To What Extent is Foreign Policy Making Influenced by Public Opinion - Report Example

To What Extent is Foreign Policy Making Influenced by Public Opinion? of Institute To What Extent is Foreign Policy Making Influenced by Public Opinion? Introduction The 20th century was probably the period in which many countries established practices that guide their foreign policy. Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and other regions did cover considerable grounds as far as foreign policy is concerned. Many issues of foreign policy also characterized the first decade of the 21st century. At the middle of his first term, Bush Jr. had to grapple with what appeared to be a lapse on security under his watch as the president. That had prompted him to intervene in Iraq, a much criticized move that is also seen to have cost his Republican Party as shall be seen later. One can say that public opinion on foreign policy is an emerging trend that has acquired momentum in the 21st century. Analysis and Discussion Probably public opinion on foreign policy was not as strong as it appears to be under Obama Presidency. In Europe, the tides are the same. Blair had also joined his American counterpart in a controversial exercise of executive authority. One should understand that issues pertaining to the role of foreign policy are not limited to the US-EU style and approach. The public around many mature democracies are increasingly becoming vocal on matters of foreign policy. This is not to imply that the public has hijacked that role from the executive political office, but that various opinions expressed in the public have significantly influenced foreign policy. That has been particular so in the latter half of the first decade of the 21st century. The same had also been apparent in the first half of the second decade of the 21st century (Headley and Reitzig, 2012, p. 69). In a study conducted by Alexander Todorov and Anesu Mandisodza, the scholars analysed public opinion and policymaking. The scholars pointed out that there are usually misconceptions when it comes to issues of public opinion on foreign policy. Todoroz and Mandisodza (2004, p. 326) argue that the extent to which the public would prefer multilateral foreign policy and unilateral foreign policy varies largely. They argue that many Americans prefer multilateral foreign policy very strongly. Probably this is in the understanding that various relations with various countries are usually informed by different circumstances. The authors argue that there is a misperception that the public usually has a unilateral view on certain policy issues. Given that the media usually airs the most vocal voices, there is an emerging trend of misperceptions that the existing policy reflects public opinion. Therefore, the scholars work appears to unearth one characteristic of public opinion influence on foreign policy. One can deduce that the extent to which public opinion has been seen to influence foreign policy is also the extent to which various multilateral preferences are misperceived to be unilateral. Consequently, public influence on foreign policy may not always reflect the real public view. The scholars argue that majority support for a policy may not always represent the real public opinion. Other scholars have observed that the extent to which foreign policy making is influenced by public opinion is a matter that can only be assessed through the prism of enthusiasm and interest. Kneckt and Weatherford (2006, p. 705) assess public influence on foreign policy through an analysis and discussion of the various stages of policy formulation. The scholars offer that the probability for any president to incorporate public opinion in the formulation of a foreign policy is also the extent to which the public has expressed interest in the policy. Expression of interest may be through demonstration against certain clauses or the whole document. It can also be through high approval ratings for the proposed foreign policy. Kneckt and Weatherford (2006, p. 705) argue that as a presidential foreign policy is being developed through stages such as problem representation, option generation, policy selection, policy implementation and policy review, public attentiveness to the matter is critical. They claim that presidents would be more inclined to respond to if their interest in the matter is perceived to be high. Public attentiveness, they assert, is the extent to which the public may have some influence in matters of foreign policy. They observe that many presidents are highly likely to incorporate issues of public concern at various stages of policy formulation at the specific stages that have been marked with high public interest. The reverse is also common. Kneckt and Weatherford (2006, p. 707) argue that policy makers have a way of estimating electoral consequences of policies. Therefore, a quiescence public would not prompt the policy makers to make any changes in the foreign policies. In this case, quiescence is perceived to imply satisfaction, although that is an assumption of convenience. Besides, Kneckt and Weatherford also argue that there is also a trend that foreign policy on issues of crisis are also attract public attention than non-crisis issues such as debate (2006, p. 711). In the aftermath of the 9/11, Bush administration had adopted war policy against Iraq declared war on Al-Qaeda. Although the Bush administration