Political Normativity in Realism / Moralism and Ideal / Non-Ideal Theory Approaches

The concept of political normativity has gained a substantial interest within political philosophy and today it plays a crucial role in methodological issues of the discipline. In this work, I want to compare how the concept is involved in theoretical considerations within realism/moralism and ideal/non-ideal theory debates. I also want to propose some new potential solutions in this inquiry that might inspire both of the directions to specify their understanding of normativity and enrich their arguments by taking a closer look on how normativity itself is understood within metaethics and an extension to metanormative theory. 
It is argued that the core of the realist agenda is the argument of distinctively political normativity and its sources found not «in pre-political moral commitments, but in a form of normativity inherent to politics» (Prinz and Rossi 2017), that is distinct from moral normativity. Realists hold that politics is an autonomous realm. However, some scholars maintain that «realism and moralism rely on different conceptions of political normativity» (Aytac 2017). There is also a substantial skepticism to the realist point, recent of which was presented by Leader Maynard and Worsnip (2018). They claim that, although they agree with the elements of realist theory, putting distinctively political normativity on the basis is a mistake. Non-ideal theory scholars claim that normativity is a contested concept, and thus put «the problem of political normativity» (Valentini 2009). As an alternative, they promote a Kant-inspired approach of political normativity (Rostbøll 2011, Horn 2016). Although Kant was an exemplary moral philosopher, it is possible to find implicit elements of free-standing political normativity irreducible to morality. It is now seen that considerations regarding the concept of political normativity are present in both methodological discourses. The concept even overlaps in some part, thus sharing a common place of reason. Both groups attempt to prove that political normativity cannot be simply reduced to moral normativity. However, realists and non-ideal theorists diverge in the valid sources of political normativity. While realists eschew any connection and role of morality in political realm, non-ideal theorists admit that there is some kind of relation between. Is there any chance to make a convincing argument proving one or another view? Can we avoid ambiguity of how the concept is understood? I think that realists should focus on the visions of political normativity developed by continental thinkers, not only Schmitt but also Foucault (Kelly 2018), Deleuz (Patton 2007), Mouffe (Cross 2017), Arendt, Habermas, and others. Another assumption is that further investigations of the concept of normativity within metaethics and an extension to metanormative theory can provide both the realists claim on the distinctively political normativity with the new arguments and non-ideal theorists in their attempt to solve the problem of political normativity.