Sudden political phenomena often surprise critics of International Relations (IR) in terms of their complexity, as such scholars struggle to explain them through designing applicable models of social reality. Equally, events such as...
moreSudden political phenomena often surprise critics of International Relations (IR) in terms of their complexity, as such scholars struggle to explain them through designing applicable models of social reality. Equally, events such as presidential elections in one of the most powerful countries in the world cannot be easily qualified within the established research traditions such as Realism, Constructivism or Liberalism. It is because one paradigm cannot easily explain every single development in states' policy. More often it is the case that foreign policy initiatives could be explained by several theoretical strands rather than one paradigm. Therefore, much more accurate are eclectic approaches which shed light on particular trends in the foreign policy rather than explaining the whole approach in full. That is why, intellectually predisposed scholars often pursue analytic eclecticism as their main method to explain political reality. Scholars apply this method not only due to its powerful explaining power but also to address the growing gap between theory and policy in the field of International Relations. This paper will answer the question of how the world of theory relates to the world of policy. Nye (2009) rightly noticed that there is a growing "gap between theorists and practitioners in the field of international relations. In recent years, the gap has been widening and bridging efforts have become more difficult." The growing withdrawal of university scholars behind curtains of theory and modelling leads to the situation in which 'scholars are on the sidelines' since they do not have a real, tangible impact on policymakers and the decisions that leaders make (Nye, 2009). To make things worse, as Walt (2005: 23) observed, "Policy makers pay relatively little attention to the vast theoretical literature in IR, and many scholars seem uninterested in doing policy-relevant work." Such trends and tendencies are unfortunate because theory is an essential tool of statecraft and not paying attention to theory might lead to major foreign policy disasters. Decision-makers who act on behalf of global leaders on their behalf do not want to rely on the voices of the so-called 'outsiders' as they have their own narrow circle of policy advisors. In such situations, voices who defend the common good and objectivity are often rejected or neglected and states pursue their own particularistic policies missing the bigger picture. Thus, it rarely happens that a politically neutral, modest scholar, who is seeking progress on the global stage and who may have worked on an innovative idea or a breakthrough approach to solving world's problems could be given a chance to influence the policy of a Great Power. This does not provide an excuse for the abandonment of further attempts and efforts of resourceful scholars thereby giving them a chance to excel at International Relations Theory. Many scholars are accused of wanting to advise top state leaders and influence policy, but if the analysis, plus the original perspective adopted by such scholars prove to be accurate, tested and verifiable then it may serve as a basis for discussion among supportive institutions leading to the much-needed change based on the ripple effect in international policy analysis. Great leaders listen to their advisers and can creatively weave the future by bending the political reality (Dror, 2008: 84). Even the grand policy can change. Grand policy is an instrument aiming at (to use a striking term coined by Plato in 'The Statesman'' - ''weaving the future''' through creatively combining present contradictory materials and processes into making a better future. A good statesman can creatively bend political reality by creating new ideas, norms and solutions. More specifically, grand policy tries to reduce the probability of bad futures (for example, the one with extreme climatic impacts), to increase the probability of good futures, at their visions, images and evaluations change with time, and to gear up to coping with the unforeseen and the unforeseeable. (Ibid.). To use a different analogy, in grand-policy crafting rulers perform as both composers and conductors because there is a creative element. Why is creative problem-solving needed in leadership studies? Because creativity drives innovation and evolution, providing original ideas and options thereby ensuring progress, but it is also a reaction to the challenges in the life of politics. In this sense, creative advisory and problem-solving are both reactive and proactive. It helps when solving problems and sometimes allows problems to be avoided, to choose a better option. Therefore, grand policy strategizing can be compared to composing. Composing is much more difficult, original, personal, and important than conducting, however, essential for the latter is a realization of the various compositions, giving them different interpretations, and adjusting them to changing situations (Ibid.). A ruler or leader is very different from a composer as he is working within organizations and composing in union as well as competition and conflict with peers, advisers, organizations, and societies. A great composer has the freedom of innovation that is larger by many orders of magnitude than the constrained space of creation open to rulers. Policymakers are often constrained in what policies they can pursue. Still, creation is at the core of grand-policy crafting (Dror, 2008: 85). And this is more so in our epoch when rapid change makes the wisdom of the past into the stupidity of the future, and invention of the options fitting radically novel situations and values is a must (Ibid.). Therefore, the ruler should in part operate as a creator (as well as a transformative agent of change) guided by his strategic vision and inner leadership instinct. (Panek, 2004). This natural talent can be compared to the mind-music that Bethoveen heard when he was deaf (Gelerneter, 2004). If the ruler himself cannot be a real creator, at least, he should facilitate policy option creatively and by being eager to consider and absorb new ideas, by being open to consider and balance different options and always being open-minded to critical evaluation and further re examination. To explain it in other words, high-quality grand-policy crafting in an epoch of transformations requires reliance on both idealist visions of a better world with a realist policy implementation. This is crucial for rulers who would like to enact a world-changing impact. Grand-policy training cannot make rulers into visionary leaders. But training can achieve awareness of the importance and awareness of the future-weaving mission of rulers and their creative advisers (Dror, 2008: 85). On a more operational level, to be emphasized and illustrated is the scarcity of promising options for main policy issues, and therefore, the practical need to choose the option invention, a creative and brilliant policy that is to be sought, encouraged and implemented by rulers and leaders. For the reasons explained above, sceptical and unconvinced professors should never doubt the simple truth that International Relations Theory analysts can provide valuable ideas for policymakers without sacrificing professional integrity and objectivity. Creative leaders can creatively solve important global problems. What is certain in the world of politics is the inevitability of decline of leaders, of empires and their pretensions to greatness. Is then a myth of a leader who has the power to change our world only an utopia or is it a true reality? There were cases that capable global leaders managed to change history. To paraphrase Garrett James Hardin's idea: "To survive indefinitely in good shape a nation [or civilisation - emphasis of the author] must take as its advisers people who can see farther than typical leaders.” Equally, political critics, speculators and cynics often present a distorted view of political reality, of what is politically possible and achievable. In light of this, the actions of every leader need to be re-examined and re-evaluated, so that to draw important lessons for future leaders and prevent the destructive collapse of civilisation. Arguably, what the world's needs, at the present, is to bridge the gap between academic ideas and their possible impact in solving real-world problems. Humanity simply needs more practical, ingenious adaptations for the survival of our civilisation that often, in the past, proved to come not from policy circles, but from academia. Also, this trend would not have wider significance if it did not raise questions regarding the preparation of new generations of scholars to influence the world of policy and enrich it through public and official perceptions and discourses of international issues and events while providing original insights, timely analysis, objective comments and not just hypothesis testing.
