Available online at http://www.journalijdr.

com
International Journal of
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

ISSN: 2230-9926 International Journal of Development Research

Vol. 06, Issue, 07, pp.8590-8592, July, 2016

Full Length Review Article

PARLIAMENTARY DIPLOMACY IN MAKING OF FOREIGN POLICY
*Durbek Sayfullaev
Senior Research Assistant, Tashkent State Institute of Oriental Sciences, Uzbekistan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

The twentieth century has witnessed significant transformations in making of foreign policy.
Article History: Actors and institutions involved in foreign affairs have increased in number and scope as
Received 24th April, 2016 democratic ideas have triumphed in most parts of the world. In particular, direct involvement of
Received in revised form
national parliaments in the external affairs of states has increased considerably. The purpose of
26th May, 2016
Accepted 29th June, 2016 the present paper is to examine the recent trends on the concept of ‘parliamentary diplomacy’ and
Published online 31st July, 2016 its’ potential role in shaping and controlling foreign policy. The paper will conclude with the
recommendations for Central Asian countries to promote parliamentary diplomacy in resolving
Key Words: complex regional issues.
Foreign policy,
International relations,
Multilateral cooperation,
Parliamentary diplomacy,
Representative democracy,
Democratic transition.

Copyright©2016, Durbek Sayfullaev. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

INTRODUCTION not only have to deal with domestic pressures triggered by

media and public opinion, but they are also expected to act
The twentieth century has witnessed significant within certain democratic arrangements while promoting
transformations in making of foreign policy. The international policies and pursuing complex diplomacy (Kerr and Wiseman,
system that developed after World War II has generated a 2013; Krotz and Maher, 2011). Throughout a long time,
strong need for more cooperative, transparent and making of foreign policy has been exclusive competence of
multidimensional foreign policy. Actors and institutions the executive government. Foreign policy exercised by the
involved in foreign affairs have increased in number and scope executive is said to be more or less monopolistic in nature, and
as democratic ideas have triumphed in most parts of the world based on the culture of centralism which stems from the point
(Beetham, 2006). Democracy has become a universal value as that expertise, urgency and secrecy are the necessary
it was recognized by the United Nations World Summit in prerequisites of external affairs of a state (Malamud and
2005. New actors of foreign policy-making have emerged to Stavridis, 2011). Thus, given the peculiar nature of the field,
respond to the demands of an increasingly integrated world foreign policy bureaucrats have paid little, if any, attention to
with a growing economic interdependence and complex global the public opinion in foreign policy decision-making.
issues. As Thym (2009: 315) pointed out, in light of the Conventional rationale was that the foreign policy more often
growing global complexities, the new pluralism of actors have than not requires urgent and secretive decisions which may not
emerged to challenge the traditional assumption of uniform emerge from long drawn out and partisan public debates
foreign affairs conducted by the executive government. (Ibid). Nevertheless, the fact that some policy areas require
Indeed, in many democracies it has become very difficult to more secretive and urgent decision-making than others does
sustain the traditional assumption that foreign policy is not mean that there can be no accountability mechanisms or
incompatible with democratic decision-making (Batora, 2010: open debate at all. While current international affairs have a
1). Thus, unlike previous ones, contemporary political leaders direct impact on citizens’ lives, public acceptance and trust
have become a prominent prerequisite of foreign policy in any
*Corresponding author: Durbek Sayfullaev, democratic regime. With the development of democratic
Senior Research Assistant, Tashkent State Institute of Oriental norms and institutions, public involvement in internal and
Sciences, Uzbekistan.
external affairs of the country has increased considerably. The
8591 Durbek Sayfullaev, Parliamentary diplomacy in making of foreign policy

