Submitted by: Sayyed Ihtisham Ulhaq

Submitted to: Ma’am Qurat ul Ain Abbas

Course: Foreign Policy Pakistan

Ndu-bs-20/s-1541

Dated: 25/05/23
Does the Public identify or care concerning the Foreign Policy?
The level of public awareness and interest in foreign policy in Pakistan varies depending on
factors such as education, socio-economic status, and access to information. However, in
general, foreign policy is an important issue for many Pakistanis, as it can have significant
implications for their country's security, economy, and international relations.
For instance, Pakistan's relationship with India, Afghanistan, and the United States are important
foreign policy issues that are often discussed and debated in the public sphere. Similarly,
Pakistan's role in the Islamic world, particularly in relation to Saudi Arabia and Iran, is also a
topic of interest for many Pakistanis.
That said, it is also true that many Pakistanis are more focused on domestic issues such as
poverty, unemployment, and political instability, and may not be as engaged with foreign policy
matters. Overall, the level of public knowledge and interest in foreign policy in Pakistan can vary
widely, but it is generally not an important issue for a majority of citizens due to the lack of
government platforms for public participation.

Is the Public attitude irritable or shrewd?

Public opinion in Pakistan, like in any other country, can be diverse and complex, and it can vary
depending on the issue being discussed. Some people might have more informed opinions than
others, based on their education, experience, and exposure to different perspectives.
That being said, it is generally believed that the public opinion in Pakistan can be influenced by a
variety of factors, including media coverage, political propaganda, and cultural and religious
values. In some cases, public opinion might be emotional and reactive, rather than well-informed
and rational. For instance, the public opinion regarding ban on trade with India is a reactive
sentiment based on animosity for the other State regardless of considering the so many economic
benefits Pakistan can get if the two countries develop friendly ties.
However, it is also true that there are many people in Pakistan who are well-educated,
knowledgeable, and thoughtful about social, political, and economic issues. These individuals
might have wise and informed opinions that are based on facts, data, and analysis.

Does Public Opinion Influence Foreign Policy?

Public opinion can play a role in shaping foreign policy in Pakistan, but the extent of its
influence depends on various factors, including the strength and organization of civil society, the
media landscape, and the political climate.
In democratic societies, the government is accountable to the public, and public opinion is an
essential consideration in foreign policy decisions. In Pakistan, public opinion is often measured
through polls and surveys, and policymakers are aware of the importance of public perception in
their decision-making.
However, Pakistan is also a country where the military has played a significant role in politics,
and the military establishment often influences foreign policy decisions. This can limit the extent
to which public opinion shapes foreign policy, particularly in matters related to national security
and defence. The media also plays a critical role in shaping public opinion, and some media
outlets may have their agendas, which can distort public perceptions of foreign policy issues.
Moreover, public opinion in Pakistan can be influenced by factors such as religion, nationalism,
and anti-Western sentiments, which can complicate foreign policy decision-making. For
instance, it is the Public Opinion that bars Pakistani State to develop diplomatic ties with Israel
and thus the governments of the two countries still do not have any State-level relations.
In conclusion, public opinion can influence foreign policy in Pakistan to some extent, but its
impact can be limited by the military establishment's influence, the media landscape, and the
complex social and political factors that shape public opinion.

Should the Public control Foreign Policy?

In a democratic society, the public has a right to participate in the decision-making process and
express their opinions on various policy matters, including foreign policy. However, it is
important to ensure that this participation is based on informed and thoughtful input, rather than
emotional and reactive responses.
In Pakistan, the government has traditionally played a dominant role in shaping foreign policy,
with limited public participation or input. However, there have been some efforts to increase
public engagement in recent years, such as through public debates, consultations, and surveys.

Are Democracies more peaceful?

Empirical research suggests that democracies are generally more peaceful than non-democracies.
While there are exceptions and variations, the evidence points to a clear correlation between
democracy and peace.
One reason for this is that democratic institutions, such as free and fair elections, independent
judiciaries, and the rule of law, provide peaceful means for resolving conflicts within a society.
Democracies are also more likely to have a vibrant civil society, including independent media
and non-governmental organizations, which can serve as a check on government power and help
mediate conflicts.
Moreover, democratic leaders are more accountable to their citizens, and therefore, more
responsive to public opinion, which tends to be more supportive of peace and less supportive of
war. Democratic governments are also more likely to use diplomacy and negotiation to resolve
disputes rather than military force.
In contrast, authoritarian regimes often rely on force and repression to maintain power, and their
leaders may be less responsive to public opinion and more likely to engage in aggressive foreign
policies.
However, it's worth noting that democratic peace theory is a general trend and not an absolute
rule. There have been instances of democracies engaging in violent conflicts, and some non-
democracies have been relatively peaceful. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that, on the
whole, democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies.

How do differences in Political Institutions affect Foreign Policy?

