Session 11: Balance of power; an ideology

Haas figures out an interesting conception about the term "balance of power" that this term has certain connotations attached to it. It is an amazing suggestion because normally balance of power is related to the sharing of power between the states and hence maintaining a status quo in the international arena. However, it is noted by Haas that it can be ideological as well. What does that really mean? Ideology as defined by Mannheim quoted by Haas, "the total myth system of the social groups and are essential to the spiritual cohesion of a ruling group which would lose its sense of control if it were conscious of "real" state of affairs."(Haas, Pg 463)

The assumption here is that the ideology that political leaders appeal to is actually the binding force of the people that they are presenting, and they require this mythical belief system to maintain the solidarity of their nation. However, the significant point is that these political leaders use balance of power as rhetoric to propose a set of policies that disrupt the peaceful environment of the international arena, and the public supports their actions because they present the need to balance their power in the interests of the nation.

The implications for using balancing of power as an ideological basis for pursuing policy interests are that the states that opt for the expansion of their power and borders get legitimacy for their actions as the cause is identified with national honor and prestige. Moreover, the states that come into conflict with these states to maintain their preponderance might go to war in order to expunge the threat to the status quo. Lastly, one finds the ideological explanation of the balance of power as a forceful claim because it expounds the reason for the consent of the public for the pursuance of wars by revisionist states when they pursue expansion and dominance.