Political realism earns attention by puncturing the idea that ideal theory can dictate political practice. Realists remind us that institutions are forged by contingent struggles, that moral appeals often mask strategic interests, and that legitimacy cannot be deduced from a hypothetical contract.

Yet realists are frequently accused of sliding into quietism. If all principles are hostage to power, where does critique live? My response is to treat realism as a diagnostic lens rather than a conclusion. It helps us ask: what social forces sustain this norm? who benefits from the discourse of justice? which reforms are feasible from where we stand?

Key commitments I take from realism

1. Historicity — Every institutional arrangement has a history that shapes its possible futures.
2. Conflict — Democratic order is achieved, not given; managing disagreement is the core task.
3. Plural agency — Citizens, elites, movements, and bureaucracies all exercise power differently.

These commitments force normative theorists to speak in the language of strategy. When we recommend a reform, we should say who can deliver it, what coalitions are needed, and how counter-moves will arise. Realism therefore strengthens democratic theory by injecting prudence.

Where I push back

Realism sometimes risks overstating the inevitability of domination. Normative ideals still matter because they orient actors toward alternatives and expose injustices that realism alone might normalize. I argue for a “critical realism”: one that diagnoses power without abandoning the demand that institutions respect equal standing.

In upcoming work, I plan to test this framework against debates on independent agencies and technocratic governance—spaces where realist caution and democratic aspirations collide most sharply.