Foreign Electoral Intervention: Nation, Society, and Other Dynamics

Each country aims to pursue its goals and interests. Different nations across the globe have at their fingertips different foreign policy instruments to achieve their global goals. Such instruments vary from diplomacy by negotiation, humanitarian assistance, or imposition of economic sanctions to direct warfare or other uses of military force. Another way of intervening is to interfere on behalf of a specific candidate in the elections of another country. This can happen when the interests of a nation are seen as considerably challenged by a foreign candidate or party, and when the nation can cooperate with a local international agent who offers intelligence and guidance on the best way to interfere. However, this type of foreign policy tool is reserved for the great powers that have the means to interfere.

Governments around the world have always sought to shape other countries’ political and other factors to their advantage. More recently, foreign governments have used cyber-attacks and social media agitations to influence the operating environment in the United States and Europe. The well-known example is the role played by Russia, in the 2016 US election, where Hilary Clinton was kept from being elected and helping Donald Trump win the elections. Other governments, including those of Iran and China, have also been identified in covert attempts to sway US opinion.

Why do foreign powers engage in ally promotion?

States always look forward for securing their interests, and finding alliances abroad is a natural way to advance their interests. It is based on this realistic thought, foreign powers engage in ally promotion. Supporting a preferred set of local contestants enable them to win an election, form a government, and then enact policies that are friendly to the intervening state. However, domestic factions do not always agree on which foreign ally they should choose. Therefore, international powers may use a variety of methods to support their allies, including assistance with campaign logistics through financing and expertise, attempts to manipulate votes by threatening sanctions or promises of assistance, or by distorting the whole electoral process.

Despite the questionable history of cold war intercessions in the regional politics of the global south and 20 years of post-Cold War democracy promotion, only a few resources, theoretically and empirically, are available to address this question. Yet, electoral interventions are still high. The United States, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia all vied for dominance in recent elections in Iraq and Lebanon, Russia has exerted pressure on its borders in Georgia, Ukraine, and the Central Asian nation; and the United States has long been suspected of intervening in Latin American elections. It is estimated that foreign powers have sought to influence the results of more than 120 national elections held in 66 countries between 1960 and 2006 that is on an average of more than 2.5 interventions per year.

Modes and Parameters

According to Levin, there are two concurrent conditions for electoral interventions to take place. Firstly, when a great power perceives its interest as being challenged by a candidate or a party and that party or candidate has intransigent preferences on important matters that differ from the great power. These inflexible preferences are because candidates or parties are either severely restricted on these issues by their political base or ideologically committed to specific positions. This makes many of the traditional policy responses either ineffective or too costly to the great powers. Secondly, a domestic actor must agree with the proposed intervention by great power. Without the cooperation of a domestic actor by providing information about the desires of the electorate and the best ways to interfere in its favour, the great power would see its action as too small. The great power won’t interfere in elections in the absence of either of these conditions.

There are two forms of foreign intervention in an election: partisan and process. A partisan intervention happens when a foreign actor is trying to get a specific reservation. On the contrary, a process intervention occurs when foreign actors seek to assist democratic contestants, no matter who gets elected. Voters can classify foreign activities into one of these two distinct categories, such as when the action involves foreign nationals giving candidates cash, threatening to impose punitive measures if a candidate is not elected, or pursuing an independent election commission. Intervening forces, therefore, endorse either a chosen competitor or the dignity of the contest itself.

Public Attitudes

It has become increasingly common in recent decades for countries to get involved in foreign elections and the attitude of people is also varying.Three mechanisms contribute to the double standard or varying behaviour of the public. The first of these is consequentialist. Besides valuing democracy and sovereignty, voters care about the outcome of the policy. Many voters think their own party’s victory would produce better policies than the opposition’s victory. Therefore voters approve foreign intervention on behalf of domestic political adversaries as such interference will bring the desired outcome.

The second one is perpetual. This mechanism has demonstrated to what extend others share the same views. In many spheres, including politics, this “false consensus effect” is evident when leaders of a political party overestimate popular backing for their side. Studies have shown that citizens interpret data selectively, that is they support news portraying their party in a positive light and rejects the news portraying their party in a negative light. These types of cognitive biases may lead citizens to view foreign interference on behalf of their party as less significant and therefore less problematic than the foreign intervention on behalf of the opposition. The final one is symbolic. In this mechanism displaying enthusiasm for one’s party seems less repulsive than displaying support for the opposition, even if gestures of support would not influence democracy or sovereignty. Hence, even if the foreign intervention has no real effect, the people will disapprove more strongly of the intervention which has taken the wrong side than the one which has supported the right team. These are the three types of mechanisms. Naturally, not all voters have deep party affiliations and therefore the independent voters will not discriminate based on which party the intervention was aimed to help. 

Regulations 

Reports of foreign intervention in recent United States’ election and elsewhere have prompted responses in several countries. For example, in 2018, Australia introduced a new law putting restrictions on foreign contributions to parties and candidates, and also restricted other political figures from using donations from foreign governments to fuel their political expenditures. 

Similarly, Canada, France, and South Africa have also adopted various laws banning foreign donations. Here donations are broadly interpreted to include all types of monetary value support, including service providers. Political parties and individual representatives in countries such as Japan, Germany, Singapore, Great Britain, Israel, India, Brazil, and Turkey are also banned from receiving political contributions from foreign persons and entities.

Conclusions

The views, attitudes and policies of different nations ate different, foreign intervention affects the national sovereignty and independent stands of a nation. Foreign intervention is often a tool used by super powers over other nations to inflict their policies and decisions upon them. In order to protect the supreme power of a nation to take independent decisions elections of every nation must be free from foreign interventions. The only way to control the foreign intervention is proper framing and implementation of strict laws that restrict the foreign contributions for elections and political parties. The attitude of people must stand for the values upheld by democracy and every nation must be free from foreign interventions then only a better world can be assured that offers a better life to the people.

Featured Image Credits: The Week

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This essay was placed third in the Article Writing Competition organised by Scales and States in June 2020. It has been penned by Joseph Cyriac, an undergraduate student of law at Cooperative School of Law, Kerala and Rosa Joseph, postgraduate student of Politics and International Relations, Pondicherry University.