Analyzing the Domestic Sources of Canadian Foreign Policy
| Published date | 01 March 1984 |
| Author | Kim Richard Nossal |
| Date | 01 March 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070208403900101 |
| Subject Matter | Domestic Sources of Canada's Foreign Policy |
KIM
RICHARD
NOSSAL
Analyzing
the
domestic
sources
of
Canadian
foreign
policy
This
issue
of
the
Journal
examines
the
domestic
sources
of
Canadian foreign
policy.
It
looks
at
how
Canada's
external
behaviour
is
affected
not
only
by
power
and
capability,
but
also
by
the
values,
interests,
and
preferences
of
individuals,
groups,
and
classes
in
Canadian
society.
How
one
sees
the
impact
of
'domestic sources'
on
Canadian
foreign
policy
depends
very
much
on
which
set
of
empirical
lenses
one
uses.
This
article
seeks
to
examine
the
different
approaches
to
the
study
of
domestic sources
of
foreign
policy
in
a
democratic
system
by
examining
contending
empirical
theories
of
democratic
behaviour.
At
bottom,
the study
of
domestic
sources
of
foreign
policy
is
bound
up
in
one
of
the
most
fundamental
issues
of
empirical
democratic theory:
how
best
to
analyze
the
relationship
between
the
governors
and
the
governed,
or,
to
use
the
termi-
nology
followed
in
this article,
between
the
state
and
civil
soci-
ety.
On
this
critical
issue,
there
is
more
disagreement
than
con-
sensus.
There
is
agreement
that
individuals
in
civil
society
have
interests,
values,
and
policy
preferences;
that
members
of
civil
society,
as
individuals
or
in
groups,
may
be
disposed
to
make
their
interests
and
preferences
known
to
the
state.
The
key
actors
in
civil
society
and
the means
of
communicating
prefer-
ences
may
be
readily
enumerated.
Society
may
be
differen-
tiated
into
classes
with
similar
characteristics,
such
as
a
common
relationship
to
the
means
of
production,
or
groups
with
com-
Associate
professor
of
political science,
McMaster
University.
I
am
grateful
to
Denis Stairs
and
to
the
participants
of
a
CIIA
colloquium
who
offered
useful
criti-
cisms
on
a
first
draft
of
this
paper.
2
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
mon
material
or
ideological
interests.
Interest
associations,
including
groups
with
common
economic
interests,
business
firms,
citizens'
groups,
political
parties,
churches,
unions
-
such
are
the
groups that dot
civil
society's
landscape.
They
com-
municate
their
interests,
values,
and
policy
preferences
to
offi-
cials
of
the
state
through
public
opinion
polls,
the
media,
lob-
bying
of
different
sorts,
mass
demonstrations,
personal
com-
munications,
and,
of
course,
through
voting.
There
agreement
ends. For
example,
little
consensus
exists
on
what
constitutes 'the
state'
or
even
on
whether
the
distinc-
tion
between
the
state
and
civil
society
is
at
all
analytically
use-
ful.
1
Certainly
there
is
no
accord
on
the
relative
importance
of
the diverse
elements
in
civil
society
for the making
of
policy
in
a
democratic
state.
For
example,
elections
are
an
integral
part
of
the
form
and
structure
of
a
democratic
system.
For
some,
the
electoral
behaviour
of
citizens
in
democratic
society
is
a
pivotal
force
in
explaining
how
and
why
the
state
acts
as
it
does.
For
others,
by
contrast,
elections
are
dismissed
as
part of
the
super-
structure
of
a
capitalist
society,
having
no
importance
for
our
understanding
of
policy
outcomes.
Similarly,
for
some,
class in
capitalist
society
assumes
paramount
importance
in
the
analysis
of
public
policy;
others,
however,
treat
the impact
of
class
rela-
tions
on
policy
with
indifference.
In
short,
what marks
dif-
ferent
conceptions
of
how
to
understand
the
impact
of
societal
sources
of
policy
is
divergence
over
the
relative
influence
assigned
to
elements
within
civil
society.
EMPIRICAL
THEORIES
OF
THE
DEMOCRATIC
STATE
Normative
liberal
democratic theory
stresses
notions
of
the
equality
of
all
citizens;
individual consent
to
be
governed; the
i
In this
paper,
the definition
of
the
state
follows
Eric
A.
Nordlinger:
'all
those
indi-
viduals
who
occupy
offices
that
authorize
them,
and
them
alone,
to
make
and
apply decisions
that
are
binding
upon
any
and
all
segments
of
society
...
[This
definition]" differentiates
between
public
officials
and
public
employees
-
those
individuals
who
hold
publicly
funded
positions
that
do
not
involve
them
in
authoritative
decisions.'
(All
other
individuals,
including
employees
of
the
state,
comprise
civil
society.)
Nordlinger,
On
the
Autonomy
of
the
Democratic
State
(Cam-
bridge
MA:
Harvard
University
Press
1981),
11.
To continue reading
Request your trial