used the disguise of chemical weapons being used on the population, the war policy was seen as a continuation of the unfinished 1992 Gulf War. The 9/11 was merely a reminder for unfinished business. Time and events favoured the policy. Although the UN did not approve of the invasion, the atmosphere at home indicated that he had a huge support for a US led invasion even it meant going alone. Bush had achieved that through a psychological propaganda campaign of other imminent dangers for attacks that they had to clear. The promise for security was appealing. Given that Iraq also had long-standing issues of aggression, the foreign policy seemed justified then. It was easy for the Bush administration to enter into a groupthink and unanimously sanction military intervention. The secretary of state, the Vice President and the Chief of the General staff were the seemingly the main players behind the policy. They took a traditional approach where the US solves some of her foreign policy issues by militarism. The constitutional frameworks allowed the President to act in that direction under executive powers. The policy was born under the model 2 of government politics with a stereotype view of the out-group. However, by the time the Obama administration came into power, too much water had passed under the political bridge of global politics. Many Americas were increasingly having a second though about the Iraqi invasion and American foreign wars. Obama had capitalized on this and promised that he would bring American troops back home. That direction on foreign policy may be seen as pre-emptive of public feelings on the ground. True, he won a first term and a second term on a non-aggressive approach to foreign policy. As Kneckt and Weatherford (2006) observe, both Bush and Obama’s different approaches to foreign policy were all largely influenced by public opinion. However, the most important thing to note about the extent of foreign policy making is that it is influenced by a changing public opinion. Public opinion was pro-war during Bush’s administration and highly anti-war during the Obama administration. Obama may have realized this when he tested the Congress with an opinion on whether to attack Syria or not. He opted out of stereotype view of the out-group. He had the executive powers under the Constitution to declare war, but he sought the approval of the Congress. One can say that he faced an ethical dilemma influenced by his personality. He must have moved beyond groupthink and illusion of unanimity. One can say that Obama’s restraint could have been a perfect play of social constructivism theory where the emergent system of American norm towards foreign policy was anti-aggression. Although Obama possesses charm and charisma, he never used that to try to influence foreign policy. He is seen as having adopted a procedural rationality on the matter. That was the best decision since before then there had been sharp responses from the public, both in Europe and in the US. Public opinion increasing disfavoured the use of armed forces as a foreign policy to certain conflicts, particularly in the Arab world. To that extent, one can say that Kneckt and Weatherford’s (2006) observation that presidential the level of interest in the matter by the public influences foreign policy is correct. The Bush and the Obama administration case exemplify the claims. Foreign policy making as a practice influenced by public opinion can also be analysed through the prism of media-foreign policy relationship. This is particularly so since the media do not operate in isolation or in a vacuum. Among the primary functions of the media include passing information to the public. Ekaterina Balabanova (2011, p. 69) points out that the role of the media in influencing foreign policy has been very apparent in the EU and in the US. Balabanova specifically notes that international media stations such as the CNN are usually involved in foreign military involvements. Many media companies also capture issues on foreign involvement between nations’ machineries. Such issues of global politics have been known to influence public opinion about foreign policy. For instance, media coverage about the Ukraine crisis has exposed Russian interference in the affairs of another sovereign state. Through the media involvement in foreign policy of countries, public opinion from the US and EU seems to be largely in support of strict economic sanctions against Russia. Russia is seen as the aggressor in this particular case. However, trans-boundary public opinion can also differ on the same issue. The approach is what one may call neo-realisms in attempt to avert anarchy while solving a potentially explosive problem. In Russia, there is a strong public opinion support for the invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In fact, the Duma had voted in support of military intervention in Ukraine. One may observe that Russian media may have misrepresented the facts in the conflict. Russian media may also have chosen to show only the emotive segments that would justify Russia’s intervention in Crimea and other parts of Ukraine. As a result, global foreign policy on Ukraine has two faces where Russian public opinion supports the intervention. On the other hand, the US and the EU public opinion support a common foreign policy on Ukraine that advocates for Russia’s de-escalation and a halt to what is seen as