Analysis of the Public Policy Process of the United States Governance System - Essay Example

Analysis of the Public Policy Process of the United s Governance System of Introduction Foreign policy refers to the expression of a country’s global practices, strategies and objectives and the proposals on how these objectives are to be achieved. Foreign policy thus reflects a country’s global interests and the guidelines and practices by which a country intends to interact with others (Russell, 2000). The importance and the complex nature of current foreign policy in the world have been occasioned by the increased global interdependence and the elimination of traditional barriers to globalisation. As a result, it has become more complex for countries to make and implement foreign policy since increased globalisation has made the distinction between domestic and foreign policy rather blurred (Russell, 2000). What is more, in current times, even domestic decisions by cross-border and global effects. A good illustration of this assertion is the 2008 global financial crisis in which local decisions by states affected the wider globe. Nonetheless, it is still of great importance to learn and understand how each country makes its foreign policy and to appreciate how democratic these processes are. The Organs Involved in Foreign Policy Process In the United States, the Constitution is the foundation of the foreign policy, especially, the making and the implementation of these policies. However, since historical times, foreign policy and constitutional experts have felt that the constitution has been a source of intrigues and struggles between the executive and the Congress with regards to the making of foreign policy in the U.S. Comparatively, the US has been found to apply a rather cumbersome process in making its foreign policy compared to those of other democracies such as Europe states. Although the provisions and safeguards entrenched in the US Constitutions are well intentioned and offer checks to tyrannical tendencies, they have often been the causes of struggles and tension between the executive and the legislature (Russell, 2000). Thus, these safeguards have made it rather difficult to formulate and implement foreign policy besides creating uncertainty on what the policies actually are. Consequent to this lack of clarity, foreign governments and interest groups have exploitatively pressured the US’s foreign policy for own benefits. Due to the roles of the executive and the legislature in foreign policy formulation and implementation, it becomes rather difficult to recognise and discern the main actors of foreign policy in the U.S (Russell, 2000). In the US, just like in most other countries, the three arms of the government; the legislature, the judiciary and the executive play crucial roles in the making and implementation of foreign policy. For instance, with reference to foreign policy, the President could veto the legislature while the Congress could supersede the President’s veto. Similarly, the judiciary could declare a law of Congress or an action by the President unconstitutional. In other words, the process of policy making in the U.S cuts across different government arms and structures (Russell, 2000). One of these structures is the Senate, which the US Constitution empowers to influence the foreign policy process. The Senate has the role of advising the President in negotiating agreements with foreign governments and organisations. The Senate also consents to such agreements once signed by the executive. Further, the Senate approves presidential appointees to important foreign policy jobs such as the Secretary of State, career Foreign Service officers, ambassadors other high-ranking officials of the State Department. The role of the Congress in foreign affairs and policy became more pronounced after the Vietnam War. Nonetheless, recently, the effectiveness of the Congress in checking the executive’s foreign policy has been question given that the President has always found some way to dodge the requirements for Congress’ approval. An example is the invasion of Libya by President Barrack Obama, which contentiously circumvented the War Power’s Resolution. The President is the other important player in the foreign policy making process in the US. In the Constitution, the President is the head of state and government. In the former role, the President is the personification of the country, its image, representative and voice to foreign lands. In the capacity of head of government, it is the President’s role to formulate, acquire the necessary resources for implementation and supervise the execution of foreign policy. In addition, the President organizes and directs the relevant domestic and foreign agencies and departments involved in the foreign policy process (Russell, 2000). Since the holder of the office is elected nationally, he/she is uniquely placed to identify, articulate and pursue the interests of U.S citizens. However, the specific foreign policy powers of the President as provided for in the Constitution are rather restricted. For instance, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, nominates and appoints ambassadors and cabinet secretaries and makes treaties upon advice and consent by two thirds of the Senators. In spite of the specific and limited foreign policy powers, the President has rather crucial foreign policy roles. For example, that the tiresome process of treaty making has been recently replaced by executive agreements as the basis of international and inter-governmental understandings and commitments shows that the President as a rather powerful figure in the foreign policy process (Russell, 2000). This is particularly true given that executive orders are the President’s prerogative. It is also worth noting that despite the President being the Commander in Chief, the Congress has the power to declare war even though it does so in response to a presidential request. In the US, the last war declared by the Congress was the World War II, 1941–1945. Considering the many wars the US has since undertaken, it is evident that changes have occurred in the nature of international conflicts and in the shifting of the authority to employ US forces to the President without the official consent by Congress. Although one might cite the invasion of Iraq as having been authorised by the Congress, what the Congress did was to support the President’s right to use force at his discretion. Besides war, the increasing powers of the President to influence and implement foreign policy are evidenced by the covert operations deployed by the President. An example is the deployment of the Navy SEAL select group that assassinated Osama Bin Laden. The other foreign policy role and power of the president is to receive foreign ambassadors, thus recognizing foreign governments. In addition, the President has the power and ability to determine the national agenda by bringing issues to the attention of the public attention, thus making them of great public concern. The President also has the power to commit the nation to a particular course of action diplomatically, a function, which once dome, cannot be easily undone by the President’s opponents. The Policymaking Process By now, it is quite apparent that the machinery that makes foreign policy in the US comprises of the President, the executive branch, Congress and the public. However, the implementation of foreign policy lies with the President and the relevant executive branches and appointees. Although the distinction between the making and the implementation of foreign policy is rather blurred, it is quite clear to make. For example, making a decision to protect a given foreign interest is policy making whereas sending soldiers to protect that interest is policy implementation. Core to the foreign policy process in the US is the Department of State, a rather powerful Cabinet department established in 1789. This department is headed by the Secretary of State, who answers directly to the President and manages all foreign affairs. Among the functions of this department, the professional diplomatic corps and the Foreign Service are foreign