Liberalism

Abstract: Liberalism is a defining feature of modern democracy,

illustrated by the prevalence of the term ‘liberal democracy’ as a way
to describe countries with free and fair elections, rule of law and
protected civil liberties. However, liberalism – when discussed within
the realm of IR theory – has evolved into a distinct entity of its own.
Liberalism contains a variety of concepts and arguments about how
institutions, behaviours and economic connections contain and
mitigate the violent power of states. When compared to realism, it
adds more factors into our field of view – especially a consideration
of citizens and international organisations. Most notably, liberalism
has been the traditional foil of realism in IR theory as it offers a more
optimistic world view, grounded in a different reading of history to
that found in realist scholarship.
Keywords: Liberalism, International Relations Theory, Contrasting
Realism, compared with Conservatism, Economic connections,
modern democracy.

Introduction
Liberalism is based on the moral argument that ensuring the right of
an individual person to life, liberty and property is the highest goal of
government. Consequently, liberals emphasize the wellbeing of the
individual as the fundamental building block of a just political system.
A political system characterized by unchecked power, such as a
monarchy or a dictatorship, cannot protect the life and liberty of its
citizens. Therefore, the main concern of liberalism is to construct
institutions that protect individual freedom by limiting and checking
political power. While these are issues of domestic politics, the realm
of IR is also important to liberals because a state’s activities abroad
can have a strong influence on liberty at home.
 The Basics of Liberalism
Liberals are particularly troubled by militaristic foreign policies. The
primary concern is that war requires states to build up military power.
This power can be used for fighting foreign states, but it can also be
used to oppress its own citizens. For this reason, political systems
rooted in liberalism often limit military power by such means as
ensuring civilian control over the military.
Wars of territorial expansion, or imperialism – when states seek to
build empires by taking territory overseas – are especially disturbing
for liberals. Not only do expansionist wars strengthen the state at the
expense of the people, these wars also require long-term
commitments to the military occupation and political control of
foreign territory and peoples. Occupation and control require large
bureaucracies that have an interest in maintaining or expanding the
occupation of foreign territory. For liberals, therefore, the core
problem is how to develop a political system that can allow states to
protect themselves from foreign threats without subverting the
individual liberty of its citizenry. The primary institutional check on
power in liberal states is free and fair elections via which the people
can remove their rulers from power, providing a fundamental check
on the behaviour of the government. A second important limitation on
political power is the division of political power among different
branches and levels of government – such as a parliament/congress,
an executive and a legal system. This allows for checks and balances
in the use of power.
Democratic peace theory is perhaps the strongest contribution
liberalism makes to IR theory. It asserts that democratic states are
highly unlikely to go to war with one another. There is a two-part
explanation for this phenomenon. First, democratic states are
characterised by internal restraints on power, as described above.
Second, democracies tend to see each other as legitimate and
unthreatening and therefore have a higher capacity for cooperation
with each other than they do with non-democracies. First, democracy
is a relatively recent development in human history. This means there
are few cases of democracies having the
opportunity to fight one another. Second, we cannot be sure whether
it is truly a ‘democratic’ peace or whether some other factors
correlated with democracy are the source of peace – such as power,
alliances, culture, economics and so on. A third point is that while
democracies are unlikely to go to war with one another, some
scholarship suggests that they are likely to be aggressive toward non-
democracies – such as when the United States went to war with Iraq
in 2003. Despite the debate, the possibility of a democratic peace
gradually replacing a world of constant war – as described by realists
– is an enduring and important facet of liberalism.
We currently live in an international system structured by the liberal
world order built after the Second World War (1939–1945). The
international institutions, organisations and norms (expected
behaviours) of this world order are built on the same foundations as
domestic liberal institutions and norms; the desire to restrain the
violent power of states. Yet, power is more diluted and dispersed
internationally than it is within states. For example, under
international law, wars of aggression are prohibited. There is no
international police force to enforce this law, but an aggressor knows
that when breaking this law it risks considerable international
backlash. For example, states – either individually or as part of a
collective body like the United Nations – can impose economic
sanctions or intervene militarily against the offending state.
Furthermore, an aggressive state also risks missing out on the benefits
of peace, such as the gains from international trade, foreign aid and
diplomatic recognition. The fullest account of the liberal world order
is found in the work of Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry
(1999), who describe three interlocking factors:
First, international law and agreements are accompanied by
international organisations to create an international
system that goes significantly beyond one of just states. The
archetypal example of such an organisation is the United Nations,
which pools resources for common goals (such as ameliorating
climate change), provides for near constant diplomacy between
enemies and friends alike and gives all member states a voice in the
international community.
Second, the spread of free trade and capitalism through the efforts of
powerful liberal states and international organisations like the World
Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank creates an open, market-based, international economic system.
This situation is mutually beneficial as a high level of trade
between states decreases conflict and makes war less likely, since war
would disrupt or cancel the benefits (profits) of trade. States with
extensive trade ties are therefore strongly incentivised to maintain
peaceful relations. By this calculation, war is not profitable, but
detrimental to the state.
The third element of the liberal international order is international
norms. Liberal norms favour international cooperation, human rights,
democracy and rule of law. When a state takes actions contrary to
these norms, they are subject to various types of costs. However,
international norms are often contested because of the wide variation
in values around the globe. Nevertheless, there are costs for violating
liberal norms. The costs can be direct and immediate. For example,
the European Union placed an arms sale embargo on China following
its violent suppression of pro-democracy protesters in 1989. The
embargo continues to this day. The costs can also be less
direct, but equally as significant. For example, favourable views of
the United States decreased significantly around the world following
the 2003 invasion of Iraq because the invasion was undertaken
unilaterally (outside established United Nations rules) in a move that
was widely deemed illegitimate.
Most liberal scholarship today focuses on how international
organisations foster cooperation by helping states overcome the
incentive to escape from international agreements. This type of
scholarship is commonly referred to as ‘neoliberal institutionalism’ –
often shortened to just ‘neoliberalism’. This often causes confusion as
neoliberalism is also a term used outside IR theory to describe a
widespread economic ideology of deregulation, privatisation, low
taxes, austerity (public spending cuts) and free trade. The essence of
neoliberalism, when applied within IR, is that states can benefit
significantly from cooperation if they trust one another to live up to
their agreements.

