Realism is a school of thought in conflict studies and in international studies.
Though diverse in thought as there are variants of the theory, it is unified in the sense that the theory lays emphasis on the fact that global politics is an arena of conflict among political actors whose goal is to seek power. This power is for selfish or individualistic end. The theory therefore, holds that this self drive for power, emanates, or is inherent in the very nature of humans. Russel (2000), Sterling-Folker (2002) and Barkin (2003) affirm that man‟s quest for power as a tradition of thought among realists dates back to antiquity, that is; to Thucydides (c460-c395 BC) who is considered as the father of the school of political realism.
This theory holds that humankind is not vested naturally with benevolence, but rather is self-centred and competitive. This egocentric nature of humans, according to Elshtain (1992) and Sleat (2014), is held by the theorist Thomas Hobbes. They conclude that the foundation of modern realism is found in the works of Niccolo Machiavelli‟s The Prince of 1532, and that it emerged prominently after the outbreak of World War II.
The proponents of realism are many, as there are variants of the theory from ancient times to modern period. The main exponents of classical realism are Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Raymon
Aron, George Kennan, Yonosuke Negai, Masataka Kosaka and Yan Xuetong. In modern times however, theorists such as Nicholas Spykman, Herman Kahn and Edward Hallet Carro remain leading voices.
a. Basic Assumptions
In spite of the varied versions of the theory, there are four basic tenets of realism according to Donnelly (2008). These fundamental propositions are:
1. The international system is anarchic. No actor exists above states, capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
2. States are the most important actors.
3. All states within the system are unitary, rational actors. State tends to pursue self interest. Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible.
4. The primary concern of all states is survival. States build up military to survive, which may leads to a security dilemma. (p.150).
The above assumptions show that the intuitive nature of humankind is anarchic and hence, Faleti (2016) confirms that the theory “shares both theological and biological doctrines about an apparent weakness and individualism inherent in human nature. Thus, the starting point for the explanation of conflict is the individual level” (p.44-45). He therefore, concludes that political participants should see conflict as an inevitable life experience rather than hope that there were none at all. This, according to him is the main thesis projected and defended by theorist like Morgenthau.
b. Variants of Realist Theory
There are varied versions of realism. In international relations, the historical branches include: classical realism, liberal realism or the English school or rationalism, neorealism or structural realism, neoclassical realism, left realism, realist constructivism, Christian realism (represented by Reinhold Niebuhr) and Post-realism. For the purpose of this research, however, (descriptive, explanatory and prescriptive realism) the three variants advanced by Faleti (2016) in conflict studies shall suffice and be briefly discussed.
Descriptive realism is a theoretical framework that examines the way and manner international relations operates or functions. This framework emphasizes the fact that states behaviours are driven by interests and not by exaggerated and self-indulgent feelings or opinions. This means that ideology or sentiments have no place in international relations. Rosenberg (1990) and Seron (2014) affirm that states embark on foreign policies when they are motivated only by their national interests. This situation therefore, pegs one state‟s interest against the other. It is therefore, in this sense that Faleti (2016) concludes that descriptive realism “sees the world as an arena of conflict”
(p.45).This principle fits one of the Boko Haram ideologies that see the whole of Nigeria as a country they must conquer and Islamize at all cost. This is evident in their various attacks on combatant and non-combatants victims, thereby leading to the displacement of many people.
On the other hand, explanatory realism according to Kim (1988), Campbell (2010), Tropman (2013) and Faleti (2016) is a framework that holds or explains facts about defects in the genetic makeup of humans. Dellsen (2015), Golub (2017) and Taylor
(2018), all conclude that these genetic shortcomings make human beings to act negatively. This means that these genetic defects are conflictual in nature. Hence, hostility becomes an unavoidable consequence. This version of the theory further stresses the inevitability of war since there is hardly anything put in place to checkmate its occurrence. Again, this basic tenet of the explanatory model shows that its use or applicability in this study is apt. This is because the main cause of displacement in the study area is religious conflict caused by the activities of Boko Haram or Fulani herdsmen.
The third variant, prescriptive realism hinges on the basic assumptions of descriptive and explanatory realism. Faleti (2016) declares that this theory maintains
“that decision makers (individuals, groups or nations) have a moral justification to defend their basic interests and ensure self-preservation using any means necessary” (p45). The application of these various versions in this research shall be seen later in this work.
c. Limitations of Realist Theory
One of the main limitations of the realist theory is that democratic peace theorists accuse it of its inapplicability to democratic states‟ relations with one another. Elshtain (1992) and Rogan (2018) affirm that the theory makes no sense of democratic processes since humankinds are inherently self-centred and conflictive in nature. Rogan particularly holds this view as he sees most world leaders, especially Vladimir Putin of Russia as a core realist and not a Russian neoconservative.
Another criticism labelled against realism is that it uplifts power and the state to an ideological state or level. Faleti (2016) in particular, declares that “the theory has been accused of elevating power and the state to the status of an ideology” (p.45). The
implication of this statement is that the theory is a mere idea and cannot be realistic in concrete and real life situations.
