Inter-philosophical Critique of Realpolitik from School of Machiavellianism and School of Legalism: Comparative and Dialectical Analysis of Role of Realpolitik Orientation on International Issues

Machiavellianism and Legalism exerted influences over bureaucratic administration, balance of power competition, among state empires and Realpolitik-oriented competition that may remain observable in today’s world of geopolitical security dilemma and structural power asymmetry, notwithstanding little advancement as they design in absolute terms due to domestic mechanism and confinement of a more modernising, inclusive, non-Realpolitik international norm upon political behaviours of state actors or supreme political decision makers. Both of these philosophical schools attach significance not to benevolence, righteousness, and morality in the realm of governance of both domestic affairs and foreign affairs, but rather to power supremacy of the rulers, and bestows and punishments combined according to the degree of consistency between the behaviours of officials and results of their performance, and even tricky usage of tactical deception if needed in response to the complicated Realpolitik affairs and arena partly because they presuppose human nature is not benign but evil, selfish and transactional mostly for the sake of narrow self-interests, especially in a Realpolitik-based environment that they observe and identify and that only the ends justify the means. This analytical essay methodologically seeks to utilise certain representative case studies of Ukraine-Russia geopolitical security dilemma and US-China structural dilemma in a more unpredictable world where Realpolitik remains observable but its methodology is insufficient, for the purpose of dialectically evaluating potential theoretical merits and demerits of Machiavellianism and Legalism. Briefly, these two philosophical schools facilitate state actors, supreme decision makers and research analysts to undertake maximum non-emotive, rational observation of an authentic geopolitical world in a physical sense as it literally is, but they probably omit the normative progressive philosophical notion of reshaping an international arena on a normative basis of minimum zero-sum-game mentality and minimum vicious structural competition and confrontation and of possibility of interstate cooperation beyond the Realpolitik framework.