Hard Power vs. Soft Power

Alexia Deleers

Every single country on this planet has wondered which way would be the best way to handle the International Relations of their country. Politicians have been torn attempting to figure out which kind of power to exert on foreign countries; hard power or soft power. Some writers will argue that hard power is crucial in International Relations because soft power shows weakness. On the other hand, many others believe the opposite. In his short book, Power: A Radical View, Lukes gives us different Dimensional Views of Power. One of the views that Lukes fails to mention is one in which hard power and soft power coexist to make a balanced way to deal with international relations.

Hard power is often exerted through military forces as well as economic force. Being within a country that exercises a great deal of hard power, many say they feel safe and looked after. In case of conflict, many States resort to using hard power to deal with their issues. In Lukes “One Dimensional View” he writes: “Conflict is assumed to be crucial in providing an experimental test of power attributions”. Numerous nations around the world believe that conflict is necessary in order to have power. They believe it is critical to experience conflicts in order to show the rest of the world what kind of power they can actually bring to the table. But in this case, I see a problem; where are the moral values that States hold? Are these to be ignored completely just to show off? Will Nations do anything in order to show off their power?

As a great deal of Nations prefer the use of hard power when dealing with International Relations, other favor soft power. The use of soft power within the world of International Relations deals with attracting people through the means of persuasion. Rather than using a military or an economy, States who favor soft power chose to put their moral values and their reason ahead of any violence. Instead of using coercion, soft power Nations will seduce foreign countries with factors that make their country seem attractive such as rights, jobs, freedom, and such things. The countries in which soft power is used prefer not to use a military force as they would rather not force anything on anyone and have people come to them by their own will. Now in this case, I see another problem; what if the soft power Nations were to get attacked? Would they be able to protect their people in the same way a hard power country could?

As thoroughly as Lukes describes his dimensional views of power, I still believe he does not have it quite right. I believe that if one Nation’s goal is to attract as many people as they can, they have to be able to exhibit the characteristics of both types of powers. People around the world want to be protected by their countries and be assured that if war were to break out, they would be safe. However, people also want to believe that their country can make moral decisions based on what is right, rather than what is of benefit to that State. In my opinion, a truly successful State is one in which hard power and soft power can coexist to find a balance in which a country can protect its people, yet act altruistically towards other Nations around the globe.