THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT ON SHAPING FOREIGN

POLICY IN MOGADISHU, SOMALIA

BY
A Research Thesis

Presented to JOBKEY University

Mogadishu-Somalia

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of International

Relations

June 2022

1
 DECLARATION A

We, hereby declare that all the work presented in these theses is our own original work except
as cited in the references. It has never been presented either in part or in full for publication or
award of a degree in any university. We, therefore, present it for the award of Bachelor degree
of International Relationship in Mogadishu Somalia. The topic of our study was The Role of
Government on Shaping Foreign Policy in Mogadishu– Somalia.

Eng. Maxamed Aadan C/lahi Signatur _______ Date: ___/___/___

Xamdi Cusmaaan Ibraahin Signatur _______ Date: ___/___/___
Ayaanle Muxudiin Barre Signatur _______ Date: ___/___/___
Ayaanle Cali Axmed Signatur _______ Date: ___/___/___
Saalax Ibraahin C/lahi Signatur _______ Date: ___/___/___

2
 DECLARATION B

“I confirm that the work reported in this thesis was carried out by the
candidates under my/our supervision”.
Name of Supervisor:

Signature of Supervisor: Date:___/____/_____

3
 APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis entitled “The Role of Government on Shaping Foreign Policy in

Mogadishu– Somalia” Prepared and submitted by (group names) in partial
fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Bachelor of International Relations has
been examined and approved by the panel on oral examination with a grade of

NAME AND SIGNATURE OF CHAIRMAN OF EXAMINING PANEL

NAME AND SIGNATURE OFPANEL

NAME AND SIGNATURE OFPANEL

NAME AND SIGNATRE OF PANE

NAME AND SIGNATURE OF DEAN FACULTY

DATE: / /

4
 DEDICATION

The researchers dedicates this thesis their parents, brothers, sisters and friends
with much love, for any effort and sacrifice they provided throughout their
academic life and career development, also for being supportive to the
researchers spiritually, emotionally, morally.

5
 Chapter one

Introduction

1.0 Introduction

This section will presents the introduction of chapter one and it will consists of,
the background of the study, problem statement, the purpose of the study, specific
objectives of the study, research questions, scope of the study, significant of the
study, operational definitions and conceptual frame work of the study.

1.1 Background of the study

We define governance (admittedly a somewhat contested concept, see Appendix

A) as the process of governing through which decisions are made that are intended
to affect societal outcomes, including economic, social, environmental and other
important outcomes.

As Bradway and Shah define it, governance is “the formulation and execution of
collective action at the local level. Thus, it encompasses the direct and indirect
roles of formal institutions of local government and government hierarchies, as
well as the roles of informal norms, networks, community organizations, and
neighborhood associations in pursuing collective action.” In this conception
government (the public sector) is nearly always involved and usually plays a vital
role, but other sectors - non-profit organizations, foundations, civic elite
organizations, business leadership organizations, labor unions, social service
organizations, and the inter-organizational collaboration among these various
groups - may play important roles as well. In the American system there is no
general purpose unit of government at the regional level.

Instead there are a variety of different kinds of local governments within a region,
including counties, municipalities (and, in some states, townships), school districts,

6
and various special districts. While there are no regional general governments,
there are regional special districts in most metropolitan areas. Since local
governments in the United States are creatures of their state government, the
potential activities of local governments vary from state to state. (UNDP, 1997)

1.1.1 Historical Prospective

Regional governance is the process through which decisions are made that are
explicitly meant to affect economic, social, environmental, and other important
societal outcomes throughout the entire region or at least throughout parts of the
region that extend beyond single governmental jurisdictions. Regional governance
thus explicitly excludes decisions of a single unit of government such as a city or
county acting on its own or a private firm pursuing its own interests, even if these
actions have an impact on societal outcomes throughout the region. Given the lack
of regional governmental institutions (other than regional special districts and
regional or multi-jurisdictional planning entities), regional governance usually
requires cooperation among local governments and among other institutions with
regional interests or missions. Every region has some means of regional
governance and we characterize these as regional governance regimes. These may
vary from some regions where agreement is reached through ad hoc
intergovernmental negotiations and agreements, to regions where governance is a
product of decisions by regional special authorities, to other regions where there
are formal systems of multi-purpose regional institutions. (Jreisat, 2002 )

1.1.2 Theoretical Prospective

Government plays a fundamental role in the economic development process.

