This article examines the contradictions of American democracy as both a global paradigm for liberal

governance and a counter-paradigm, defined to address political dysfunction and ideological polarisation.

presentation of American democracy as a paradigm, despite internal challenges and legitimacy crises. The

paper suggests that American democracy, while frequently extolled as an exportable ideal, is increasingly

functioning as a cautionary tale, a counter paradigm, illustrating liberal government's limits in dealing with

realist power relations. This contributes to current arguments over the global future of democracy and the

sustainability of Western political models in a multipolar world. The study concludes that, while it contains

elements that could serve as a paradigm for other democracies, such as its founding principles, the realities of

political practice frequently present significant barriers that may render it a counter paradigm in certain

contexts and thus recommends that bipartisanship initiatives be promoted to encourage collaborative efforts

across party lines.

disillusionment with traditional political institutions, raises the question of whether the United States serves as

a global governance paradigm or a counter paradigm that demonstrates the pitfalls of liberalism when

confronted with realist principles due to its inherent contradictions and challenges. The study subject provides

an intriguing perspective on American democracy through the lens of realism and liberalism. The relationship

between realism and liberalism in the context of American democracy is complex and multifaceted. Realism

emphasises competitive and conflictual sides of international politics, where states act primarily in their

national interests, often prioritising power and security over ideological considerations.

Liberalism, on the other hand, advocates for a world order founded on collaboration, international institutions,

and the rule of law, with democracy, human rights, and economic interdependence serving as pathways to

realism versus liberalism. Proponents argue that American democracy provides a framework for individual

freedoms and rights that many countries aspire to emulate, such as free elections, checks and balances among

branches of government, and civil liberties (Nogueira de Brito, 2024). Critics contend that the dysfunction

observed in U.S. politics, such as partisanship leading to legislative stalemates, demonstrates significant

shortcomings. Issues like voter suppression, gerrymandering, systemic inequality, and influence from special

interest groups challenge the notion that America is a beacon of democratic ideals. The current state of

American democracy grapples with competing ideologies stemming from differing interpretations of what

constitutes national interest versus global responsibility. For instance, debates surrounding immigration

policies can illustrate this tension; while some advocates for open borders based on humanitarian grounds (a

liberal perspective), others argue for stricter controls over national security concerns (a realist perspective).

citizens, who may regard political opponents as existential dangers rather than just rivals. This tension has

profound implications for democratic theory, global norm-setting, and the legitimacy of liberal democratic

models in the 21st century. The study contributes to ongoing debates about the future of democracy and the

viability of Western political templates in a multipolar world. The study provides an intriguing perspective on

American democracy through the lens of realism and liberalism. Realism in political theory emphasises power,

national interests, and anarchy in international interactions, whereas liberalism emphasises collaboration,

democratic government, and individual rights. The discord within American democracy contributes to

disillusionment with democratic institutions and results in indifference or withdrawal from civic activity

(Nogueira de Brito, 2024; Abbondanza, 2025).

striving for liberal governance or acts as a counter paradigm due to internal conflicts. The findings inform

better governance practices within liberal states and offer lessons for other democracies facing similar

challenges. The following objectives form the basis for this exploration: Examine the extent to which realist

governance principles influence policy decisions in a state built on liberal democratic ideals; Analyse the

ideological tensions between realism and liberalism within the U.S. political system; Evaluate the effectiveness

of realist approaches in managing economic policies, foreign relations, and national security within a liberal

framework; Investigate public and political perceptions of whether America's hybrid governance structure

serves as a global paradigm or a counter-paradigm; Assess the long-term implications of realist governance on

the stability and global influence of American democracy.

Media coverage includes reputable news channels and investigative reports that offer current accounts of

policy actions and their impacts. Think tank assessments comprise research briefs, policy papers, and expert

commentary from established policy institutes specialising in international relations and governance. The

primary analytical tool employed in the research is thematic analysis, which detects and categorises recurring

themes relevant to realism governance systems. This process includes Data familiarisation, involving the

review of all collected sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of content and context. Coding involves

assigning labels to segments of data that reflect beliefs or ideas about realism in governance. Theme

identification consists of grouping codes into broad themes that mirror repeated policy strategies or ideological

stances. Interpretation connects recognised themes to existing theoretical frameworks and historical trends.

