Foreign Policy as Battlefield: A Study of National Interest and Party Motives

Abstract

In no other policy arena are party unity and national unity considered as critical as in security and foreign policy. Party unity on foreign policy is viewed as a national security strategy of particular importance in times of international crisis and uncertainty, or as an expression of party strategy and ideological considerations. Through an empirical study of programs, congresses, voters and ideology of the Swedish parties 1945^1993, we show that the presence or absence of tension in the international system does not a¡ect the inclination of parties to take issue on matters of foreign policy. We also show that parties argue just as much about issues that are central to Swedish security policy as they do about issues that do not directly a¡ect national interest. The main sources of party disagreement over foreign policy seem to be ideologically motivated. Foreign Policy and Party PoliticsIn no other policy arena are party unity and national unity considered as critical as in matters pertaining to security and foreign policy. In these matters, political parties are expected to put aside their di¡erences in order to attain unity across party lines. Operating within a small non-aligned country, during the Cold War situated between East and West, Swedish political parties have had particular expectations placed upon them to avoid coming to blows over matters of foreign policy. A domestic tumult could dismantle the credibility that Swedish neutrality has managed, in spite of various obstacles, to establish in the post-war period. However, there are many examples of intense arguments in the foreign policy ¢eld between the parties during the post-war years. As restrictions on Swedish parties have been so severe, an empirical investigation of party strategic and party ideological motives compared with actually politicized issues could deepen our understanding of parties' strategic and ideological dilemmas in foreign policy issues. Through a longitudinal case study of Swedish party positions

Party politics at the water’s edge: contestation of military operations in Europe

“…More recently, however, research on foreign policy has suggested that foreign and security policy is indeed an important area of disagreement among political parties (see, e.g., Bjereld and Demker, 2000;Özkeçeci-Taner, 2005;Schuster and Maier, 2006;Devine, 2009;Kaarbo, 2012;Calossi et al, 2013;Clare, 2014;Verbeek and Zaslove, 2015;Pijovic, 2016;Chryssogelos, 2018;Hofmann, 2017). Because foreign policy, including military missions, can be salient to voters and influence voting behaviour (cf.…”

Política Externa e Legislativo no Paraguai do Presidente Lugo

“…Em contrapartida, a elevada quantidade de matérias de política externa aprovadas no governo Lugo indica o isolamento das questões internacionais da disputa política doméstica. A natureza distinta da política externa, com poucas matérias de cunho redistributivo, a elevada centralização decisória nas mãos da presidência (Insaurralde 2014), o baixo incentivo eleitoral para os membros do Legislativo (Canes-Wrone, Howell & Lewis 2008) e o efeito do compromisso internacional assinado pelo presidente ex-ante (Bjereld & Demker 2000) são elementos que contribuem para a delegação da condução dos assuntos exteriores do Legislativo ao Executivo.…”

Presidents, Legislators, and Foreign Policy in Latin America

“…The first, labelled 'bipartisanship' and the 'two presidencies' thesis, argues that the political dispute between domestic groups 'stops at the water's edge ' (McCormick and Wittkopf 1990). It holds that the anarchy generated by the international system produces incentives for political parties to adopt unified positions on the foreign policies pursued by executives, in contrast with their behaviour towards domestic politics (Bjereld and Demker 2000). Thus domestic politics are characterised by high levels of party polarisation and political disputes, and international politics by low levels of party polarisation as well as political consensus (King 1986).…”