Contrast and Comparison with Realism & Conservatism

Liberalism vs Realism
Liberalism, in stark contrast to realism, believes in the measurement
of power through state economies, the possibility of peace and
cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms, rights and
the like. Francis Fukuyama, quite notably, believed that progress in
human history can be measured by the elimination of global conflict
and the adoption of principles of legitimacy and observed the extent
to which liberal democracies have transcended their violent instincts.

Furthermore, liberals argue for the progress and perfectibility of the

human condition as well as a degree of confidence in the removal of
the stain of war from human experience.
Liberalism offers the possibility of peace even as states amass power,
on the basis that power has now taken a less destructive form, from
guns to bank notes and exports. There need not be an overarching
stress on the frailties of humanity even if world peace seems too lofty
of an ideal. This has been mentioned on the basis that a shift in the
definition of ‘power’ from military capability to economic status. This
shift creates the need for greater linkage (therefore, the new emphasis
on globalization) as well as increased cooperation. For this reason,
states still amass power even under the liberal system, the main
difference being the fact that power is now better accrued if more
cooperation is realized within the framework of international politics.
This need for linkage and economic progress then accounts for the
liberalist’s stress on free trade and market capitalism, as well as
allowing for the legitimate selection of government through
democratic action. As it stands, liberalism operates under real-world
conditions, reflecting state interest and aggrandizement, if only that
such advancement results in peace instead of the expected dose of
conflict. Liberalism is no longer just a projection of how politics
ought to be, but is now a modern, practical theory of peace achieved
in the midst of anarchic conditions and even after the state’s quest for
power.
Still, the debate continues as to which school remains the most
relevant and timely, with regards to the interpretation of the
international system. Some will always say realism is politics as it is
while liberalism is an example of politics idealized. However, as the
study of IR continues, we will continue to seek the answers to the
engaging questions of foreign policy that confront today’s global
system. Whichever way we choose to justify or to answer those
questions, despite their polar difference, realism and liberalism are
both reflections of various aspects of the international system, which
we seek to understand. The significance of both lies in their capacity
to explain opposite phenomena, and though both are clearly
antithetical, perhaps the answer to the question of how the world
operates will lie not in the thesis and antithesis, but in the synthesis of
both. One pragmatic approach for state advancement blended with a
belief in humanity’s inherent potentials. In my opinion, for all the
disagreement that has been in existence with both schools of thought,
perhaps the true path lies in combination. A state of anarchy as a
condition but peace as a result, and a world that knows the obstacles
confronting all of its inhabitants, but knows as well that humanity has
always been great at overcoming what seems insurmountable.