gross violation of a country’s sovereignty. Therefore, Balabanova’s (2011) analysis of the role of media’s influence on foreign policy is one that may be seen through it influence of public opinion. Where the media lack integrity and objectivity, public opinion on foreign policy as a result of media influence may be seen to represent the desired direction of the political class. Therefore, the extent to which foreign policy is influenced by public opinion can also be the extent to which the political class desire the foreign policy. By manipulating the integrity of the media especially in weak democracies, the political class influence public opinion to a large extent. What comes out as public opinion on foreign policy may not always be public opinion but that of the political elite. In fact, Stephen White notes that the question of elite opinion in Russian foreign policy is a common thing. While (2007, p. 147) argues that there is a group of elite Russians who he calls “fundamental nationalists” who still see the West as s threat to Russia’s interest. White argues that Russia foreign policy with Britain, France, German and other NATO members is usually carefully crafted. Doing business as usually should not be seen to imply trust, but just necessity. The author feels that such fundamentalists are likely to influence public opinion on foreign policy. However, foreign policy in Britain is seen to operate much like that of the US. Reifler, Scotto and Clarke (2011, p. 146). Reifler et al. argue that public opinion in Britain also has a huge role to play on foreign policy. They state that when Tony Blair had come into power, the public was not very keen on foreign policy issues until the Iraqi war. The authors assert that when Blair’s New Party came to power in 1997, main agenda only dealt majorly with matters to do with economy and service delivery. In the years after 2005, Britain’s foreign policy has been seen to be influenced by public opinion. Many voices of dissent had opposed militarism, a fact that has seen political leadership revisits its stand on foreign policy. The fact that voting patterns have also reflected public opinion has made subsequent leaders take issues of public opinion on foreign policy seriously (White, 2011, p. 263). From this, one can say that the extent to which foreign policy making has been influenced by public opinion is the extent to which voters have demonstrated support for candidates who stand with them in their preferred foreign policy direction. Other scholars (Stuchlik, 2002; and Baum, 2013) found out that the extent to which public opinion affects foreign policy has increasingly become strong in the 21st century. Stuchlik uses the Iraqi war and how public reaction to the conflict shaped French and British foreign policy. The author the author first analyses the theoretical background to French and British public foreign policy. He also analyses the extent to which elite in French and British societies argue out issues on foreign policy direction. In this study, the scholar points out that French and British elites campaigned for the acceptance of their foreign policy by the public at the height of the Iraqi invasion. According to Stuchlik, there was some significant level of public acceptance of the French policy as opposed to the British case. Although a section of the political elite did campaign for the acceptance of the foreign policy, it was very apparent that British public opinion disapproved the policy more than it could be seen to have accommodated it. Even the French society, though enjoying a certain degree of public support, was not entirely shielded from pressure from public opinion. A critical analysis of Stuchlik’s study again confirms the case of political influence on public opinion in a desired direction as far as foreign policy is concerned. Like Russian politicians and state machinery, which has employed propaganda to sway public opinion on Ukraine foreign policy, French politicians also campaigned for the acceptance of the prevailing foreign policy. The only difference, though, is that the latter used ethical approach while the former uses propaganda and appeal to issues of critical importance the public. The French elite succeed to convince the public by taking the theoretical path of constructivism. Baum (2012, p. 442) summarizes the possibilities for such different outcomes through political systems approach. In both cases, French and Russian, the elite used the media to appeal to the public or to explain reasons for their preferred foreign policy. However, he sees the political game as perpetrated by media outlets. Media outlets, he believes, are more inclined to report on many policy issues when they are operating in a multiparty electoral system than in a two party electoral system. The difference would also be evidences about the media in a single party system. Although Baum’s prisms may be seen to be weakly applicable in the Russian case, a critical analysis would offer it support particularly if one analyses it through media freedom and human rights issues. Media in an authoritarian regime and media in democracy that has granted very limited freedom of the press are much alike. They can be manipulated to influence public opinion. It is important to note that although the public have some influence on foreign policy, some area of foreign policy may not be determined through public interest in the