The Ends Justify the Means? Realpolitik’s Clash with Legitimacy Through History

SiLO Perspectives No. 4: published on 14 November 2024

Haneul Jung*

?

Suggested Citation:

Haneul Jung, “The Ends Justify the Means? Realpolitik’s Clash with Legitimacy Through History”, SiLO Perspectives No. 4 (2024)

?

?

In this paper, I dive deep into the critical relationship between realpolitik and legitimacy—a pairing that has shaped the foundations of political strategy and power for centuries. While legitimacy is essential to any political endeavor, it also transcends the immediate interests of the state. Here, I discuss two types of legitimacy in the context of realpolitik: "hard legitimacy," the bedrock of political authority, and "soft legitimacy," which shapes public perception on moral and cultural grounds.

Hard legitimacy is the driving force of political entities, while soft legitimacy supports the resilience and longevity of those entities. This approach aligns with the realist view that the pursuit of power often overrides moral considerations—a perspective reflected in history, where realpolitik has frequently outlasted ideologies, philosophical virtues, and even religious authority as a source of state legitimacy.

Through historical examples, this paper explores how realpolitik and realism have consistently superseded softer forms of legitimacy, reinforcing the "ends justify the means" approach central to realist thought.

?

1.????????? Introduction: Legitimacy in Realpolitik

1.1??????? The era of Pax Americana spanned nearly three decades, but it has now come to an end. Today, we have entered a period of global turmoil and uncertainty, a phase I refer to as the "hegemonic transition."

1.2??????? There are various ways to interpret this current period of upheaval. What is particularly interesting, however, is that many of these perspectives are deeply shaped by how people perceive the preceding era of Pax Americana.

1.3??????? Liberalists often view Pax Americana as the outcome of civilization's evolution, believing it marked a break from the old "rule of the jungle." For many, it was hoped that Pax Americana would solidify a more peaceful, rules-based world order. From a liberalist viewpoint, today’s global turmoil is as much ideological as it is political. It is seen as the result of both the United States' failure to fulfill its liberal responsibilities as a global hegemon and the opportunistic rise of authoritarian states challenging the liberal international order.

1.4??????? Realists, in contrast, argue that Pax Americana was simply an era when one dominant global power had no real rival. Like a hegemon maintaining order in its sphere of influence, the United States acted as a global policeman, ensuring stability within its reach. For realists, then, the current turmoil is the natural consequence of a global power shift, triggered by the gradual decline of U.S. dominance.

1.5??????? Each of these perspectives has merit. However, I would like to assess the issue from a different angle: through the concept of "legitimacy," which sits within the overlapping domain of both realism and liberalism.

1.6??????? I have previously emphasized the importance of the relationship between realpolitik and legitimacy. Legitimacy is fundamental to realpolitik and to any political activity, but it is also a concept that transcends narrow political interests. In all political endeavors, actions should ideally be either inherently legitimate or at least perceived as legitimate by as many people as possible.

1.7??????? In my view, there are two kinds of legitimacy in the context of realpolitik.

1.8??????? The first is what I would call "hard legitimacy." This form of legitimacy serves as the fundamental driving force for all political bodies. The second is "soft legitimacy," which influences public perceptions of right and wrong in moral and cultural terms. Hard legitimacy provides the foundation for political power, while soft legitimacy enhances its effectiveness and longevity.

2.????????? “Hard” and “Soft” Legitimacies

???????????? A.????????? Hard Legitimacy

2.1??????? Let's start with "hard" legitimacy. It could include a wide range of elements, such as legal and institutional foundations, monopoly on the use of force, control over resources and territory, or recognition by other political entities. But I want to go deeper.

2.2??????? I previously defined that all states prioritize survival and then strive to prosper. Ensuring survival and prosperity is arguably the most important mission of any society. Thus, the governing bodies of all human societies, including states, are endowed with the purpose of securing these goals.

2.3??????? This priority is unsurprising; after all, security and prosperity are the primary reasons humans form societies and establish governance structures. This has been true since ancient times. Governing bodies that failed to ensure these two basic conditions were historically seen as illegitimate.

2.4??????? For instance, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius argued that rulers were duty-bound to ensure the safety and welfare of their subjects, and any ruler who failed in this duty could rightfully be overthrown. Many Western philosophies echo this principle, directly or indirectly. Indeed, the social contract theory, as proposed by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is fundamentally based on the idea that people form governments to secure their safety and well-being.

2.5??????? This idea is still relevant today: a state that cannot provide basic security for its people is often labeled a "failed state."