negotiations for the government and defending the government position to governments and international agencies. The other functions include analysing and reporting on the conditions of foreign governments and countries and institutions such as the UN. The department also represents the American people and U.S. policies in the world besides promoting good relations with international and influential decision makers abroad. It also advances U.S. trade and investment internationally and protects U.S. nationals abroad from discrimination and inhumane treatment. The foreign policy role of the Pentagon with reference to security cannot be overemphasised. Since its emergence from World War II as a nuclear superpower, the US constantly needed to expand its departments and agencies to better handle security-related foreign policy issues (Hermann & Kegley, 1998). Cognisant of the fact that military power is also a diplomatic tool for realising goals defined by civilian government officials; the US Pentagon has been granted the role and powers of the principal military adviser to the President. Together with the Department of Defense, there is a National Security Council (NSC) consisting of the President, the Vice President, the secretaries of State and Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is mandated to assist the President in the management and coordination of foreign policy in the US (Hermann & Kegley, 1998). The recent creation of the Department of Homeland Security after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks introduced another structure in the foreign policy process in the US. The creation of this department changed the roles of the executive departments in policy matters to a great extent. Currently the department oversees about twenty two separate agencies, hence greatly influencing foreign policy matters relating to trade, borders, immigration and security. The Intelligence community is the other important organ of the foreign policy making process in the US. This community encompasses the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Their foreign policy roles include the collection of information on issues such as nuclear weapon powers of countries such as North Korea and China (Wither, 2006). Second, the intelligence community examines the accuracy and reliability of the collected and disseminated security information to decision makers such as the executive and the military. It also implements operations as directed by the President, more so with regards to undercover operations. Headed by the Director of National Intelligence, the intelligence community advises the President on intelligence matters. The many agencies and people involved notwithstanding, the foreign policy-making process have several core stages. In theory, this process entails the formulation step during which national interests are clearly defined and the policies that would prompt the achievements of these interests delineated (Wither, 2006). Also to be delineated are the various courses of action by the concerned departments and agencies, which would further those policies. Next, the resources needed for the execution of these strategies are allocated. Since national interests are a cluster of various interests that require several agencies and staffs to implement at different stages, it becomes difficult to achieve a cohesive, viable and supportable foreign policy in practice. What is more, people have different views on what national interests and foreign policy ought to be. The uneven and unequal response to the Arab Spring by the US government is a good example of how divergent perceptions can be about national interests and the course of action by which they should be achieved. Political Parties, Civil Society, Media, and Public Opinion Foreign policy and its making are not the prerogative of a few members or arms of the government or state and federal agencies. As a matter of fact, the public is also a key opinion-maker in foreign policy. The other shapers and influencers of US foreign policy are political parties, federal and state players and the media, who often have various domestic and policy interests (Hermann & Kegley, 1998). There are rather strong relationships among media content, public opinion, and foreign policy in the United States (Wither, 2006). Investigations show that the first relationship is with regards to agenda-setting, an analysis of which has demonstrated a strong connection between the salience of foreign affairs in the media and the salience of foreign affairs for the public. In addition, the media and the public react to foreign policymaking processes and issues. Analyses have since suggested the importance of mass media and outstanding issues in between public opinion and foreign policy. Although there is no direct causal evidence for influences on or relations with the media and foreign policy, many posit that the media influences foreign policy by shaping public opinion. Thus, it is advised that policymakers pay attention not only to the federal, state, political party opinion but also the opinion of the media on foreign policy (Wither, 2006). If this attention is absent, these parties may reject the policies favoured by the government and non-governmental groups concerned. The civil society is the other party to foreign policy making in the US. Several types of foreign policy decisions and actions have high potential of being influenced by civil society than others. For an example, everyday, diplomatic decisions are typically handled by civil servants and barely draw the attention of legislators or the media. However, if these decisions raise issues and questions of breach of principles, they could catch the attention of the public and the media. Political parties also shape foreign policy in the US. This statement has become truer since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US and the Iraqi War. Since these occurrences, US foreign policy and political dialogue and wrangling have remained intertwined as different political party take their own stance on various foreign policy issues, especially those concerned with foreign military operations (Wither, 2006). The bipartisan foreign policy consensus that exemplified the Cold War period-US no longer exists with the two major US political parties adopting distinct tendencies or towing party lines. Conclusion The process of foreign policy making in the US involves not only the legislature, the executive and the judiciary but also the civil society, political parties, the media and the public. While each party has its powers with regards to the foreign policy process, they are checked by the powers of the other (Wither, 2006). For instance, there are certain foreign affair policy actions the president cannot execute without the approval of the Senate and the Congress. In addition, the government must consider and pay attention to the interests of the public and the civil society before, during, and after the formulation and the implementation of a foreign policy (Wither, 2006). The media comes in handy in situations where foreign policy actions by any of the government arms breach a fundamental provision of the law. Therefore, the policy making process in the US, despite the apparent overriding powers of the executive, involves many parties that not only front their interests but also keep checks on others. Therefore, the foreign policy process should be responsive to the public, political, and social needs besides enabling and supporting the efficiency of the market and economic needs of the country. In future, US foreign policy should consider government, political, public, civil, and international interests and forces, for improved overall effectiveness. References Hermann, M. G., and Kegley, C. (1998). The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record. International Interactions, 24(2): 114. Russell, R. (2000). American Diplomatic Realism: A Tradition Practised and Preached by George F. Kennan. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 11(3): 183. Wither, J. (2006). An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century. European Security, 15(1): 65. Read More