Liberalism and structural realism, both have their merits, however, both have downsides

Let's start off with some definitions. The ideology of liberalism states that the use of soft power and a set of rules regarding international affairs is the most effective way of using power in global politics. The ideology of realism states that everyone should fend for themselves, with no one to stab you in the back as a result of this independence. Furthermore, realism gives you all of the power, instead of having to share that power with others.

Structural realism specifically, as explained in an example from famous political scientist John Mearsheimer is when “states are trapped in an iron cage where they have little option but to compete with each other for power to ensure their own survival”. In other words, there has to be competition between states trying to gain power. This ultimately creates a state of anarchy, with no one wanting to share any power whilst everyone is simultaneously fighting for power. For more detail in the explanation of structural realism, please read this article: http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/StructuralRealism.pdf.

Within the ideology of structural realism, one finds the sections of offensive and defensive realism. Mearsheimer believes in offensive realism, which assumes that states seek to maximize their power and influence to achieve security through hegemony. Kenneth Waltz, who is similarly a famous political scientist, believes in defensive realism, which assumes that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate reserved policies to attain security.

Which of these two ideologies is better in today's world? To help you, I will explain how people in both ideologies use and gain power, giving you different examples for each side, starting with the weaknesses of the ideologies and then informing you about the strengths of that ideology. Finally, I will tell you what I believe to be the more convincing ideology.

You are of course under no obligation to agree with my personal perspective about this subject matter, because at the end of the day, it's your choice. Alongside everyone reading this, I will respect the decisions you make.

Let's start with looking at structural realism. How do they gain power? Realists gain their power through hard power. This means that they use military strength or another force to get the power they desire. Could this pure reliance on military power however be a downside to this ideology? Looking at a modern-day example, North Korea is showing their military power and trying to gain more through this display of rapidly developing technology. This creates a tense situation between North Korea and the United States. This, alongside the consistent threats and insults that are broadcasted between the United States and North Korea, is creating an escalating situation in which both states seem to be more and more willing to unleash nuclear weaponry upon each other. This displays the downside to structural realism, as it can easily create a volatile situation for the states themselves and their citizens. This could have very dire consequences on the amount of power both countries have, the lives of citizens and the state’s role in the polarity of the world.

Looking at a strength of structural realism, I'll examine a historical example which occurred during the build-up to World War II. Hitler, in conjunction with the Nazi Party, grew his army to an incredible size, which convinced people to join their movement. Ultimately, this use of hard-power and fear, although a direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, ensured that no other party had the power to enforce their ideas or commands on the Nazi Party, creating a situation in which Hitler could invade Poland. This shows that a strength of structural realism is that no one has the ability to enforce their commands upon you, eliminating the chance of being overrun by others and doing as you see fit. Ultimately, structural realism has both its weaknesses and strengths to the way that it gains power and has the ability to use it.

Contrary to structural realism, liberalism focuses on gaining power through the use of soft power. This means that liberalists achieve what they want through mutual interest, persuasion or influence without using force, creating an international set of laws governing states to ensure that everyone's wants and needs are thought about. One weakness of liberalism can be seen in this year’s Paris Climate Change agreement. The agreement tried to limit the amount of greenhouse gases manufacturers may produce over a certain amount of time, with all members, apart from the United States, agreeing to sign it. This clarifies the weakness of liberalism, as all members have to agree to the conditions for an international law to be set, thus creating an overall less efficient system.

However, this could also be looked upon as a strength of liberalism. With all members having to agree on a specific set of laws, be it at a national or local level, no states nor individuals can act rashly. This can be seen in my previous example of the start of the Second World War, in which after the Nazi's had invaded Poland using hard power, the allies came together, trying to stop Hitler's attempt of creating a unipolar system of power. This elucidates a strength of liberalism, which is the possibility of having a more structured society that considers all parties’ needs and eliminates any rash actions that could endanger civilians, creating a .

This being said however, there isn't one ideology which is superior to the other. I, for one, believe that liberalism can be more controlled, as there are multiple states that you have to form an agreement with, eliminating the possibility of sovereign states acting rashly. Realism on the other hand can create volatile situations for its citizens, but gives states the ability to act according to their own morals.

What's your opinion about structural realism and liberalism? Which is better? Or are they both equal in terms of strengths and disadvantages?