The role of the public in foreign policy
Do democracies need to rethink how the public learns about diplomacy?
The U.S. election campaign brought out three facts about foreign policy: (1) the public no longer supports longheld traditions - republican or democrat; (2) isolationism, albeit a nuanced 21st century form, has returned; and (3) public understanding and appreciation of foreign policy is at an all time low.
Across most Western states, there is a growing gap between what the public wants, and the capacity of governments and foreign ministries to provide it. This provides space for maverick politicians to jump in and offer short-term goals that fit the ebbs and flows of populist sentiment. This has happened before… and here we go… yes - it happened in the lead up to the Second World War.
Writing in the late 1930s, Harold Nicolson, the British diplomat and scholar, highlighted the growing tension between public opinion and effective diplomacy. In his his text Diplomacy, Nicolson acknowledged the necessity of democratic accountability but warned that the complexity of diplomacy is often at odds with the simplicity demanded by public sentiment. He argued that diplomacy requires patience, discretion, and an understanding of long-term national interests—qualities that are difficult to reconcile with the immediacy and moral absolutism that shapes public opinion.Â
Nicolson was skeptical of the notion that diplomacy could thrive under constant public scrutiny. He believed that the public, lacking access to confidential negotiations and the strategic interests that drive foreign policy decisions, tends to misunderstand the compromises necessary in diplomacy.
In today’s world, the gap between diplomatic realities and public expectations has only widened. Social media and 24-hour news cycles foster a simplified, emotionally-driven understanding of international events, often reducing complex issues to binaries of good versus evil. This creates a volatile dynamic, where governments may feel pressured to pursue short-term popularity rather than long-term strategic goals.
Nicolson’s ideas suggested the need for a reformation of public engagement with diplomacy, where education and media play a key role in fostering a more informed citizenry.
One avenue is through greater transparency—not in the sense of exposing every confidential negotiation, but in educating the public about the constraints and trade-offs inherent in diplomatic work. Foreign ministries engaging more actively with the public through forums, lectures, and media campaigns that emphasize the complexities of international negotiations, helping citizens understand why diplomacy often involves compromise, patience, and ambiguity.
Arguably, it could start even earlier. Ideally, educational institutions would integrate international relations and diplomatic studies into school curricula to cultivate an early appreciation for the nuances of global affairs. Engaging citizens with case studies of historical diplomatic successes and failures can demonstrate that diplomacy is not about immediate gratification but about securing sustainable outcomes. A similar is reflected in recent diplomatic studies research.
Paul Sharp’s Diplomatic Theory of International Relations emphasizes "diplomatic understanding" as a core concept that underpins the nature and purpose of diplomacy. This concept refers to the distinctive way in which diplomats perceive and engage with the world, shaped by their unique role as intermediaries between diverse actors with conflicting interests and perspectives. Is this something that could also be taught in school curricula to cultivate an early appreciation for the nuances of global affairs? Key aspects of "diplomatic understanding" include:
Mediating Differences: Diplomats aim to bridge the gap between parties with differing worldviews, interests, and values. Sharp highlights their ability to navigate these differences without necessarily resolving them, fostering coexistence rather than uniformity.
Empathy without Identification: Diplomatic understanding requires an empathetic approach—acknowledging and grasping others’ perspectives—without necessarily adopting or endorsing them.
Pragmatism and Restraint: Diplomats prioritize practical solutions over ideological rigidity. This involves a cautious approach, recognizing the limits of what can be achieved in a given situation while managing expectations.
Recognition of Plurality: Sharp views diplomacy as grounded in the acceptance of a pluralistic world, where no single moral or political framework can dominate. Diplomats operate within this diversity, seeking workable relationships rather than definitive agreements.
Boundary Role: Diplomats function at the boundaries of political communities, managing the tension between the internal dynamics of states and the external pressures of the international system.
Sharp’s theory argues that diplomatic understanding is essential not only for traditional interstate relations but also for managing conflicts and building cooperation in an increasingly complex global environment. It champions the diplomat's role as a facilitator of communication, trust, and order amid uncertainty and disagreement.
Could democracies rethink how the public learns about diplomacy, emphasizing a diplomatic understanding from a young age?
Without a shift in how the public engages with foreign policy, the risks Nicolson identified will continue to materialize. Politicians will become increasingly reactive to public opinion, undermining the coherence of foreign policy strategies. Diplomatic efforts will be increasingly derailed by populist pressures or misinformation, with leaders prioritizing symbolic actions over substantive progress. A public that understands the challenges of diplomacy, however, would be more likely to support policies that reflect strategic interests rather than emotional impulses.
It is clear that modern democracies need to rethink the public’s role in foreign policy. The goal should not be to shield diplomacy from public scrutiny but to cultivate a more informed public that appreciates the complexity and patience required in international relations. This shift would allow foreign policy to be more coherent and less vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of populist sentiment, ensuring that diplomacy remains a tool for long-term stability and cooperation.
