The Mental Health Impact on International Politics

International relation is a discipline that studies the interaction of sovereign states from a global perception; this helps explain the possibility of wars, international markets, world politics, and governance. For a while now, International relations for mental health have been explained in four major theories: Realism and neo-realism theories, liberalism, and neoliberalism.

The realism theory approaches the idea of international politics to be constrained in the brackets of lack of a more centralized system of governance globally; this approach is referred to as an archaic system, which is better explained by the works of Thomas Hobbes, Where he argues that the world in itself is very unruly; hence world politics are governed more by the human instinct of survival and the basic law of the jungle, whereby only the strongest animal is justified to exist. Neorealism fails to acknowledge human nature’s involvement in the international realm and mostly blames conflicts on the lack of a set standard of rules which mostly neorealists call structure.

Thirdly the approach of international politics is viewed in a more liberal manner, which explains that wars in the international realm can be avoided if states agree to cooperate and work together. This approach assumes that nations are more interdependent and no nation is self-dependent. So if nations set their differences aside, then the world would become a peaceful place to live in. However, this theory only partially alienates the aspect of an archaic system of the international realm. But it does introduce the idea of international organizations that will help oversee the interactions of states and help mediate their differences and apply international law.

However, these theories do not fully capture the holistic system of international relations, especially in trying to explain the second world war. In this, I will explain that international politics of the world are highly driven and affected by human psychological perception. As humans, especially those in the realm of power, we hugely affect how world politics plays, and our deep psychological health adversely affects how we drive these politics.

People living with mental health conditions face many challenges, including anxiety and paranoia; this hugely affects decisions making, which is a huge challenge for them. Studies have shown that things like anxiety disrupt the areas of the mind in charge of decision-making, which is the prefrontal cortex. Many will argue some issues of mental health, such as depression, have a huge effect on personal motivation to participate in activities. Still, only activities like bathing, homework, eating, or even getting out of bed. However, political leaders are also not exempted from the fact that they are also human; hence, they are not exempted from these mental illnesses when it comes to the international realm and the expected to make decisions on the proceeds. A good example of such a case is if one leader has a psychological disorder such as Narcistiic psychological Disorder, they are likely not to see his part in international politics, fluctuating international markets, or even in wars.

Since people suffering from narcissistic disorders are not likely to see fault in themselves and will end up blaming others for their mistakes, as earlier said, political beings are not exempted from these psychological effects. Back to the second world war, it is hugely blamed on the rise of dictators and the Versailles treaties. The Versailles treaty was signed in 1919, which led to the end of the first world war.

Looking at the terms of the Versailles treaty, it was set to ensure that German would never get an opportunity to attack France hence the reason the terms of the Versailles treaty were harsh, mostly pon german. Everyone can hugely attest that the terms set by Versailles were more oriented towards humiliating Germany rather than bringing down an agreement to ensure that there would be a reign of world peace. The government that came into power next, known as the Weimar Administration, had no choice but to accept the Versailles’ humiliating terms.

The Weimar administration focused on printing new currency, which led to the devaluation of the current currency. Hence e, the people were willing to support any person willing to take them away from the yoke of the Versailles. A d bring back to the country back to its former glory. Now in the setting of Versailles, after the world politicians had seen how adverse a world war had on the world, you would think they would be motivated towards building a better treaty that everyone would feel contented with; however, they were more focused on revenge and more fixated by their paranoia of Germany leading a crusade war against them against, failing to understand they also participated in the war. Secondly, the first world war was marked by Serbia and Austria-Hungary, when Serbia decided to showcase their sovereignty by refusing to allow the Australian authorities to investigate the assassination of their Archduke in Bosnia.

The second cause of the second world war was the rise of dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini. As earlier said earlier, germany was willing to support anyone who had ambitions to restore Germany to its former glory, and they end de up placing their faith in a” madman,” Hitler, who convinced the people that Germany was a superior race over others and that the Jewsh were evil people. Hitler advanced his troops toward expanding the territories of german without a shred of humanity in him, and many may argue he was a sociopath and lacked any form of empathy; his decisions, his actions, his perception, and his mental health imbalance caused the world to fall into the second world war.

In conclusion, The subtlety of the human mind, especially sovereign political leaders, should be a matter of concern. Their mental proficiency should be an important goal to avoid another world war. The certainty of mental balance should be required to climb the political ladders.