Political institutions play a significant role in shaping foreign policy in any country, including
Pakistan. The type of political system, the distribution of power among different institutions, and
the level of institutional capacity and accountability can all affect how foreign policy decisions
are made, implemented, and evaluated.
In Pakistan, the political system has gone through various phases of military and civilian rule,
with frequent political instability and transitions. These political changes have had a significant
impact on foreign policy, as different leaders and institutions have had varying priorities,
approaches, and relationships with other countries.
For instance, during periods of military rule, the military establishment has played a dominant
role in shaping foreign policy, often prioritizing strategic and security considerations over
economic and diplomatic ones. In contrast, civilian governments have generally focused more on
economic and trade relations with other countries, as well as on promoting Pakistan's
international image and legitimacy.
The distribution of power among different institutions also affects foreign policy in Pakistan. For
example, the president, prime minister, foreign minister, and military establishment all have
different roles and responsibilities in foreign policy decision-making, which can sometimes lead
to conflicting views and policies.
Moreover, the level of institutional capacity and accountability can also impact foreign policy in
Pakistan. Weak institutions and governance can lead to ineffective implementation of foreign
policy decisions, corruption, and lack of coordination among different institutions, which can
undermine Pakistan's credibility and influence in the international arena.
In summary, differences in political institutions can have a significant impact on foreign policy
in Pakistan, affecting priorities, approaches, relationships, and implementation of foreign policy
decisions. It is important to have a strong and accountable political system with well-functioning
institutions to ensure that foreign policy decisions are well-informed, effective, and in the best
interests of the country.
Do interest groups influence Foreign Policy in Democracies?
Yes, interest groups can influence foreign policy in democracies. In democratic societies, interest
groups are an essential component of civil society, and they can play a vital role in shaping
public opinion and advocating for specific policy outcomes.
Interest groups can represent a wide range of constituencies, including business organizations,
labour unions, human rights groups, religious organizations, and ethnic or cultural associations.
They may seek to influence foreign policy by lobbying policymakers, organizing protests,
issuing public statements, and engaging in other forms of advocacy.
For instance, business groups may seek to influence foreign policy decisions related to trade and
investment, while human rights organizations may advocate for policies that promote democracy
and human rights around the world. Ethnic or cultural groups may also seek to influence foreign
policy decisions that affect their communities, such as immigration policies or policies related to
conflicts in their countries of origin.
In democracies, interest groups can have a significant impact on foreign policy decisions,
particularly when they are well-organized and well-funded. Policymakers are often sensitive to
public opinion and may be swayed by interest group lobbying and advocacy.
However, interest group influence is not absolute, and policymakers may consider a wide range
of factors, including strategic interests, international alliances, and domestic political
considerations when making foreign policy decisions. Nonetheless, interest groups can play a
crucial role in shaping public opinion and advocating for policies that reflect their constituencies'
interests and values.

Does Military-Industrial Complex influence Defence Policy?

The military-industrial complex refers to the relationship between a country's military
establishment and the defense industry, which can sometimes have an influence on defense
policy. In Pakistan, the military has historically played a dominant role in the country's politics
and governance, and has had significant influence over defense policy.
The Pakistani military has its own defense industry, which produces weapons, equipment, and
other military hardware. The military also controls a significant portion of the country's budget
and has a significant voice in the decision-making process related to defense matters.
However, it is important to note that the influence of the military-industrial complex on defense
policy in Pakistan is not necessarily straightforward. Other factors, such as the country's strategic
priorities, regional dynamics, and geopolitical considerations, also play a role in shaping defense
policy.
Moreover, there are also some checks and balances in place to ensure that defense policy
decisions are made in a transparent and accountable manner. For example, the Ministry of
Defense, the National Security Council, and other civilian institutions also have a role to play in
defense policy-making, and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the military operates
within the legal and constitutional framework.
In summary, while the military-industrial complex does have some influence on defence policy
in Pakistan, it is not the only factor that shapes defense policy decisions. Other factors, such as
strategic priorities, regional dynamics, and civilian institutions, also play a role, and there are
checks and balances in place to ensure transparency and accountability in the decision-making
process.

What is the role of Military and Political Opposition groups in non-Democracies?

In non-democracies, the roles of the military and political opposition groups can vary
significantly depending on the specific political context.
The military often plays a significant role in non-democratic societies, particularly in
authoritarian regimes. In some cases, the military may directly control the government or have a
substantial influence over the political decision-making process. In other cases, the military may
act as a guarantor of stability, intervening to prevent political chaos or social unrest.
Political opposition groups in non-democratic societies may have limited opportunities to
participate in the political process. Opposition groups may face restrictions on their activities,
including limits on their ability to organize, access to media, and freedom of expression. In some
cases, opposition groups may face repression, including arrest and imprisonment.
Despite these challenges, political opposition groups can play an essential role in advocating for
political change in non-democratic societies. Opposition groups may use tactics such as protests,
demonstrations, and civil disobedience to challenge the regime and demand greater political
rights and freedoms. Opposition groups may also use international pressure and media attention
to draw attention to human rights abuses and other violations.
In some cases, the military and political opposition groups may work together to challenge the
ruling regime. For instance, military leaders may defect and support opposition movements, or
opposition groups may seek to mobilize public support within the military to overthrow the
regime. For instance, in the recent years, the military has been accused of meddling in the
political process and suppressing dissent. Some political observers have argued that the military
has attempted to influence the outcome of elections and silence opposition voices through
intimidation and coercion.
In conclusion, the roles of the military and political opposition groups in non-democracies can be
complex and multifaceted, and they often depend on the specific political context. Nonetheless,
both groups can play important roles in advocating for political change and challenging the
ruling regime's authority.