Additionally, a comparative analysis is conducted to evaluate differences in realist policymaking across

Realist governance is a political realism approach that emphasises the role of power dynamics, national

interests, and the anarchic nature of the international system in shaping governance structures and practices. It

posits that states are the primary actors in global politics, focusing on their interactions based on self-interest

and security concerns. Power politics is central to realist governance, as states seek to enhance their power

relative to others, often leading to competition and conflict. The international system is viewed as anarchic,

meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or norms consistently across states. States must rely

on their military, economic, and diplomatic capabilities to ensure their survival and pursue their interests. The

security dilemma is acknowledged, as actions taken by one state to enhance its security can inadvertently

(Morgenthau, 1973; Hurrell & Bull, 2002; Pashakhanlou, 2013; Fehér, 2024; Jones et al., 2024; Kiçmari, 2024;

Tomaščík, 2024). Realist governance represents a worldview in which power dynamics drive state behaviour

in an anarchic international system. It emphasised practical techniques based on the facts of state behaviour

above idealistic conceptions of collaboration or fairness. Focusing on national interests and pragmatic

solutions while noting the complexities of security concerns and historical antecedents is a good method that

provides valuable insights into understanding contemporary global politics.

Liberalism's core tenets, individual rights, political equality, and the rule of law, are the foundational ideas of a

liberal state. A liberal state is distinguished by its dedication to upholding individual liberties and rights while

ensuring that governmental authority is constrained and subject to accountability. The concept of a liberal state

fundamental characteristic of a liberal state, ensuring equal application of laws to all individuals, including

those in positions of power. Liberal states typically have limited government powers, preventing overreach and

abuse of power. This limitation allows citizens to participate in the decision-making process through free and

fair elections, fostering accountability and allowing citizens to express their preferences regarding public

policies. Economic freedom is another hallmark of a liberal state, where market economies operate with

minimal government intervention. Individuals have the right to own property, engage in commerce, and make

economic choices based on their preferences, supporting innovation, entrepreneurship, and competition (Jones

et al., 1794; Das et al., 2024; Goodin et al., 2024; Laruelle, 2024; Sadiqi, 2024; Tate, 2024)

tolerance for diversity, and considerations for social welfare aimed at promoting equality among citizens.

Considering this, a liberal state is fundamentally rooted in the principles of liberalism, which emphasises the

protection and enhancement of individual freedoms as the central concern of political governance. A liberal

state is characterised by several key features that distinguish it from other forms of governance.

The relationship between realist governance principles and liberal democratic ideals is a complicated and

depending on contextual factors such as geopolitical realities and domestic political landscapes, but it remains

a significant aspect of contemporary governance in liberal democracies.

over military action. However, with the end of the Cold War and the emergence of globalisation, liberal ideals

gained traction and became a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy under administrations such as Bill Clinton

and George W. Bush, who advocated for interventionist policies spreading democratic governance worldwide.

have reignited realist perspectives advocating for a stronger military posture to deter aggression. Conversely,

liberals argue for engagement through diplomacy and economic ties rather than confrontation. The Biden

administration has attempted to navigate these tensions by promoting a foreign policy that balances realist

concerns about great power competition with liberal ideals centred on democracy promotion and multilateral

cooperation.

Supporters argue that the U.S. serves as a global paradigm of democracy due to its constitutional framework,

checks and balances, free elections, and civil liberties. Key democratic features include the U.S. Bill of Rights,

separation of powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches, federalism and decentralisation, and

regular, competitive elections (Riegner, 2025). However, critics argue that structural flaws, partisan gridlock,

and economic inequality undermine America's democratic legitimacy. Major criticisms include the Electoral

College and representation issues, hyper-partisan polarisation, media polarisation, and economic and social

inequality. The Electoral College allows presidents to win without the popular vote, while gerrymandering and

voter suppression laws disproportionately affect minorities and low-income voters. Political gridlock in

Congress has weakened governance, making compromise difficult. Media polarisation and misinformation

have deepened public distrust in democratic institutions (Nogueira de Brito, 2024; Abbondanza, 2025;

long run, if realist governance continues to dominate U.S. foreign policy without a balance from liberal

democratic ideals, there could be significant consequences for both domestic stability and global influence.