main mechanism of people’s involvement in government (Rusk, 1955: 121–2). However, lately, the scope and content
affairs has been through the elected representative bodies, of the concept have widened considerably. According to
namely, the parliaments. As Laursen (2002) has argued, Noulas (2011), parliamentary diplomacy is based on “the
democratic doctrine requires direct involvement of parliaments activities carried out by parliaments in international relations,
in foreign affairs in their capacity of direct representatives of both within the limits of institutional competence and as a
the general public. Greater involvement of legislature in central factor of internal political scene.”
external affairs is also partly a result of a so called
‘globalization’. Simply stated, internalization of external Parliamentary diplomacy is widely recognized to promote
issues and externalization of some internal issues put higher dialogue, mutual understanding and confidence-building in
pressure than before on parliaments to resolve previously international efforts to address a range of global challenges
unforeseen complex problems. At the same time, as global and issues. The value of parliamentary diplomacy in
issues have become more complex and require multifaceted promoting global peace and development is also recognized
approach to resolve, we can no longer expect the Executive to and advocated by the international organizations such as
take the sole lead and responsibility for all external policies of United Nations. United Nations General Assembly
the state. Resolutions 65/123 and 65/283 are the cases in point that
issued to serve as an important catalyst for strengthening the
Today, national parliaments have significantly extended their contribution of parliamentary diplomacy to national
area of policy conduct as parliamentary democracy has spread reconciliation, mediation and conflict prevention.
worldwide with the growing number of electoral democracies Parliamentary diplomacy is said to offers more room for
(Emerson, 2003; Freedom, 2003). It is nowhere as evident as transparency and cooperation. It has become essential for
in the field of foreign policy, issues of which have frequently countries to increase the role of parliaments in foreign policy
been subject of parliamentary debate and scrutiny during the decision-making to monitor governmental external activities
parliamentary sessions. Increasing role of parliaments in so as to make it more accountable, transparent and public-
international relations has prompted the emergence of a new friendly. However, the role of the parliament in the system of a
classification of diplomacy – ‘parliamentary diplomacy’. In a country’s foreign policy varies depending mainly on the
traditional sense, diplomacy is defined as a conduct and political system. In one-party or authoritarian systems foreign
method of a state to promote its interests externally, primarily policy activity of the representative body is more of arbitrary,
in the form of negotiation and through officials based in the less influenced by internal reactions. Whereas in democratic
capital or deployed abroad (Berridge and James 2003: 70). societies, legislative branch enjoys colossal power in shaping
However, the scope and content of the term 'diplomacy' has and directing country’s external affairs due to the internal
significantly widened over the time. Now, it consists of public pressure, the need for transparency, and the influence of
additional set of objectives which a state wants to attain in its the media (Noulas, 2011).
relationships with other states (Hamilton 2010: 2). While the
main objective of traditional diplomacy has been to advance In democratic societies foreign policy is viewed as just ‘one
state’s security and defense interests, contemporary more’ public policy. Having achieved higher levels of
understanding of diplomacy has moved beyond these two knowledge, access to information and participation, modern
objectives. Diplomacy now focuses also on attaining democracies possess the means to exercise democratic (mainly
economic, development and trade objectives, just to name a parliamentary) control in most public policy spheres. Thus,
few (Rana 2011). democratic control is also needed for foreign policy as part of
the general public policy of the state (Malamud and Stavridis,
Additionally, diplomacy is a process of communication and 2011). Indeed, if democratic control is not to be limited to the
representation aimed at facilitating interactions between domestic realm, then it should influence external affairs of the
different entities and individuals, not exclusively states (Kerr state. As is stated earlier, the gap between domestic and
and Wiseman 2013: 4). There are range of classifications of external problems are diminishing as global issues have
diplomacy has been offered, for example, commercial become influencing people’s lives, be it terrorism, pandemics,
diplomacy, economic diplomacy, business diplomacy, open climate change, international financial or economic issues
diplomacy, coercive diplomacy, preventive diplomacy, (Ibid). Today, Central Asian countries face number of
bomber diplomacy, para-diplomacy and parliamentary common regional challenges such as terrorism, extremism,
diplomacy. Parliamentary diplomacy is a form of diplomacy environmental issues, drug-trafficking and, of course, the
that not is widely studied and, thus, yet to be given a precise Afghan factor. Complexity of the regional issues requires
definition. Because, this concept is mostly used by politicians nontraditional ways and means to tackle them. To this end, it
and little attention has been given by the academic is very important to strengthen the parliamentary ‘vector’ of
community. The main reason why the concept has not gained foreign policy, to enhance the international activities of
necessary attention from scholarship is, using Götz (2005: parliamentarians.
276) remarkable phrases, “its failure to picture the
conventional units of IR theory as simple and unitary, as In recent years, there is a clear tendency to strengthen the role
desired by supposedly ‘realist’ or ‘institutionalist’ of the parliamentary diplomacy through international and
approaches”. In the initial stage of the development of the regional inter-parliamentary institutions. For example, there
concept of ‘parliamentary diplomacy’ in international relations are number of inter-parliamentary associations such as the
and international law, it was described as multilateral Inter-Parliamentary Union, the CIS Inter-parliamentary
negotiations characterized by institutionalization, rules of Assembly, CSTO Parliamentary Assembly, inter-
procedure, public debate and the vote on draft resolutions parliamentary structures of the OSCE, the Council of Europe
8592 International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 06, Issue, 07, 8590-8592, July, 2016