Liberalism vs Conservatism
Conservatism and liberalism are two of the most prevalent political
ideologies in the world today. Though their exact definitions can vary,
they are generally characterized by a few key beliefs. Conservatives
tend to emphasize tradition, order, and hierarchy whereas liberals
typically focus on individual rights and equality.
When it comes to government, conservatives typically advocate for a
smaller role, while liberals often call for more expansive public
programs. On social issues, conservatives tend to be more traditional,
while liberals tend to be more progressive. And when it comes to the
economy, conservatives favor free markets and limited regulation
whereas liberals favor intervention and regulation.
Conservatism and liberalism are two of the most prominent political
ideologies in the Western world. Though they have many similarities,
there are also several important ways in which they differ.
Attitudes towards change: One of the most significant differences
between conservatism and liberalism is their respective attitudes
towards change. Conservatives tend to be more resistant to change,
while liberals are generally more open to it. This difference is often
evident in their approach to social issues; conservatives typically
advocate for slow or no change when it comes to things like abortion
and gay rights whereas liberals tend to support more progressive
changes.
Economic views: Another key difference between conservatism and
liberalism is their economic views. Conservatives tend to favor
smaller governments and lower taxes, while liberals often advocate
for higher taxes and a larger role for government in providing social
services. This difference is reflected in their differing approaches to
welfare programs. Conservatives typically want to see them cut or
privatized, while liberals are usually in favor of expanding them.
Foreign policy views: Finally, conservatives and liberals also differ
in their foreign policy views. Conservatives tend to be more hawkish,
while liberals are typically more dovish. This difference is often seen
in their attitudes towards military intervention; conservatives are
generally more supportive of it than liberals.
These are just some of the major differences between conservatism
and liberalism. Though they share some common ground, these two
ideologies remain largely opposed on many key issues.
The debate between conservatism and liberalism is one that has been
around for many years, and it is likely to continue in the future. Both
philosophies have valid points of view, and they often overlap on
certain issues. Ultimately, it’s up to each individual to decide which
philosophy better suits their own beliefs. The most important thing is
to remain informed about the issues surrounding both approaches so
that we can make informed decisions about our lives and those of our
families.

Conclusion
A core argument of liberalism is that concentrations of unaccountable
violent power are the fundamental threat to individual liberty and
must be restrained. The primary means of restraining power are
institutions and norms at both domestic and international level. At the
international level institutions and organizations limit the power of
states by fostering cooperation and providing a means for imposing
costs on states that violate international agreements. Economic
institutions are particularly effective at fostering cooperation because
of the substantial benefits that can be derived from economic
interdependence. Finally, liberal norms add a further limitation on the
use of power by shaping our understanding of what types of behavior
are appropriate. Today, it is clear that liberalism is not a ‘utopian’
theory describing a dream world of peace and happiness as it was
once accused of being. It provides a consistent rejoinder to realism,
firmly rooted in evidence and a deep theoretical tradition.
 References
1. Rawat, S. (2023). Conservatism vs Liberalism: Difference. Right
to Privacy under the Indian Constitution - Social Laws Today.
Retrieved April 4, 2024, from [Link]
spain-digital-nomad-visa-a-path-to-work-and-wander/
2. Meiser W. (2018). Introducing Liberalism in International
Relations Theory. International Relations Theory – an E-IR
Foundations beginner’s textbook, p. 1-3.
3. Jumarang, B. (2011). Realism and Liberalism in International
Relations. De La Salle University Manila, Philippines (DLSU-
M), p. 2.