In recent decades, the once-clear divide between domestic politics and foreign policy has blurred. Historically, foreign policy was seen as the domain of elites, distant from the concerns of everyday voters. However, globalization and the rise of populist movements have shifted this dynamic, bringing foreign policy to the forefront of electoral politics. Foreign policy decisions now appear to significantly influence voter perceptions, shaping electoral outcomes by intertwining economic interests, national security, and identity politics—ultimately reflecting the growing electoral salience of diplomacy in democracies.
Traditional discourse on politics and diplomacy has maintained that the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy priorities is limited in democracies. This is primarily attributed to the distinction between high and low politics in structural realism. High politics constitutes diplomatic deliberations on foreign policy, which shape a nation’s diplomatic priorities and standing in regional and global politics. In comparison, low politics is driven by party politics within a country’s internal political sphere and comprises everyday issues of identity, development, and governance. Hence, electorates in democracies were expected to relate more to issues of low politics than more elite and abstract diplomatic issues. However, in the last few decades, especially since the advent of globalization, such a distinction increasingly does not hold. In many instances, especially in democracies, the relationship between foreign policy and domestic politics is inextricably interlinked.
History bears witness to the power of foreign policy in electoral politics, significantly influencing voter perceptions and electoral outcomes. Successful foreign policy can bolster a government’s image, portraying it as capable and visionary, while diplomatic failures can undermine public confidence. Some vivid examples in history are the adverse impact of the Vietnam War on U.S. politics and how India’s role in the Bangladesh Liberation War bolstered the image of Indira Gandhi government’s within India. Furthermore, with the rise of populism in democracies across the globe, the salience of foreign policy posturing within domestic electoral politics has dramatically increased. The relationship between domestic political rhetoric and foreign policy posturing is often driven by economic and security considerations.
Economic Drivers in Foreign Policy Discourse
Foreign policy decisions profoundly influence domestic economic conditions, which are pivotal in domestic elections. Trade agreements, alliances, and diplomatic relations determine the flow of trade and investment, directly affecting a country’s financial performance. Favorable trade agreements can open new markets, create jobs, and boost industries, enhancing overall economic growth. Hence, incumbent governments frequently highlight beneficial economic outcomes during elections to demonstrate effective governance. Successful international trade negotiations and securing foreign direct investment (FDI) are presented as achievements that promise economic stability and growth, appealing to voters’ aspirations for prosperity. For instance, the Indian government’s decision to bring in FDI in the retail sector in 2012 created fissures in the ruling political coalition.
During his tenure, many of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policies had domestic economic repercussions that could have lost him reelection. He imposed a slew of heavy tariffs on all major U.S. trading partners, especially China, ostensibly to revive the domestic manufacturing sector. U.S. tensions with Iran over the nuclear deal also worsened during his term, as he felt that the deal was too lenient on Iran. Trump’s vehement opposition to multilateralism, skepticism of supporting the liberal order and military conflicts abroad, and financial support for NATO stemmed from his America First domestic political narrative. U.S. domestic political dynamics have also historically shaped its trade relations with China.
In South Asia, bilateral relations between India and Pakistan and Pakistan and Bangladesh are historically adversarial (as is public sentiment), so establishing robust trade relations is a long-standing challenge. The economic consequences from those and other foreign policy challenges can harm an incumbent’s image, which was most vividly witnessed in the recent Sri Lankan economic crisis. The Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration was criticized for its foreign policy missteps, which harmed the economy, resulting in job losses, inflation, and decreased investor confidence. Hence, trade disputes, sanctions, and diplomatic failures provide ammunition for political resentment against the ruling elite.
Nationalism and Foreign Policy Posturing
National security and defense are critical issues in domestic electoral politics, with foreign policy playing a crucial role in shaping voters’ perceptions of national leadership. Effective handling of security challenges, strategic alliances, and diplomatic relations can significantly bolster a leader’s image as a strong and capable protector of the nation. A strong leader acting boldly in the nation’s interest against an enemy state or entity is often popularly supported. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s increasing popularity among Russians in the wake of his 2022 invasion of Ukraine is a case in point. Also, for instance, Trump’s emphasis on nativism, anti-globalism, and isolationism portrayed him as a leader working for the American people and not vested global interests. He also opposed receiving migrants, citing national security concerns, which drew further support from his political base. In 2017, former Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz declared protests against his government’s reform initiative as a hybrid war against Poland, alleging foreign interference in Poland’s national sovereignty.
Similarly, the 2020 U.S. presidential elections were rocked by allegations of Russian interference. In India, responses to cross-border terrorism and military engagements have frequently become part of the discourse of domestic politics. Incidents such as the surgical strikes in 2016 and the Balakot airstrike against Pakistan in 2019 were pivotal in shaping the national security narrative within India. India’s robust response to those threats was perceived as a demonstration of strength and resolve, which resonated with the electorate, enhancing the ruling party’s standing. The invocation of the enemy other is another example of how foreign relations shape political narratives in democracies for electoral mobilization. Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s anti-U.S. political rhetoric turned Venezuela’s foreign policy away from the United States and helped Chavez build an image for himself as a bold leader, as he forged closer ties with traditional U.S. adversaries like Russia, China, and Cuba.
Strong alliances and national security agreements also play a vital role in domestic politics. Such partnerships enhance a country’s security posture and project an image of geopolitical significance. For example, India politically leverages its defense cooperation with the United States, Russia, and other critical players to showcase the government’s commitment to national defense and bolster its international stature. The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal in 2006 is a prime example. Conversely, perceived weaknesses or failures in addressing security threats can undermine public confidence. Effectively managing those issues can elevate a leader’s image, while failures can provide potent fodder for political adversaries.
Emphasizing cultural and historical ties in foreign policy can further reinforce a strong and vibrant national identity. Diplomatic initiatives that celebrate shared heritage with other countries or promote indigenous culture on the global stage can strengthen national pride. Also, the participation of political leaders in high-level summits can boost the domestic image of national leaders, improving their political credibility at home. The interplay between foreign policy, identity politics, and nationalism is dominant in domestic politics in many countries. For instance, the question of Sri Lankan Tamils has long impacted the foreign policy and domestic politics of both Sri Lanka and India. Leaders adept at harnessing nationalist or identitarian sentiments through foreign policy decisions can significantly bolster their electoral appeal and shape the political landscape in their favor.
Breeding Ground for Populist Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is intricately linked to domestic elections, influencing voter perceptions through national pride, economic impacts, and security concerns. Leaders who effectively manage foreign policy to promote national security, economic growth, and national pride are more likely to gain substantial voter support, highlighting the critical role of diplomacy in domestic political success. This dynamic creates a conducive environment for populist political discourse in foreign policy, hinged mainly upon two significant approaches.
First, an administration can take an aggressive posture in an attempt to display solid leadership by rallying against the other, often manifested in an enemy country, population, or entity with sinister motives. Second, politicians can glorify their country’s history or political-economic prowess to invoke nationalistic pride and machismo. Hence, populist political rhetoric comfortably fits into the performative aspects of foreign policy in which perceptions of successful foreign policy enhance a country’s global standing, boost national pride, and reinforce the image of competent leadership. Conversely, failures in foreign policy can erode public confidence as diplomatic setbacks, international isolation, or perceived subservience to other nations can diminish national pride and harm the incumbent administration’s image.
