International Political Economy (HIPC-080) Class 02
24 July 2024
Theme: Conventional theoretical approaches
Realism
For the realist scholars the global area is anarchic by nature; this refers to
the lack of central government with authority (Waltz, 1979). All traditional
actors are sovereign and independent from one another and there is nobody
to dictate relations among them. They act out of either own will or out of
forcible means. Due to lack of the central authority power becomes very
important. Power becomes a variable of interest since states would need it
to defend themselves. Both soft and hard powers are important for states’
survival; however, military capabilities determine international politics
(Waltz, 1979).
According to Mearsheimer (1994) this view of the international system is
based on the following assumptions: Firstly, all states struggle for survival.
All states are in danger of being invaded by outside military forces and
being subjugated. This applies even if states reflect benevolent goals;
anarchic nature requires power for self-defence and advancement of
interests for survival. Secondly, states are assumed to be rational actors.
Taking into account the eagerness of states to survive, they ought to act
carefully in order to realise the goal for survival. Thirdly, realist scholars
assume that every state has certain military capabilities since no state can
tell what other states intend to do. This means that the international system
is risky and full of imminent threats. Lastly, the international system is for
the super powers to dominate (Mearsheimer, 1994).
Realist scholars themselves differ on certain issues. The offensive realists
hold that states seek to increase their power for the purpose of survival
(Mearsheimer, 2001). They assume that if state A has more power relative
to state B then state B is in danger. It is therefore the best option to strive
for being a hegemon (Mearsheimer, 2001). Contrary to that, defensive
realists hold that domination is a bad idea for survival (Waltz, 1979).
Moving towards being a hegemon might threaten other states and
subsequently cause enemies. Defensive realists advocate for stability
through the balance of power. This entails a fairly equal distribution of
power. This is likely to ease tension and it eliminates the perceived eminent
danger of being invaded by other states (Waltz, 1979). However, the
overarching obsession of the Realists by state of anarchy results in a
shallow view of both international law and institutions (Mearsheimer,
1994). According to the realist scholars in the absence of clear central
authority law can solely be enforced through state power.
According to Sabine and Thorson (1973) realism sees international
relations as a field full of competing states and when such competition
becomes hostile it can lead to war. Dunn and Shaw (2001) acknowledge
that African states usually do not militarily engage one another; however,
in the early 1990s with the change of the world order tensions have been
high. Nossal (1998) holds that realism sees the world realistically, that is,
each state pursues its own interests and it is watching other self-interested
states in the system. In the international relations, national security and
state survival are at the centre of the foreign policy formation (Jackson and
Sorensen, 2003). In the view of realists, power is a fundamental feature in
the international relations while the state becomes the central player.
However, Dunn and Shaw (2001) assert that notwithstanding the realists’
thought, most
African states are weak.
South Africa as a perceived regional power is an important player within
the African continent particularly with the emergence of the so called
African century. The major objectives of the foreign policy are to project
and defend the national interests of the state (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).
Landsberg (2006) asserts that the application of the realists’ interpretation
on South Africa’s foreign policy reveals that South Africa is pursuing to be
a regional hegemony. Realist puts national interests before any other
consideration. According to Hattingh (2007), the ANC’s foreign policy is
formed on the basis of business expansion. It seeks to expand South
Africa’s business’ interest all over the continent. Using this trajectory to
interpret South Africa’s activities in Southern Africa, we could conclude
that the country subscribes to the realist theory.
3.2.2 Liberalism
Liberalism provides for a complicated and interrelated analysis compared
to Realism. The point of departure is that domestic features of individual
states are important for their foreign relations. This is contrary to the
Realists’ view of states being self-interested and being in the struggle for
survival. According to Doyle (1997), the emergence of the democratic
peace phenomena is the best development in the Liberalist circle. As earlier
envisaged by Immanuel Kant democratic peace professes the absence of
war between and among liberal states. The assumption is that mature
liberal democracies do not wage war against one another. Statistical
analysis shows that there are only few instances where mature liberal
democracies have waged war against each other (Brown, Lynn-Jones and
Miller, 1996). However, there have not been compelling reasons provided
as to why liberal democracies do not fight each other. In addition to that,
Mansfield and Snyder (2005) claim that the actual democratization process
is a bloody one compare to autocratic regimes.
Moravcsik (1999) provides a common outline of liberal theory in relation
to global politics. The outline is based on three assumptions: Firstly, non-
state actors as opposed to states are key actors in the international system.
This emphasises the primary role being played by NGOs, IGOs,
individuals and private groups in the international system. Secondly, states
are simply dominant actors out of many domestic actors in the society
which merely serve society’s interests. Finally, the configuration of these
preferences throughout the global arena dictates states’ behaviour
(Moravcsik, 1999). Issues relating to power distribution are treated as non-
dynamic limitations on the relations of socially-derived state preferences.
