IntroductionDissent in global politics mainly entails redirecting international relations through a path that interferes with the manner in which international relations have been constituted, perceived and entrenched. In this context, the dissent approach does not seek to the rescue of attempts of exploration of identity through the comprehension of social dynamics that highlight how ideas and practices mutually influence each other. Noting that dissent has become a significant transnational phenomenon that shapes various aspects of global politics, it is evident that there is a close relationship between dissent and anarchy, which has the effect of differentiating nations based on their capabilities to perform similar tasks.1, 2 In regards to the previously mentioned views, an elaborate analysis of what international theorists contribute about dissent and anarchism provides insight on aspects of international relations.
Notably, realists hold the view that individual states place significant emphasis in accumulating power, thus ensuring security in an environment where nations exist in anarchy. In this context, realists indicate that the indifference between nations leads to the primary objective of accumulating resources that can enable respective nations to coerce or induce harm on other states.Given that states are the key actors under realism, there is a tendency under polarity for such nations to respond to various international trends by choosing decisions that are of national interest. However, anarchy, which is the main constraint in the international system, prompts respective nations to make decisions that ensure their own security., As a consequence, this leads to opposition of hegemonies by states with an aim of ensuring the balancing of power in the globe. As a consequence, it is notable that realists support the concepts on dissent and anarchy.
Notably, the constructive theory opposes the view that anarchy is a central condition in the international system.4More elaborately; Alexander Wendt, the most significant and modern constructivist thinker stated that anarchy is what nations make of it.5In this context; anarchy is not essential in the international system. Noting that the main tenets of constructivism stipulate that structures of human association are influenced by shared ideas rather than material forces5, and that idea interest and identities of goal-oriented actors developed by their shared ideas.4 This implies that states can influence the content, and affect anarchy structures through their actions.
Marxist and neo-marxists hold structuralist paradigms that support views held by popular dissent and anarchy. More elaborately, Marxist opposes international systems since they view them as integrated capitalistic systems that seeks capital accumulation.5Thes often leads to marginalization of third world countries by the industrialized nations. Noting that marxists support the establishment of a classless society, their views support anarchy since they booth seek to eradicate oppression and inequality.
Moreover, feminists advocate for reduction of inequalities through the establishment of alternative institutions. This aspect is similar to the views held by anarchists, who seek to prevent exploitation through international relations. To illustrate, there is a lot of similarity between feminist views that seek to build alternative systems through self-help clinics and anarchist views that seek to reduce effects of hegemony over individual states.7
Generally, idealism in foreign policy supports the view that states should make their foreign policy based on their internal political philosophy.6 In regard to the abovementioned views, it is notable that idealists have a richer account of how national interest and preferences depend on the culture of the state and domestic society. In this context, idealist policy makers tend to circumscribe to the state and subsequently think outside the arrangements of power associated with international balance.6 As such, idealist policies, despite highly regarding state sovereignty, imagine a possibility of cooperation between states and international institutions to meet the needs of nation. The above-mentioned perspectives indicate that idealism supports anarchism since the two theories place emphasis on values such as equality, solidarity and liberty as opposed to pragmatism.7
- Bell, Stephen. 2013. “How Governments Mediate the Structural Power of International Business”. 113-133.
- Bleiker, Roland. 2000. Popular dissent, human agency, and global politics. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.
- Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., … & True, J. (2013). Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. 2007. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.