The truth is yet to be established.
According to Sartre’s philosophy of Existentialism, each individual in any nation seems to the freedom and right to choose a leader of preference (Sartre, 12). It is always a way of excising their God given power. Sartre and Beauvoir share a number of thoughts in this concept of power and freewill. They both tend towards the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln on Democracy where, the citizens have the sole right and willpower to choose a government. In essence, the kind of head of head of state solely depends on the independent decision of the people. Let us try to see how these theories are connected to Realism and Neo-realism.
Political theorists of all time had attempted to design a profound theory of political power and state relations. This enormous theory was dabbed Realism. According to Morgenthau and his theory of realism, all the nations of the world will always have contrasting political interests, a situation that usually ignites conflicts among these states. Realism, as separate political theory, is specifically concerned with political power. The 20th Century realism proponents like Morgenthau and E. H Carr strongly believe that power is the key factor in the entire system of the International relations. Realism clings to the assertion that international politics solely depends on the nature of the human, thus, politics is always a subject to the manipulation of a state leader (Carr, 347).
Following the above description of realism, realists seem to be of the opinion that the political stability of any state can only be determined by the nature of the leader in the office. Thus, if the head of state is very aggressive, he is very likely to gain more political powers than the less aggressive president. It is the very aggressive nature of the political leaders that led to some leaders being termed as dictators. In essence, leaders of states have been depicted as