In line with this view, states are not just objects struggling for survival in
the anarchic world but a network of different actors whose interests are
projected by government. Survival might be important too but not a
primary goal; there are ideological and commercial issues in the equation
(Moravcsik, 1999).
Liberalism focuses on individual rights and freedom which is the base for
modern civil society. It also emphasizes on democratic principles and
capitalist economy (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003). By implication
international relations are not centred on the struggle for power among
actors. Instead, it is centred on states, groups and individual actors. What
is important is that different societies are able to work together for the
common good. Scholars like Ezeoha and Uche (2005) hold that South
Africa’s advocate for democracy using the African Renaissance concept
can be better understood within liberal confinements.
In comparison to the realist school of thought, liberals tend to have a
positive view towards human nature, hence believe in human progress
(Jackson and Sorenson, 2003; Nossal, 1998). Sociological liberalism
asserts that international relations go beyond states’ interaction to include
international institutions and transnational groups. According to Landsberg
(2006) in pursuit for peace and democracy in Africa, South Africa is acting
out of good faith. South Africa strongly believes that it can simply export
democracy as means to resolve conflict in places like Sudan and DRC
(Hughes, 2006). Van Nieuwkerk (2006) notes that the shift away from
Mandela’s universalization of human rights towards the promotion of
neoliberal principles helps South Africa to better prioritize its national
interest. This follows from the fact that it is much easier to pursue national
interests through negotiation than war. Hence the African Renaissance
project should be understood in this context. South Africa as a perceived
regional power is involved in peace initiatives and it aims to be a “good
global” citizen with its promotion of human rights (Hughes, 2006).
South Africa partakes in the collective initiatives like NEPAD, AU and
SADC in the continent. Liberal conceptualisations of South Africa’s
foreign policy on their own, unfortunately, do not sufficiently grasp the
issue of national interests which at the end are the core of foreign policies.
The link between the country’s foreign policy and liberalism is that South
Africa believes in peaceful means of resolving conflicts which are not
confrontational. This reduces the prospects for war but still guarantees the
country’s safety.
3.2.3 Marxism
Karl Marx’s theory revolves around class struggle specifically over the
production and distribution of the means of production. The capitalist class
which owns the means of production tries by all means to keep the profit
to themselves while oppressing the working class (Sabine and Thorson,
1973). According to Jackson and Sorensen (2003) capitalism is by nature
exploitative: those in the capitalist class are dependent on exploiting the
working class to make profit. In order to put Marxism into context, one
might argue that there exists a political struggle not only between states but
different classes in the society. Therefore, the class struggle is within and
across states. According to Nossal (1998), imperialism should be
understood as the last stage of development. Imperialists pay better wages
for domestic workers in home country to defuse them while exploiting
workers in the host country. Sabine and Thorson (1973) contend that
democracy should be understood as an effective way of addressing
contradictions embedded in production. They see politics and economics
as binaries which provide space for class struggle.
According to Landsburg (2006) South Africa’s foreign policy and
diplomacy in Southern Africa and in Africa as a whole is seen by Marxists
as a foundation for the capitalist to secure profit. Landsburg (2006) concurs
with Tleane (2005) and points out to the South African media and
information companies which are dominating beyond Limpopo borders in
pursuit of maximum profit. Swartuk (2000) holds that South Africa is
emerging as a bully in the region; however, its views are discarded.
Although South Africa acts as a hegemon, it has a difficult time in
commanding the block which has no clear direction. South Africa‘s
hegemonic status exposes its interest to lead the region towards its own
selfish interests in pretence on the African Renaissance agenda (Swartuk,
2000).
Buhlungu claims that South African companies operating abroad breach
the code of ethics in host countries. He refers to South African companies
which continued with extraction of resources especially during 1996 and
1998 DRC’s civil war (Buhlungu, et al, 2007). According to Swartuk,
(2001), South African companies have secured for themselves labels like
exploiters and neo-colonizers as evidenced in the case of Zambia where
Shoprite was accused of exploiting workers to the extent that the Zambian
government had to intervene (see Table 3.1 below). This is in line with neo-
Marxist scholars who hold that capitalism by nature is exploitative and
disregards host countries in pursuit of profit. Other actors who label South
Africa as a sub-imperialist are not fooled by the pretence of the African
Renaissance project. It is unfortunate that Marxist’s view on South Africa’s
foreign policy reduces issues of national interest to class struggle. In doing
this, it undermines South Africa’s effort for peace and development
through multilateral forums.