matter. Authoritarian regimes around the world have very little concern for public opinion. In fact, demonstrations against government preferred policies are usually met with police brutality and detentions. Hybrid authoritarians also have a way of suppressing public opinion on foreign policy with brutality. Zimbabwe is a case scenario of hybrid authoritarian regime. Despite public opinion, President Mugabe has maintained an anti-western approach and plunged the country into economic chaos. Kenyan case is an emerging hybrid where the office of the President is increasing making ties with the East particularly Chine at the expense of traditional partners like the US and Britain. The public has expressed reservations for the trend but the executive is unperturbed. Political analysts believe that the scenario is particularly so since the East have not supported the ICC prosecution against the sitting president and his deputy (Reuters, 2013, p. 1; and Munene, 2013, p. 1). The two face crime against humanity in the wake of Kenyan 2007 post-election violence. Therefore, one can argue that the extent to which public opinion can influence foreign policy making is also the extent to which the system of government operates as a mature democracy and not a totalitarian regime or a hybrid totalitarian. Hybrid totalitarianism intentionally approaches certain issues with authoritarianism and remains democratic on certain issue. They blow both cold and hot. Conclusion As seen, the extent to which foreign policy can be influenced by public opinion is a product of many variants that play in the local and international political environment. Even so, one can observe that the public is increasingly becoming conscious of foreign policies adopted by their governments. There is also an emerging campaign for restraint where the public increasingly prefer restraint over direct aggression or militarism as a foreign policy. However, there public opinion influenced foreign policy is very dynamic (Cox and Duffin, 2008, p. 29; Goldsmith and Horiuchi, 2004, p. 863; and Johns, 2009, p. 574). Virtually every country has faces very different scenario from the other. Bibliography Alden, C. and Aran, A., 2012. Foreign Policy Analysis. London: Routledge Allison G., and Zelikow, P., 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Balabanova, E., 2011. Media and foreign policy in central and eastern Europe post 9/11: in from the cold? Media, War & Conflict, 4, 1, pp. 69-82. Baum, M.A., 2013. The Iraq Coalition of the Willing and (Politically) Able: Party Systems, the Press, and Public Influence on Foreign Policy. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 2, pp. 442-458. Beach, D., 2012. Analyzing Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Brady, H, Fishkin, J, & Luskin, R., 2003. Informed Public Opinion About Foreign Policy. Brookings Review, 21, 3, p. 16. Cox, D, & Duffin, D., 2008. Cold War, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy Spending Decisions: Dynamic Representation by Congress and the President. Congress & The Presidency, 35, 1, pp. 29-51. Foyle, D., 2003. Foreign Policy Analysis and Globalization: Public Opinion, World Opinion, and the Individual. International Studies Review, 5, 2, pp. 155-202. Goldsmith, B, & Horiuchi, Y., 2009. Spinning the Globe? U.S. Public Diplomacy and Foreign Public Opinion. Journal of Politics, 71, 3, pp. 863-875. Headley, J, & Reitzig, A., 2012. Does foreign policy represent the views of the public? Assessing public and elite opinion on New Zealands foreign policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 66, 1, pp. 70-89. Johns, R., 2009. Tracing Foreign Policy Decisions: A Study of Citizens Use of Heuristics. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 11, 4, pp. 574-592. Knecht, T, & Weatherford, M., 2006. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The Stages of Presidential Decision Making. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 3, pp. 705-727. Munene, M., 2013. Go East Uhuru, for the good of Kenya. Business Daily, August 26. Retrieved from www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion-and-Analysis/Go-East-Uhuru-for-the-good- of-Kenya/-/539548/1968698/-/rrtcqdz/-/index.html Neack L., 2014. The New Foreign Policy: Complex Interactions, Competing Interests. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Reifler, J, Scotto, T, & Clarke, H., 2011. Foreign Policy Beliefs in Contemporary Britain: Structure and Relevance. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 1, pp. 245-266. Reuters., 2013. Kenyas President Goes East: Why China Could Become Uhuru Kenyattas Closest Friend. International Business Times, August 20.Retrieved from www.ibtimes.com/kenyas-president-goes-east-why-china-could-become-uhuru- kenyattas-closest-friend-1391675 Smith, S., Hadfield A., and Dunne. T., 2012. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd edition. Stuchlík, J., 2004. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Discourse in the United Kingdom and France during the Iraq Crisis (September 2002-March 2003). Perspectives: Central European Review of International Affairs, 23, pp. 5-36. Todorov, A, & Mandisodza, A., 2004. Public Opinion on Foreign Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 3, pp. 323-348. White, S. 2007. Elite opinion and foreign policy in post-communist Russia. Perspectives on European Politics & Society, 8, 2, pp. 147-167. Read More