Ever wondered what’s going on behind the closed doors of a parliament building? While most of us assume that the closest thing to do for a congressman to be even remotely interesting is something like the filibuster, there seem to be some more exciting jobs to do: like traveling overseas and meeting other lawmakers of far-away lands.
It is an established norm for representatives of each nation to engage with those of others. When goals and agendas differ in each nation, it is important to find the middle ground between wholly meeting its needs and preserving good relations with others; such intricate dynamics between states is called “diplomacy.”
As we know, the executive branch carries out most of the diplomatic heavy lifting. We are all too familiar with the scene in which heads of states are communicating with one another via all kinds of different channels to “sort things out.” But what role can the legislative branch—originally set up to represent the interests of the populace at the national level—play to help improve diplomatic relations with its friend and foes abroad?
The executive branch generally wields almost peremptory influence in the game of foreign policy. Although checks and balances can be said to be in place with a system that enables overturning of executive orders by the supermajority objection from the legislative branch—or the majority vote for that matter—from the Supreme Court that renders them unconstitutional, such power does not allow for a direct influence to fashion shape of diplomatic relations. Rather, it only serves to put in place a nominal check on the power of executive orders. But even such checks can be put on hold. In the United States, for instance, which boasts its founding-father status with respect to the tripartite separation of powers there are more examples leading up to the 21st century in which the legislative and judicial branches yielded to the political trajectory of presidential powers. And it has been more patently so in the realm of foreign policy.
The extended authority of the legislative branch can be beneficial for a number of different ways. For one thing, if the executive branch dominates the trajectory of a nation’s foreign policy, its pendulum would swing too vastly according to the political disposition of those who hold executive power. Hence, diplomatic relations are entered into with calculation of the limited term in office; if another election in the coming years has a potentiality of reversal, nullification or revision of the agreement, the states engaging in diplomacy would be more wary and hesitant with regards to what they wish to attain from the game.
For instance, if state A’s executive power has just one year left until the term ends, and the domestic opposition party has a strong chance of winning the subsequent election for executive office, the counterparty (the other state) would make diplomatic moves attuned to possibility of regime change in state A in the coming year. Such problems can be mitigated with an extension of authority to the legislative branch. The parliament has diversified party members, and so do those of other states. Foreign relations can be entered into not with national interests, but with party interests, thereby signaling the possibility of an established and diversified transnational relationship with members of other parliaments that can last. This brand of foreign relations can be facilitated with less consideration for the executive term limit. If such cyclical exchange of ideas continues, the executive branch can be put on check with members of the parliament bringing back diverse views from those of other parliaments and presenting them to the executive branch. It produces a more long-lasting synthesis by exchange of ideas both within the domestic and international settings.
Another very important benefit of parliamentary diplomacy is that while the law-making procedures and their effects are usually confined in the domestic setting, it can extend its effects beyond domestic borders. In fact, the vast majority of transnational agendas require cooperation and consensus in the global level, and significant progress can be made if parliamentary diplomacy can lead to the proposal of bills in respective parliaments that jointly address such issues.
This has a uniquely advantageous element that is absent from any intergovernmental frameworks (i.e. the United Nations General Assembly) or any other traditional diplomacy. There are cases where the issue at hand particularly concerns certain parties more than others, and multilateral dialogues in intergovernmental settings are too disparate, and traditional solution-seeking through conciliation, arbitration, mediation and good offices, are rather tentative in manner and therefore lacks the collective inertia, or is sought through consultation involving a third party. Whether it be settlements of disputes or cooperation, direct, periodic and continual exchange of diplomacy between the states whose members are directly engaged in law-making can lead to a long-lasting co-development of laws that work to benefit both parties.
Furthermore, there are forums for transnational parliamentary diplomacy, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. When agendas that require international cooperation such as those of climate and human rights evermore deserve attention, such multilateral diplomatic forum among parliaments can set the momentum for an action that leads to binding effects within its borders. Indeed, these efforts are unique in that it offers a direction that no customary international law can offer: cooperative binding power for the purpose of international prosperity.
Parliamentary diplomacy was not created anew for novel purposes; it has been around for a while, but its opacity from the public has rendered its concept ostensibly new and esoteric. Because its concept itself is not well-known, the immense benefits that accrue are also veiled; more research and exposure to the public is called for. The above-mentioned benefits are not a panacea to the intricacy of foreign relations and diplomacy, but it certainly has a feature that is absent from traditional forms of diplomacy, and its addendum is surely beneficial not only in the present time but for years to come.
Sam Seung-Hwan Hong is a graduate student of Political Science with a concentration in Political Theory at the University of Chicago. When not philosophizing about politics, Sam likes to listen to classical music and play the piano. He can be reached at hwanhong91@gmail.com. |
