Padrão de Resposta

The debate surrounding the apparent defficiencies of democratic choice when it comes to foreign policy decision-making stems from a realist vision of international relations, through which states coexist in a competitive environment, devoid of a legitimate superior authority, in which the main goal is survival amid a general lack of trust.
Democratic leadership, on the other hand, supposes, indeed depends upon the perceived legitimacy of the leader, which is continuously subject to affirmation. To sway from public opinion in short-lived. In this day in age, when technology provides na ever-growing volume of information to an ever-greater number of people, it is increasingly hazzardous for politicians to presume popular ignorance of those matters under discussion.
There in lies the contradiction. Where as domestic issues can and should be settled through the democratic confrontation of ideas and interests, be it directly of through representation, it is not feasible, on a transnational scale, to consult all who may be reached by a specific policy decision, for a number of reasons.
First, policy decisions, when they affect relations between two nations, tend to affect the relations those nations have with others. The scale of a policy´s reach may therefore bring about such never-ending debate among the electorate of the country´s involved as to condemer any decision to being shelved.
Second, since the international environment is rich in different political regimes, consultation may sometimes turn out to be a one-sided matter, rendering a more democratic regime more fragile. Take, for instance, a hypothetical trade battle between a democratic nation and a totalitarian regime. Were the democratic leader to submit every single strategic decision to public screeting, making its effects explicitly known, this would inevitably…the totalitarian leader the upper hand in the negotiations, not only in terms of a head start, but because he need not reveal his motives and strategy at all.
Finally, since foreign policies tend to reap benefits in the long run, when most democratic leaders are no longer in office, it can be argued that the stateman´s accountability is not so much to today´s electorate, but rather to tomorrow´s History books. As a result, he must occasionally make decisions with a view to the long -term good of the nation, and consequently carry the political burden of having distanced himself from public opinion.