The Balance of Power in the Theories of Rousseau and Morgenthau: A Comparative Study

Introduction:
This study presents a comparative examination of the concept of the balance of power as addressed by two different schools of thought—traditionalism and realism—spanning two distinct periods: the first representing the 17th century (1712-1778) and the other the 20th century, represented by Hans Morgenthau, who passed away at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Both thinkers agree that the balance of power constitutes the optimal system for achieving stability, peace, and preventing wars due to its ability to clarify how power is distributed and functions among the units of sovereignty or within the political entity.

Through this comparison, it becomes evident that the traditional and realist theories of the balance of power, separated by two centuries, have contributed to laying the groundwork for the initial studies in realism in international politics. Despite their differing views on nation-states and the role of ethics in politics, their contributions extend to the emergence of doctrines analyzing international political issues. The balance of power is utilized not only to understand the relations and international policies of states but also to safeguard and protect the international system of sovereign states.

This comparative study aims to provide an analytical comparison of the ideas and analytical laws regarding the concept of the balance of power as articulated by Hans Morgenthau and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The Problem of Definition and Concept:
The idea of the balance of power is one of the oldest and most recognized theories in politics and international relations. Most analysts attribute the analysis of issues of war and peace, which prevailed in the past among nation-states, to the components and elements of this theory. Historically, the theory of the balance of power has been utilized since the inception of Hellenistic civilization in Athens to clarify and predict the dynamics of relations and events among states.

Political scientists and state leaders have used the meanings of the balance of power in various ways and concepts, due to the lack of a definitive concept with established principles, rules, and applications. The use of this concept began with writings and analyses regarding the understanding and development of diplomatic history in Europe. Some interpretations of power pertain to military capabilities, economic supremacy, or cultural distinctions, which allow a certain state or group of states to achieve specific ambitions or interests.

For others, power does not denote anything specific or distinctive but signifies the ability of a sovereign entity to impose its will upon others “through persuasion or coercion,” despite any resistance that may come from the party upon which that influential ability is exerted. This latter group perceives the concept of power as a scattered collection of ideas and components, merely denoting possession of the ability to influence the behavior of others, whether it is a sovereign state implementing an announced policy or a citizenry exercising political rights under its political system.

Michael Sheehan, in “Balance of Power: History and Theory” (1997, p. 4), provides an approach to the concept of power by stating, “Anything exerted by one individual over another.” However, the evolution of the concept of the balance of power continues to struggle with a lack of consensus regarding its origin, subject matter, and definition, remaining a complex conceptual construct. There is limited agreement on its acceptance as an explanatory law for international politics and inter-state relations. The indicators of balance of power can be detected during times when power is distributed among nation-states, producing equilibrium in the international system and its behavior.

The balance of power represents a phenomenon that is “not rigid in motion and activation,” which contributes to the difficulty of obtaining a fixed definition due to the adjustments it undergoes according to the changes and variables states induce in their foreign and internal behaviors. Therefore, “new balances in forms and contents of power use continuously emerge on the surface of inter-state relations because the problem in this balance approach pertains to how power is exercised, not how it is distributed” (Sheehan, 1997).

Dina Zinnes, in “Analysis of Balance of Power Theories” (1967, p. 270), provided a definition that also contributes to the necessity for more realistic definitions in this study: “The balance of power guarantees a specific pattern of power distribution among nation-states in a system that is neither unilateral nor consists of alliances; these states do not possess overwhelming or even superior power.”

Modern political thought has also addressed the balance of power through the modernist or realist school, or “Realpolitik,” in the analysis of politics and international relations. The founding of this school dates back to the Treaty of Versailles and the attempts in Europe to establish lasting peace at the end of World War I with the formation of what is called “the League of Nations.” Most writings about this phase in inter-state relations condemn the behavior of states that resorted to war to achieve national interests and power politics. There were calls for adherence to the ethical principles articulated by international law and the League of Nations. Just as humans are good and capable of progress through learning and effecting changes in their environment, so too can nation-states tailor their political behavior to higher levels for the sake of peace and security.

Contrary to Machiavelli’s argument in “The Prince” that “politics have no relation to ethics,” for the success of the nation-state and for rational reasons, the nation-state should work to increase its wealth, military power, and cultural and civilizational influence at the expense of other states. Throughout human history, escalations among states lead to wars as long as human nature remains fixed and unchanging (Machiavelli, Prince).