2.6??????? These two components of "hard legitimacy"—people’s security and prosperity—are closely intertwined with realpolitik. Pursuing or safeguarding these objectives bolsters the legitimacy of those in power. Conversely, a failure to fulfill them directly undermines a ruling authority’s legitimacy.

2.7??????? In other words, "hard legitimacy" and realpolitik are two sides of the same coin. The quest for security and prosperity, which is at the heart of realpolitik, serves as the foundation for hard legitimacy.

???????????? B.????????? Soft Legitimacy

2.8??????? Let's now turn to "soft legitimacy.”

2.9??????? Like "hard legitimacy," the term "soft legitimacy" could encompass a wide range of elements, such as public perception and approval, alignment with cultural values and norms, moral and ethical justifications for actions, or ideological appeal. But again, I want to get to the root.

2.10????? The concept of soft legitimacy generally refers to ideas or values that are widely, even universally, accepted as "legitimate" by the majority of people involved. This type of legitimacy is typically rooted in morality and cultural beliefs.

2.11????? While "soft legitimacy" shapes people’s political language and decisions by influencing their basic worldview, it often gives way when confronted with realpolitik. Unlike the more concrete aspects of hard legitimacy—such as security and prosperity—soft legitimacy is more conceptual and therefore subject to varying interpretations depending on perspectives and circumstances.

2.12????? Examples to support this are not hard to find. Unfortunately, ongoing international conflicts provide numerous cases. Many of these conflicts are fueled by nationalist agendas. Notably, if you ask nationalists from two opposing states about the legitimacy of their actions in the same conflict, both sides will almost certainly defend the legitimacy of their own state’s cause, despite holding opposing views.

2.13????? In summary, when a "legitimate" cause based on soft legitimacy conflicts with a political imperative, realpolitik generally prevails. History has shown this time and again, across diverse regions, cultures, and civilizations.

3.????????? Historical Analysis

???????????? A.????????? “Survival of the Fittest” the Natural Law?

3.1??????? The History of the Peloponnesian War is one of the earliest historical accounts, written by the Athenian historian Thucydides. It provides a detailed record of the Peloponnesian War, fought between the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta, and the Delian League, led by Athens.

3.2??????? Initially, Athens and Sparta were allies against the Persian Empire in 480 BCE. However, after their victory over the Persians, Athens began to expand its influence among the Greek states. Thucydides famously wrote that "the growth of Athenian power, and the alarm it inspired in [Sparta], made war inevitable." Sparta viewed the rise of Athens as a threat, tipping the balance of power in Greece—a situation Thucydides identified as the root cause of the conflict.

3.3??????? Thucydides' insight laid the foundation for all realist theories in international relations. Today, though, I would like to focus on a specific episode from his work: the Melian Dialogue.

3.4??????? During the Peloponnesian War, Athens dispatched a fleet to besiege the small island state of Melos in the Aegean Sea. Despite Melos having maintained a stance of neutrality, Athens demanded that it choose between becoming a vassal or facing destruction. Thucydides devotes considerable attention to the intense negotiations between the Athenians and the Melians.

3.5??????? In these talks, the Melian representatives emphasized their neutrality, asserting that they posed no threat to Athens, having refrained from allying with Sparta. The Athenian envoys countered that allowing Melos its independence within Athens' sphere of influence—the Aegean—could lead other city-states to question Athenian strength and dominance. When the Melians appealed to principles of justice, morality, and the long-term dangers of persecuting a neutral state, Athens dismissed these appeals as impractical, asserting a “natural law” whereby the strong impose their will on the weak.

3.6??????? It was during these negotiations that an Athenian famously declared, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."

3.7??????? When negotiations broke down, Athens proceeded to subjugate Melos with brutal force. Ironically, it was Athens—a city-state celebrated as the birthplace of Western philosophy, democracy, and intellectual giants like Socrates and Plato—that enacted such merciless measures, rather than Sparta, traditionally known for its militarism.

3.8??????? This episode starkly highlights the dissonance between Athens’ philosophical ideals, with their emphasis on justice and morality, and the brutal pragmatism of its foreign policy. The discourse on ethics and virtue that flourished within the Athenian agora had little bearing on its approach to international politics, where power and dominance reigned supreme.

3.9??????? Similar examples of pragmatic realism can be found in other civilizations as well.

???????????? B.????????? Realpolitik embedded in Philosophy

3.10????? In ancient China, around the 3rd century BCE, a school of thought called Legalism emerged as the dominant philosophy. Legalists advocated for a strong, centralized state and emphasized the use of strict laws and harsh punishments to maintain order and control. They believed human nature was inherently selfish, and that only through clear laws and rigid enforcement could a stable and prosperous society be achieved.

