The Anarchic Structure of
World Politics
In this article, Kenneth Waltz begins to define how politics is ordered as a system, composed of a structure and its interacting units (p.49). However, he goes on to state, structure is only useful in definition if interactivity between the units is completely ignored, but their positions or relations to one another are concentrated on. We must ignore the personality, behavior, and interactivity between the actors, and only look at their relative positions within society. Domestic politics and international politics are quite different from one another, and their structures are quite different as well.
The domestic political structure is defined by the principle of which it is ordered, the specifications of its functions, and the distribution of capabilities (p.51). According to Waltz, domestic political structure is heirarchic and centralized. By heirarchical, what he means is that there are certain "rulers" (in the case of the United States, the President and Congress) that pass legislation onto the "ruled" (citizens). Also, it holds that the U.S., for example, is centralized in that all the states can make their own laws, but the government in Washington, D.C. has the final word. Society in the domestic sense is ordered and functional. However, just the opposite is true in the international political structure. The "government" here is anarchic and decentralized, which we agree with. There are no "world rulers" who pass absolute laws onto the citizens of the world. Each state has its own laws and ideas on what it wants to do. The world is separate, in a sense chaotic, and because of the lack of an overall government, anarchic.
To explain how international political structures come about even in their anarchic state, a comparison to the economy is brought up by Waltz, p. 53. He argues that units' own interests are spontaneous and individual in origin. To increase their productivity, units converge with others like themselves. In the real world, this corresponds to the fact that some states bond with others for reasons like safety and security. They are looking out for their own good by depending on another state.
Because states are the most important actors in the world of politics, international political structures are in terms of the states. That is not to say, however, that this will never change. If individuals, for example, became the most important actors, international political structure would be in terms of them. Think about this: our economy is defined by the businesses that make it up. And what are businesses? The most important actors. Just like in international politics, states play the biggest roles in trade, foreign policy, and foreign relations, so international politics is in terms of the states. Specifically, international politics is like states/units following the same patterns of actions.
In international/anarchic forms, like units/states interact with one another, while in domestic/heirarchic forms, unlike units/states interact. This is quite logical. Within the U.S., many of the states are inherently different. Florida has the weather to grow citrus fruits, Michigan is a prime source of fresh water, New York is an important trade area, etc. All of these different states interact with one another to satisfy as many needs as possible, all within one nation. However, the U.S. interacts most with states like itself in terms of the economy and stability, like Canada and Europe. We want to remain stable by diversification within a state, and interact with other stable states such as ourselves.
But, not all states are alike in their forms of government or ideas on how international politics should be run. So how is world fighting kept at bay? Through the use of power. The states with the most power are those with the greatest capabilities. The entire structure of the political system can be changed with changes in the capabilities of certain states. Take our own country, the U.S. We have money, intelligence, military arms, and technology- all the capabilities to take over smaller nations, solve problems, etc. Our ability to accomplish so much is what gives us power. Furthermore, the only way big things can be accomplished is by states with grand capabilities. This is one of the major reasons the U.S. gets involved in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, the Middle East, etc. These insecure states tend to fight more because they are uncertain about other states. Because we are one of the most secure and powerful states in the world, it is our duty to keep the world satisfied and stable. We have the power, and we need to keep everything under control.
Now, there are many who think that the U.S. should just stay out of everyone else's business and just concentrate on what is happening here, or our own state may deteriorate. Waltz explains that the structure of the world is pretty much the same- the U.S. and Europe as major world powers- and as long as there isn't a huge challenge to the structure of the system, neither of these powers will suffer. The only way to make a great impact is to make a big change in the way things are being run in the world. His exact quote, from p. 63 is, "so long as one leaves the structure unaffected it is not possible for changes in the actions of actors...". Since things are working out nicely for the major world powers, why would we want to change the way the world is working? The only way for a lesser country to make an impact is to change the system to allow the "minor" powers some say in world politics. In international politics, the force and government of a system are implemented for its own advantage- to make the system work for your advantage, you need to "retool it."
Basically, the article was written to show that international
politics is anarchic- there is disorder, and a lack of a single
controlling force. To try and combat this, allies are formed between
nations, leading the way, perhaps, to a more universally agreeable
government. But, states still look out for their own good, and until
a single set of rules for the structure of international politics can
be implemented, the structure will remain a disordered anarchy.