and NATO, that assists in promoting greater involvement of Emerson, D. K., 2003. Global Spread of Democracy. Global
national parliaments to resolve regional challenges. Indeed, Policy Forum, January 29.
discussions of the bilateral and regional issues with the Götz, N., 2005. On the Origins of ‘Parliamentary Diplomacy’
participation of national parliaments will facilitate mutual Scandinavian ‘Bloc Politics’ and Delegation Policy in the
understanding and give an opportunity to find common League of Nations. Cooperation and Conflict, 40(3),
answers to the problems at stake. Because, an open and pp.263-279.
constructive dialogue ensured through the multilateral Hamilton, G.J.A. 2010. Parliamentary Diplomacy. Committee
mechanisms can be the basis for lasting peace and security in of Senior Members of the Senate of the States General,
the region. November, 16.
House, F. 2003. Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of
Nonetheless, perhaps the inter-parliamentary cooperation Political Rights and Civil Liberties 2001-2002. NJ:
alone may not be sufficient to tackle all the issues. Parliaments FREEDOM HOUSE, NEW BRUNSWICK.
should employ all the available mechanism in order to Kerr, P. and Wiseman, G. 2012. Diplomacy in a Globalizing
effectively involve in resolving regional issues. Thus, it is to World (Vol. 255). London: Oxford University Press.
propose that the parliamentary involvement in external Krotz, U. and Maher, R. 2011. International relations theory
activities should have four dimensions: 1) through the and the rise of European foreign and security policy. World
ratification of international treaties and enactment of laws politics, 63(03), pp.548-579.
relating to the sovereignty, defense and security; 2) through Malamud, A. and Stavridis, S. 2011. Parliaments and
the parliamentary oversight mechanisms such as hearings, parliamentarians as international actors. The Ashgate
petitions, preliminary, censure and etc.; 3) through the fiscal research companion to non-state actors.
arrangements, i.e. approval of annual budget for foreign Noulas, G. 2011. The Role of Parliamentary Diplomacy in
activities; and 4) through the bilateral and multilateral Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Journal, October, 22.
diplomatic negotiations. It is important to point out that the Rana, K.S. 2011. 21st-Century Diplomacy: A Practitioner's
further development of these dimensions would eventually Guide. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
lead to the strengthening of diplomatic power of national Rusk, D. 1955. Parliamentary Diplomacy-Debate vs.
parliaments in Central Asia in dealing with most of the Negotiation. World Affairs Interpreter, 26(2), pp.121-122.
regional and global challenges, as well as in improving the Thym, D. 2009. Foreign Affairs. In: Von Bogdandy, A. and
efficiency, capability, coherence of foreign policy of the states. Bast, J. eds. Principles of Constitutional Law. Hart
Publishing, Oxford. pp.309-345
REFERENCE United Nations General Assembly Resolution 65/123
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 65/283
Bátora, J., 2010. A democratically accountable European Weisglas, F.W. and Gonnie de Boer., 2007. Parliamentary
External Action Service: three scenarios. European Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2, pp. 93-99
Integration Online Papers, 14. Welle, Klaus (ed.) 2013. Preparing for Complexity: The
Beetham, D. ed., 2006. Parliament and democracy in the European Parliament in 2025-Going global, going local,
twenty-first century: A guide to good practice. Inter- going digital. Final report by Klaus Welle, Secretary-
Parliamentary Union. General of the European Parliament to the Bureau of the
Berridge, G.J., Alan, 2003. A Dictionary of Diplomacy. New European Parliament. Brussels, European Parliament
York, Palgrave Macmillan.

*******