These include the erosion of democratic norms within America, a shift in global alliances, and challenges to

democratic resilience. Realist governance has bolstered U.S. national security and sustained its global

dominance. However, its long-term effects on democratic values, international legitimacy, and global influence

present challenges. While realism ensures state survival and power projection, its pragmatic and interest-driven

nature risks eroding democratic norms both domestically and abroad. Moving forward, a balanced approach

integrating realism with democratic principles may be essential for sustaining American stability and

Hegemony Theory to critically examine the conflict between America's declared liberal democratic values and

its realist-driven government practices. Each of these theories provides distinct insights into the contradictions

that underpin the US democratic project and its worldwide positioning. Integrating Neorealism (Waltz, 1979),

Liberal Institutionalism (Keohane & Nye, 1977; Ikenberry, 2001), and Gramscian Hegemony Theory

(Gramsci, 1971), this paper examines the conflict between America's liberal democratic ideals and its realist

emphasises the chaotic nature of the international system as well as the need for state strength and survival.

According to this viewpoint, the United States functions largely in pursuit of national interests, strategic

dominance, and security concerns, which frequently contradict its stated commitment to democratic values and

multilateral collaboration.

institutions to maintain control through consent rather than coercion. In this framework, American democracy

can be viewed not just as a global paradigm but also as a hegemonic project that cloaks realist imperatives in

liberal discourse, potentially functioning as a counter-paradigm upon deeper analysis. Antonio Gramsci's

concept of hegemony emphasises the importance of agreement, compulsion, and intellectual leadership in

sustaining dominating institutions. In this perspective, American democracy is evaluated as a paradigm that

conceals realist imperatives beneath liberal language, potentially serving as a counter-paradigm when

examined via its worldwide actions. The synthesis of these theories provides a holistic examination of U.S.

governance, demonstrating persisting contradictions between ideology and strategy in the representation and

execution of American democracy.

democratic governance, demonstrating institutional continuity despite political upheaval, while others saw it as

a counter-paradigm, exposing structural weaknesses and the capacity for realist imperatives to override liberal

commitments. Trump's governance combined realist tendencies with a more overt challenge to liberal

institutional norms, particularly in the rhetoric surrounding the media, electoral processes, and international

alliances. Persistent challenges, such as economic inequality, partisan polarisation, and concerns over electoral

integrity, continue to raise questions about the durability of democratic principles. When situated within a

broader historical comparison, the 2024 case echoed patterns observed in previous administrations. For

example, realist principles, prioritising national security, strategic advantage, and economic competitiveness,

approach to Soviet containment, and the post-9/11 security strategies of the George W. Bush era. However,

constrained by pragmatic and strategic considerations. This can manifest through foreign policy decisions that

often prioritise security and strategic interests over humanitarian concerns or democratic promotion abroad.

The study identifies continuous friction between realist and liberal ideologies in U.S. politics, manifesting in

debates surrounding foreign policy, economic regulation, and social issues. Realists argue for a pragmatic

approach centred on power and security, while liberals advocate for policies that promote democracy and

human rights globally. This tension can lead to conflicting approaches in governance, such as during the

Trump administration, where a more isolationist realist approach contrasted sharply with traditional liberal

internationalism.

economic nationalism are examples of economic policies that prioritise national interests. However, this

discrepancies in foreign policy and democratic advocacy have undermined its global legitimacy. Long-term

implications of realist governance on stability and global influence include domestic stability, international

influence, and sustainability of the hybrid model. Over-reliance on power politics could weaken democratic

institutions, leading to authoritarian tendencies. Additionally, without a balanced approach, the U.S. could face

internal democratic erosion and external diplomatic isolation. Assessing the long-term implications of realist

governance on American democracy involves considering how prioritising national interest may erode public

trust in democratic institutions over time.

The study argues that while it’s important to acknowledge the successes of American democracy, the emphasis

on its flaws serves as a valuable warning to other nations. Recognising the complexities and challenges that

can promote a more inclusive dialogue about democracy that respects the sovereignty of states and their unique

contexts. America needs to lead by example rather than dictate what democracy should look like elsewhere.