After World War II, in the context of the spread of “nuclear terror culture” and the concept of “deterrence,” a new determinant emerged, laying the foundation for a new dimension in which war between great powers is unnecessary, but alternative methods can be used within the international political system. This development in the nature of relationships among nation-states, especially those that enjoy various manifestations of power, has led to the emergence of another doctrine in international politics formulated in line with the “two-party game theory,” where the outcome is zero-sum; any benefit gained by State A translates into a loss for State B (Sabri Maqlid, p. 246).

Before concluding this section, it should be noted that in recent years, numerous analyses and research that are difficult to catalog in politics and international relations have addressed the balance of power, further emphasizing the term. Notable references include: Karl Deutsch, “Analysis of International Relations”; Edward David, “Analysis of International Politics”; David Singer, “Human Behavior and the International Political System”; Morton Kaplan, “The Great Debate in Science”; Organski, “Power Transition”; Anis Claude, “Power and International Relations”; John Herz, “International Politics in the Nuclear Age”; Hans Morgenthau, “Politics Among Nations”; “Power and Ideology in International Politics”; and “Rousseau in International Relations,” alongside David Mitrani’s “Political Theory in the New Community” and Dina Wins’ “Analysis of Balance of Power Theories.” Finally, Sabri Maqlid’s book provides a vital overview of “Theories of International Politics.” The following section focuses on the analyses of Rousseau and Morgenthau regarding the idea of balance of power.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau tackled issues previously discussed by Hobbes, Grotius, Barbaric, and Ludendorff, though he believed these authors were more interested in “justifying what is present, starting from reality, and searching for what ought to be.” Rousseau adds, “According to Hobbes, as long as every individual desires security, there must be a strong authority to prevent man from being a wolf to another man.” For Rousseau, politics is justified neither by “nature,” nor by “interest,” nor by “power,” nor by “fact,” but rather consists of “morality that realizes the human being who possesses will and reason, not merely needs and desires” (Qarqout, p. 15).

The Social Contract, translated by Dhuqan Qarqout in 1972, serves as Rousseau’s primary reference for most of his various ideas and analyses, from which his concept of the “general will” and “power” in international politics emerged. The sovereign state was created to prevent the emergence of war in an environment characterized by a primitive condition (State of Nature), and within civil society, a foundation for the “general will” was established, supported by the rule of law through the union of citizens’ wills to express their common interests. Power, thus, belongs to them alone, and the legitimate government is that which originates from citizens through democratic means and majority voting (Qarqout, 1972).

The union of citizens’ wills and the general will, for Rousseau, can only be achieved through the national teachings of the nation and the union of its citizens with its national interests through a model of democratic state, with essential functions being: “establishing meanings of the general will and the laws it necessitates, promoting national values through education, and finally preventing the emergence of wealth disparities among the population,” which Rousseau considered one of the destructive factors for the unity of civil society (Qarqout, p. 30).

Rousseau concludes that his vision of the “will of sovereign citizenship” is indivisible, and this applies perfectly to nation-states where their sovereignty is indivisible as well. Therefore, the execution of the general will provides solutions for stability, justice, and democratic peace through national policies. This scenario Rousseau presented for exercising power through citizen participation within the sovereign state reflects his analysis that it contributes to creating an “eternal state for the emergence of wars and conflicts in international relations,” because the principle of general will exercised within the national political system lacks a “similar version in relations among states and their sovereignties” (Hoffmann & Fidler, 1991). Inter-state relations are conducted in different conditions solely under the criterion of interests, not ethics or democracy; hence, this poses a threat to the security of other communities.

From this Rousseauian perspective, one can argue that contemporary international relational behaviors and policies are not dissimilar to those of the pre-civil society era, given their subjection to organized violence under the guise of supreme national interest. Rousseau continues his analysis of the state, describing it as an “artificial construction,” as its power derives from its relationships with other states. The state, by its “dynamic competitive nature,” continuously fuels conflict to gain power, and this power is the primary determinant of its relations with other states, while the national power of the state transforms into properties of the international state system, sidelining the citizen’s need for participation, security, and peace (Hoffmann & Fidler, 1991).

Rousseau’s literature emphasizes his view that due to the processes of the balance of power prevalent on the regional stage, the entire international state system will suffer from reconsiderations regarding the uses of power and its unethical dimensions. Rousseau notes that “the balance of power indicates that no state or group of allied states can, without written regulations, be more powerful or superior to the most powerful force” (Hoffmann & Fidler, 1991).

No external power or manifestation of external intervention is required to achieve balance; rather, according to Rousseau’s analysis, it is an “organic and harmonious” and “automatic” balance, enhanced when each nation-state achieves its economic advancements and political independence. This balance system can be realized since no state can risk its interests or invoke anything that poses a threat to its national security and, consequently, invite all forms of destruction and regression carried over from an era of primitiveness to its national structure.

