial times, 20/06/2023 [online] available at Labour party outlines vision for UK foreign policy overhaul (ft.com)  accessed 08/12/2023 

Mearsheimer, J.J., 2019. Realism and restraint. Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, (14), pp.12-31. 

Myrie, C. (2023) ‘the world can solve this migration crisis. A more humane approach is the answer’ The Guardian, 10/09/2023 [online] available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/10/solve-migration-crisis-humane-windrush-generation (accessed 10/09/2023) 

Newton, I., 2004. Population limitation in migrants. Ibis, 146(2), pp.197-226.  

O’Connell, P., 2007. On reconciling irreconcilables: Neo-liberal globalisation and human rights. Human Rights Law Review, 7(3), pp.483-509. 

Sharma ,R. (2024) ‘Immigration crackdowns are good politics but bad economics’ financial times. 14/01/2024 [online] available at mmigration crackdowns are good politics but bad economics (ft.com) (accessed 14/01/2024) 

Siedentop, L., 2014. Inventing the individual: The origins of western liberalism. Harvard University Press. 

Slade, R., Tickner, R. and Wynn-Pope, P. (2015) ‘Protecting humanity from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons: Reframing the debate towards the humanitarian impact’, International Review of the Red Cross, 97(899), pp. 731–752. doi:10.1017/S1816383116000229. 

Rapoport, H. and Docquier, F., 2006. The economics of migrants’ remittances. Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, 2, pp.1135-1198.  

Robertson, 2024 ‘defence lecture. Can we manage a very dangerous world?’ 01/01/2024 

Walt, S. M. (2018). US grand strategy after the Cold War: Can realism explain it? Should realism guide it? International Relations, 32(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817753272 

Wohlforth, W.C., 1994. Realism and the End of the Cold War. International Security, 19(3), pp.91-129. 

Wulff, M. and Dharmalingam, A., 2008. Retaining skilled migrants in regional Australia: The role of social connectedness. Journal of International Migration and Integration/Revue de l’integration et de la migration internationale, 9, pp.147-160.