By Mirko Tasic
As trust in democracy wanes and national interest eclipses international law, the role of diplomacy is increasingly questioned. This erosion of democratic ideals is paralleled by the rise of coercive power, which undermines the established rules and practices of diplomacy in international relations. This analysis examines the intersection of democracy and diplomacy, questioning the feasibility of democratizing diplomacy in an era where democracy itself may be manipulated to serve super-imperialism.
At first glance, democracy and diplomacy may seem similar, both emphasizing toleration, compromise, negotiation, and cooperation. However, their fundamental objectives diverge. While democracy aims to foster freedom and equality, diplomacy’s primary goal is to advance a nation’s interests through peaceful means. The extent to which diplomacy can be democratized remains a complex question. While directly harmonizing foreign policy goals with democratic values may be challenging, democratization could manifest in the processes through which diplomatic decisions are made. This suggests that the purported link between democracy and diplomacy warrants further scrutiny.
Democracy is a structural concept that underpins all sectors of the state. This perspective, however, represents only one interpretation among many.
Alternative understandings of democracy prioritize social ownership/redistribution (challenging the emphasis on free markets) or collective decision-making procedures (rather than predetermined outcomes like harmonious coexistence). Moreover, the existence of non-liberal forms of democracy, such as deliberative democracy and radical democracy, further challenges the notion of a single, universally applicable structural definition. Within the political sector, democracy, as a structural concept, typically entails a liberal constitutional framework that safeguards political rights and freedoms, thereby facilitating free and fair elections. In the economic sector, it is closely tied to free markets and fair competition. In the societal sector, it refers to a value system that enables harmonious coexistence among social groups and individuals. In the environmental sector, it refers to the pursuit of human flourishing within a sustainable environment. These sectors share a common understanding of the system’s character and goals, a system now widely endorsed by international organizations, numerous states, and a global majority.
Diplomacy in democratic countries is a procedural concept, defined by its intentions and methods. It is similar to democracy insofar as its objectives align with democratic principles and values.
As long as diplomatic activity promotes these principles, the specific methods employed become less significant. Regardless of the specific approach, the underlying goal often remains the same: to achieve desired outcomes, whether through persuasion or coercion. This focus on outcomes can sometimes overshadow the nature of the diplomatic actions themselves. Consequently, it is not uncommon to see democratic countries employ coercive diplomacy, while totalitarian regimes may resort to persuasive tactics.
If diplomacy is a tool for promoting or advocating for a specific ideal through foreign policy, is there a right way to implement it? In other words, should a democracy prioritize the procedural form of its foreign policy implementation, aligning it with the state’s ideological stance, or should it focus solely on the pragmatic success of achieving its objectives? This dilemma does not only lie between the goal and means of diplomacy but also in determining the preferred diplomatic actions when these two priorities conflict. For example, a democracy might prioritize open dialogue and respect for international law in its foreign policy. However, in pursuing a specific objective, such as addressing human rights violations in another country, these procedural ideals might need to be compromised to achieve the desired outcome. This raises fundamental questions about the extent to which a democracy can maintain its moral and ethical principles in its foreign policy while effectively pursuing its national interests.
In democratic societies, diplomatic processes must be transparent, with their outcomes publicly disclosed.
Public opinion is significantly influenced by the success or failure of negotiations (Sofer, 1988, p. 203). If manipulated, it can greatly affect public perception of the ruling regime’s character and sincerity. As Eleanor Roosevelt (2016/1940) emphasized in The Moral Basis of Democracy, “The citizens of a Democracy must model themselves on the best and most unselfish life we have known in history (…) if we once establish this human standard as a measure of success, the future of Democracy is secure” (ch. 6).
The question of the democracy-diplomacy nexus has been raised not only by states with different systems of government but also by democracies themselves. Due to their inherent openness and transparency, democracies often transmit a multitude of signals, which can be confusing rather than informative for decision-makers in other countries, making it more difficult for them to accurately assess the true intentions of the democratic state. As Kenneth Schultz (2001) noted, democracies, for example, have a harder time convincing their adversaries that they are willing to use force. Henry Kissinger (1994) expressed a similar dilemma in his famous book Diplomacy, stressing that America would not be true to itself if it did not insist on the universal applicability of the idea of liberty, but the question remains whether the Wilsonian concepts of enlarging democracy can serve as the principal guides to American foreign policy and as a replacement for the Cold War strategy of containment (pp. 808-812).
If diplomacy is constrained by a narrow set of options aligned with democratic principles, it becomes difficult to determine the exact costs to democracies in terms of other priorities and the willingness to accept such trade-offs.
For example, democratic processes, such as public debate and legislative oversight, may limit the range of diplomatic tools available. Covert operations or military interventions, while potentially more effective in achieving policy goals, might be deemed unacceptable due to their ethical implications or lack of public support. According to Milner and Tingley (2015), the sources of policy failure often lie in domestic politics and its interaction with the international environment, as foreign policy is often created through the lenses of domestic actors as they understand the external environment (p. 277).
Some new forms of diplomacy, such as open diplomacy, are viewed as intrinsically linked to the concept of democracy. In the past, the diplomacy of empires has never been democratic in setting agendas by keeping foreign affairs away from citizens—“for the sake of smooth relations with other countries, and due to complicated cultural and linguistic contexts unknown to ordinary citizens, direct influence foreign affairs has been kept away from citizens. The agenda has been set by government elites, drawing attention from the street generally only in times of war” (Lisiecka-Zurowska, 2019, p. 33). Today the re-establishment of the nexus between democracy and the style of diplomats’ negotiations around the globe has been related to the increasing internationalization of issues previously regarded as domestic – “this appears a process attributable to the democratization of diplomacy” (p. 37).
The new model of diplomacy appears to be more integrative and transformational, viewing foreign policy not merely as managing relations between states, but as actively promoting democracy and fostering change within states.
This approach, championed by Condoleezza Rice, aims to create a balance of power that favours freedom (Spanger, 2008, p. 17). This aligns with the long-held belief that diplomacy should be democratized, empowering the people to shape their nation’s foreign policy through their elected representatives (Oscar Strauss, 1917, p. 158).
Whether democratizing diplomacy can fully realize its ideal form remains to be seen.
The alignment of diplomacy with democratic principles can be hindered by the inherent complexities of realpolitik.
Concepts like plausible deniability, where actions can be carried out in a way that allows those in power to distance themselves from responsibility, can undermine democratic accountability. Additionally, the potential influence of a “deep state,” a network of unelected actors who may exert significant influence on policy, can create a disconnect between the will of the people and the actual conduct of foreign affairs. This can lead to policies that, while potentially beneficial for national interests, may not align with the democratic values and principles that should guide a nation’s actions on the world stage. Regardless of whether a democratic state frames its foreign policy as straightforward, open, transformational, or coercive, its success hinges on the actions of its representatives. Domestic and international audiences may perceive these actions as more or less aligned with the state’s governing principles. As Philip Marshall Brown (1916) correctly suggested, criticism should focus not on diplomacy in general, “but on the policies that diplomacy is instrumental in carrying into effect” (p. 692). Ultimately, democratizing diplomacy may not lie in aligning outcomes with democratic values but in ensuring the processes remain transparent, participatory, and accountable, even in the face of realpolitik.
Dr. Mirko Tasic is an Associate Professor of International and Comparative Politics at the American University of Central Asia.