3.11????? While many Legalist ideas were eventually supplanted by Confucianism, their views on international relations endured. Legalist philosophy held that a ruler should prioritize state power, military strength, and control over his subjects to ensure stability and security. According to this view, each state must prioritize its own security and interests above all else, with rulers advised to make strategic decisions that advanced their states' positions, free from idealistic constraints.

3.12????? For thousands of years, pragmatic realism remained central to Chinese thought on international relations. A well-known example is the Thirty-Six Stratagems, which includes the maxim "befriend the distant, attack the near." This strategy encourages rulers to confront nearby powers by aligning with more distant ones. The rationale is that if you establish too peaceful a relationship with the neighboring power, you run the risk of being subjugated by the neighboring power. This concept closely resembles the realist idea of balancing power and forming alliances based on pragmatic considerations rather than ideals.

3.13????? Another ancient civilization that embraced a similar realist perspective is India. Elements of realism appear in the Arthashastra, an ancient Indian political treatise attributed to the scholar Kautilya, who served as an advisor to Emperor Chandragupta in the 4th century BCE.

3.14????? Like China’s Thirty-Six Stratagems, the Arthashastra outlines a "circle of states" theory, in which neighboring states are viewed as rivals, while more distant states are seen as potential allies. In this framework, Kautilya emphasizes that a ruler’s primary duties are to ensure the power, security, and survival of the state. Echoing realist principles, he argues that a ruler must take whatever measures are necessary to protect the state, even if it involves deception, manipulation, or harsh actions such as employing spies and, in extreme cases, assassination. This "ends justify the means" approach aligns with the realist notion that moral considerations are often secondary to the pursuit of power and security.

4.????????? Realpolitik v. Religion

4.1??????? Throughout history, the forces of realpolitik have generally prevailed over not only "soft" forms of legitimacy—like morality, justice, or virtue—but also over a key source of state legitimacy: religion.

4.2??????? Religions have long been powerful motivators of state behavior. In Europe, for instance, several Crusades were launched to reclaim Jerusalem from Islamic powers. Even within Europe, wars broke out between Catholic and Protestant states.

4.3??????? Meanwhile, Islamic powers initiated numerous campaigns over centuries to expand the Dar al-Islam or "House of Islam," driven by a religious imperative to incorporate lands beyond its borders.

4.4??????? Yet, when religious convictions clashed directly with the most urgent imperatives of realism, history has shown that even the so-called "will of God" often yielded to realpolitik.

4.5??????? The Thirty Years’ War, often seen as a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, offers a striking example of realpolitik. Despite being a Catholic state, France allied with Protestant states to prevent Central Europe from consolidating into a unified power that could threaten France’s security. This grand strategy was led by France’s chief minister, Cardinal Richelieu.

4.6??????? Although a Catholic priest, Richelieu viewed a unified Central Europe as an existential threat to French interests. As he famously declared, "Man is immortal, his salvation is in the afterlife; but the State has no immortality; its salvation is now or never."

4.7??????? Islamic history presents a similar example. Following Muhammad’s death, Islam divided into two main branches—Sunni and Shia—which soon sparked a geopolitical rivalry in the Middle East. In the 16th century, the Shiite Safavid Persian Empire formed an alliance with the Catholic Holy Roman Empire, pitting them against the Sunni Ottoman Empire, which had allied with Catholic France. Here, too, religious alliances gave way to strategic interests, demonstrating that even in conflicts deeply rooted in faith, realpolitik often prevailed.

5.????????? Conclusion

5.1??????? So, what can we learn from these historical examples? For millennia, realism and realpolitik have been the dominant forces in international relations, often superseding ideologies, philosophies, and other sources of legitimacy. This focus on pragmatic state interests endured until relatively recent times.

5.2??????? However, a shift began in Europe around the 14th century. Europeans continued to pursue realist policies that ultimately led to the era of colonialism and the two world wars. But at the same time, an "ideological seed" was planted. This seed grew in the soil of the Enlightenment and eventually laid the foundation for the liberal international order that we have lived under until recent years.

5.3??????? This "ideological seed" and its journey will be the subject of my next paper.

?

?

?

?

?

?

_________________________

* Haneul Jung is an international arbitrator and commentator, serving as Founding Principal of System for International Law and Order L.L.C. (SiLO), an independent research and publishing vehicle committed to exploring the interrelationship between international law and international order. Prior to commencing his independent career, Jung spearheaded Korea’s WTO disputes as Director of Trade Dispute Settlement Division, Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy of the Republic of Korea. Before that, Jung was a partner at International Dispute Resolution Group of Shin & Kim L.L.C., an International Law Specialist at Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a staff judge advocate to Korea’s Counter-Piracy Task Force deployed in the Gulf of Aden, among others.