In this regard, the balance of power appears closely related to the idea of the “general will” in the international system, but Rousseau expresses numerous concerns, stating that “the fragile balance of power and the burdens that may be imposed on nation-states keep them perpetually alert to challenges against their national strength” (Qarqout, p. 67). However, following his observation of events in Europe during that period of his life and his anticipation of a European federation at some point gathering European states or even a global government, Rousseau rejected this idea because it contradicted the functions of the balance of power system (Hoffmann & Fidler, 1991).

The reason for his rejection of the idea of federation is that the transformation of power and its sources from one national state or group of national states to another results in an “artificial balance of power,” which will not endure for a longer duration. Rousseau’s apprehensions regarding “artificial balance of power,” despite its significance among nation-states, hinge on the importance of moral ideals in executing policies related to national interests. His rejection of integration or unification is evident in his doctrine, despite his agreement with Morgenthau’s realist perspective on the existence of the balance of power as a behavior of nation-states. This leads us to further explore Morgenthau’s ideas regarding the realistic balance of power.

Hans J. Morgenthau
The balance of power theory is more closely associated with Hans Morgenthau than any other realist analyst, as he provided a vision of the functions of power without concern for its long-term or short-term objectives, asserting that power plays a central role in international politics. Morgenthau states that “international politics and the actions of states are essentially a struggle for power regardless of the established goals,” and that power, in its political sense, is defined as “the ability to influence the behavior of others.”

He continues by saying, “Political power is the relationship between those who exercise it and those upon whom it is exercised, but it takes on a psychological character, granting the former control over some of the actions of the latter through the influence they have over their minds. This behavioral relationship can be expressed through persuasion, threat, command, or a combination of these,” and that “the desire of nation-states to acquire primary resources or control maritime passages or to alter political maps will dictate their behavior toward other states through influencing their external behavior” (Morgenthau, 1979). Morgenthau views the struggle for power and its manifestations as a perennial phenomenon in the context and time of this relationship.

Morgenthau justifies his analysis of power and its avenues of use by arguing that there is no relationship between the ethics enjoyed by the national decision-maker, whether a leader or governor, and what history and the political behaviors of nation-states reveal across different eras; the 20th century is no exception. He does not believe that education, reform, ethics, or any specific international system can deter states from seeking and acting upon the “aspect of their personal interest” and increasing their power. The quest for national power is “a rational and inevitable demand,” and this eternal and ever-demanding pursuit leads to wars and conflicts. In his words, “nations seek to pursue their interests through the utilization and enhancement of power, as a clear variable in contemporary international behavior” (Morgenthau, 1979).

According to this Morgenthauian reasoning, the foreign policies of most states are practical expressions through which they try to diminish the power of other states while enhancing their own, not only in ordinary circumstances but even in cases rated as “humanitarian.” Morgenthau states, “Each state, through its ambitions, seeks to overthrow the status quo, necessitating a redefinition of the balance of power between states” (Morgenthau, 1978). Here, Morgenthau concurs with Rousseau, attributing to the pursuit of power by states as a behavior that “naturally and logically activates the common interest of the international system,” akin to how the balance of power functions.

However, Morgenthau proposes that this has beneficial effects, as it modernizes approaches to understanding international political reality, allowing for the stance of “letting life advance,” thereby preventing states from employing their military capabilities that could lead to the extinction of other nation-states.

For a contemporary example, one can refer to U.S. policy in the early first quarter of the first decade of the 21st century aimed at completely destroying Afghanistan and Iraq and paralyzing their status within the international system, which then reflected a long-term policy indicative of the impact on the balance of power in the Middle East and the broader East-West relations in general. Hans Morgenthau affirms that “nations always desire to excel within the structure of the balance of power” in order to influence the “status quo,” and a phase of chaos must prevail over the international system before a new balance of power can emerge; what happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union could be a recent example of a shift in the balance of power in favor of the United States.

Another activation of Morgenthau’s concepts regarding the balance of power is the role played by the “issuer” of authority, or as he described it, the “Balancer,” indicating that the primary function of this “Balancer” is to follow regulatory systems through policies and mechanisms to prevent imbalances of power in the international political system from succeeding. Imbalances of power between states are likely to occur when a particular nation-state or a group of allies enforces a power policy on another state or “establishes an empire” or a new bloc; naturally, other states may lose their national sovereignty within this system.