Hegemonic stability theorist, Robert Gilpin, a neoclassical realist, who was greatly influenced by E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, discussed the relevance of this theory, especially to the economic field. However, Russell (2000) and Donnelly (2008) critique him for not paying attention to the military and cultural aspects of power.
The theory has also been criticized for being too pessimistic. That is to say, whether a person is holy and religious or not, all humans are egoistic and self-centred. It is criticized that if human nature is inadequate, conflictual and competitive, what then would explain cooperation and peace among people or nations. Descriptive realism views the world as arena of conflict. Explanatory realism emphasizes genetic defects inherent in humankind. Prescriptive realism stresses that state actors‟ actions to defend their interests are justified. All these three forms further expose the limitations of the theory with its attendant pessimism.
Another weakness according to Barkin (2003) and Sleat (2014) is that, concepts such as power, balance of power, national interest or even personal interest are explained within the framework without precision and therefore, these contradictions are obvious between central descriptive and prescriptive components of realism. These contradictions are further seen in the way and manner citizens of a state are encourage to be self-controlled, while on the other hand, leaders take decisions and act in line with their interests and within the ambit of political power.
Another limitation of the theory is that improvement in science and technology and the wholesale importation of globalization and information technology has made it, nearly impossible for sovereigns and world political leaders to effectively control power for their selfish ends. The attendant consequence therefore, is that, world leaders have over the years now learnt how to be interdependent.
Again, realism proposes that a nation has what it takes to get solutions for all its wants within its territorial boundary. This however is not the case as it has been observed that the formulation of organizations, both at the global and regional levels have rather helped nation-states to be sufficiently and adequately satisfied than to remain as independent states.
d. Strengths of Realist Theory
In spite of the above obvious criticisms labelled against realist theory, the following are some of the advantages: Realism is one of the classical political theories that has stood criticisms and has been exposed to various academic scrutiny right from the time of the great historian and philosopher Thucydides (C460 – C395 BC) to modern realists like Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan and others. Its importance is seen especially, as confirm by Russell (2000), Barkin (2003), Sleat (2014), Faleti (2016) and Rogan (2018) in international relations and conflict studies. It has broadened scholars‟
understanding of power especially on the international arena.
No theory has stressed on inherency as realism, since it gives an in-depth analysis of the egoistic tendencies and self-centredness of humankind. Moreso, in the Nigeriansituation, where there is apparent internal rancour, disunity, desire for ethnic superiority and cleansing, conflicting ideologies, world-views and philosophies of life,
internal strives and insurgency characterized by internal displacements, psychological as well as socio-psychological issues, rooted in hatred for other ethnic groups, religious fanaticism as well as intolerance, wanton and ceaseless destruction of lives and property, there is therefore, no other theory, whose insights would be more relevant than realism in understanding the dynamics in the Nigerian state.
Although, there appear to be seemingly real global unity among international power players, there still remain several cases where countries, groups and even individuals remain non-cooperators in the struggle for world peace. The several global terrorist cells and those in Nigeria, the Boko Haram and its splinter groups and more recently the menace of Fulani herdsmen in the North-Central states and other states, especially in Kaduna State are but a few cases in point. It is, therefore, as a result of this development that Peterson (2018) concludes that the realist warnings that governments of states should keep a wary eye on other actors and be combatant ready to defend its territorial boundary and its citizens, become very relevant.
In contemporary times, there appear to be a clear-cut difference between notions like objective and subjective aspects of human nature. There is, however, glaring greed, aggressive behaviour, cheating and unrestraint desire to amass wealth and hanging onto power among many world leaders especially in Nigeria. The stiff competitive relationship that exists among world leaders especially in Nigeria and the politics of selfish interest in Nigeria, are all obvious indications that there is sufficient adequacy in realist view that humankind is individualistic hence, it is relevant even today.
Another beneficial attribute of realism is that the world is decentralized and full of competition. Thus, Prinz and Rossi (2017) and Peterson (2018) confirm that given these
decentralized and competitive nature of power politics, it is relevant that realist analyses of power is crucial in understanding choices, actions and outcomes in contemporary times. Moreso, this understanding of choices, actions and outcomes have become necessary, since this will facilitate speedy attention given to those who suffer all kinds of humanitarian crises, including those IDPs in Borno State.
Furthermore, if the definition of realism (which is awareness or acknowledgement of the physical universe or events as against abstract or ideal; or a practical rather than a moral or dogmatic view of things) is anything to go by, then its application in this research is therefore, apt and relevant. Its suitability is seen in the fact that discourses of this nature and other related areas in conflict or terrorism studies is appropriate since one must talk about individuals‟ choices, actions and the drive to show how powerful these actors are or would wish that other participants, victims or even contemporaries see them.
The reality of IDPs, the menace of Boko Haram and its splinter groups and those of the Fulani herdsmen who have turned the iconic staff used to control herd into sophisticated assault rifles is sufficient enough to show that realism as a theory remain relevant even today.