Based on Morgenthau’s hypotheses, the “issuer” of the international system occupies a central position in the balance of power as it is capable of “deterring and mapping” any struggle for power through employing the following means: engagement with nation-states possessing distinctive power, or with alliances to maintain peace, pursuing to achieve higher objectives, or combining both in every situation, provided that the balance of power is maintained in its prior conditions.

Theoretically speaking, any power coalition, sovereign state, or even political entity can function as a “Balancer,” if it meets two essential conditions: the first is to isolate its effects and role in the conditions of “the established order” and the struggle for power; and the second is the ability to possess the necessary power capable of influencing other contending parties.

Morgenthau differs from Rousseau concerning “collective security arrangements” and “balance of power alliances.” He clarifies the distinction between them, stating that the alliance for collective security arrangements among states forms automatically on a legal and ethical commitment basis when states agree that there is a shared threat endangering them. Here, they do not aim to establish a new “balance of power,” but to express “its existence,” while “balance of power alliances” are formed by national actors against other nation-states (a contemporary example being the U.S.-European coalition in Kuwait against Iraq in 1991) based on “self-perceived national interests.” However, this system does not operate automatically; instead, it depends on the nature of the political alliance at a particular moment in time ((Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 1961).

Morgenthau continues to argue for the existence of a balance of power system as it is not a targeted goal but is desired to the extent that it preserves states’ sovereignty, thereby achieving their interests because the international system is governed by the phenomenon of threat (Threat System). Morgenthau believes that if containment policies for conflict fail, this, in itself, justifies the enactment and practice of global balance of power policy. He also notes in his presentations of his perspectives on the theory of balance of power that “international relations are fundamentally based on the persistence and continuation of conflict, while the cooperation adopted by most states is an exception to the rule of international politics.” This is not akin to “collective security arrangements,” and in the context of defining states’ interests, he asserts that “national interest is measured by power, despite the changing concept of interest in certain states.”

Before concluding and presenting a theoretical foundation for this comparative analysis of the balance of power between the two thinkers, it is important to note that both of their ideas have faced various criticisms, especially concerning the intricacies of ethics, power, humanity, interest, and the concept of the nation-state. There are debates about the consistency of motivation in international relations, the limited role of ideological factors in international politics, and the shortcomings that have characterized the balance of power theory as a tool or outcome? Along with the various images of the balance of power presented by both thinkers, these do not fall within the core interests of this study.

It is worth noting, however, that the initial applications of the balance of power theory in academic research, particularly in the field of international politics, were found in writings that traced the history of diplomatic developments in European states and the power relations governing their external behavior.

Finally, through the scenarios presented, it appears that both thinkers arrived at similar conclusions regarding a concept on which they both agree despite the temporal gap between them. Their perspectives on humanity (citizenship) differ, and the international circumstances characterizing Rousseau’s era do not parallel those of Morgenthau’s time. Nevertheless, they are both discoverers of the traditional and realist ideas surrounding the balance of power. Not only that, but they also uncover the significance of this balance of power among states in achieving stability and peace within the international state system, alongside the fundamental role of the Balancer or issuer of authority.

It remains to be said that sovereign states have been influenced by these hypotheses, asserting that the balance of power cannot be violated and must persist, fully aware that its alteration is possible, but within commitments and international law and collective alliances. For this reason, both thinkers did not conceal their skepticism regarding “collective security arrangements” and diplomatic efforts infused into international and regional treaties and agreements to establish international peace and security.

Their perspectives on the balance of power became clearer when they remarked in their analyses that achieving balance is challenging as a mechanism for the continuation of international order, and its absence greatly impacts stability and security among states. Both arrived at a consensus that the balance of power encompasses a defined system that clarifies how power is distributed among sovereign units or political entities.

In summary, both Rousseau and Morgenthau remain foundational examples of the theories of the balance of power, traditional and realistic, in a scholarly field that is neglected in the Arab world. Their contributions constitute a central model in international politics and analysis.

References

• Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, Editors: T. V. Paul, James J. Wirtz, and Michel Fortmann.
• The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models, Author: Richard Little.
• Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Author: Hans J. Morgenthau.
• Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, Author: Kenneth N. Waltz.
• The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to their Economic and Social Advantage, Author: Norman Angell
• The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, Author: Hedley Bull.
• Realism and International Politics, Author: Kenneth N. Waltz.
• The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, Author: E. H. Carr.
• Classics of International Relations: Essays in Criticism and Appreciation, Editor: Henrik Bliddal.
• The Balance of Power: History and Theory, Author: Michael Sheehan.