Economic development is largely a product of market forces, but market rules and
operating procedures, including property rights and contract law, are set and
enforced by government. Government plays a role in the economy through the

7
provision of public goods that are collective in nature and through efforts to
counter market imperfections such as externalities or poor information. For
example, government at the state and local level, but often financed at least
partially by the federal government, provides the public infrastructure that services
economic activities. It also provides public services (e.g., police, fire, waste
management) to both business and households. To finance its services, state and
local governments impose taxes that are part of the cost of doing business and,
since these taxes and the services they finance vary among states and among local
governments, they are a consideration in business and household location
decisions. Similarly, state and local governments impose regulations that affect
business and economic activity. Furthermore, these decisions vary across states,
metropolitan areas and local governments, rendering some more favorably poised
to generate economic growth than others.

1.1.3 Conceptual Prospective

Determining how government can enable and improve the performance of the
private sector – where wealth is overwhelmingly created – without displacing or
unnecessarily distorting it, is one of the most complex challenges in driving
regional economic growth.

Economic theory is sometimes used as a rationale for limiting government’s role to

a narrow set of functions related to addressing market imperfections.

However, if as North and others believe, effective institutions can play a central
role in facilitating economic progress, there is a strong case to be made for
improving government (and other institutions) as a strategy for pursuing economic
growth. (Bitner, 1990).

8
1.1.4 Contextual Prospective

First of all government denotes exercising a measure of control over others.

Second, government is a condition of ordered rule.
Third, it refers to a body of people charged with the duty of governing. Fourth,
government is the method of ruling a particular society. In short, government can
be seen as an epi-phenomenon, which is obvious and obscure at the same time.
Jean Blondel puts this point forward most lucidly: the most curious thing about
governments is that so little is known about them. In this section, the assignment is
to develop some kind of definition which is perhaps not encompassing, but is
universally (more or less) recognizable and empirically applicable. In accordance
with the characteristics of government mentioned, it is at least possible to say, at
least, what government is not Government is, as stated, not identical to the "polity"
(i.e. the rules of the political game). Yet, the idea of the "polity" has an implication
for the meaning of government, which cannot and should not be discarded: it
defines by and large what is considered to be part of "public affairs" within a
society. As early as Aristotle the distinction is regularly made between public and
private, on the one hand, and between authority and autonomy, on the other. Of
course, these distinctions are related to the meaning of constitutional government
and also to good and effective governance, i.e. the act of directing matters,
controlling actions and exercising authority in a society. The public– private
distinction is purely a matter of constitutional debate and details. There have been
endless debates about state ownership, public companies and so on, but these
matters are not directly relevant in this context. More interesting is what are
considered as public affairs and what are not. (Hult, Neese $ Bashaw, 2003).

In addition to a descriptive definition of what the structure of government entails,

an analytical approach will be elaborated for empirical use. Government is not the
same as politics. This is a contested notion: many political scientists (and others

9
too) see politics basically as an activity that amounts to what concerns the state.
Taken in this sense, political science is the study of government, if not the analysis
of the public exercise of authority within a society. This is a rather limited view on
what politics is, and it is restricted to what is often called the polity: the existence
and operation of government on the basis of a constitution (or "basic laws")
according to the Rule-of-Law (see Constitutional Government). Hence, equating
"politics" with "government" is not only a too simple and a limited view, it also
would lead to circular reasoning as regards what governments do and why they are
(supposedly) doing it. In this contribution therefore the meaning of government is
considered to be different from "politics" which is a public activity among people,
within or without a "polity" and inside or across societies (i.e. also international
relations and transnational politics. (Kaufmann 2010)

First, every government or national executive knows a "leader" who is, often
formally but also informally, seen as the person in charge of the internal decision-
making of the cabinet, administration, council of ministers, junta, politburo and so
on. His or her position can be quite important as regards the way decisions are
made, how the government copes with crises, and to what extent government
operates as a (more or less) unified body. Obviously, the powers of the Head of
Government vary from country to country. On the one side, one can discern
unrestricted leadership, as is the situation in case of absolutist or military rule and
of straightforward dictatorships. Yet, even in these situations the "autocrats" have
to rely on others in order to maintain their position as (unchallenged) leader (e.g.,
on the military and secret service, or on important clans or chieftains, etc.). On the
other side, one can observe various types of internal leadership, which are derived
from institutional prerogatives: presidents are. typically one-person executives who
run the administration and can fire and hire ministers or secretaries of state. The
position of a Prime Minister is different from this and differs from parliamentary
system to system. Here the question is whether or not the Prime Minister (or
10
Chancellor) is a primus-inter-pares, (as in the Netherlands), or is in fact chief
executive (as in the United Kingdom or Germany). These differences are important
for assessing how government works as a decision-making body as well as how to
fulfill its coordinating tasks. (Hubbert, 2011).

1.2 statement of the Problem

Government is the body of people that make up the national executive. In addition,
it must be shaping the foreign policy. it must be emphasized that government
should also be considered as a (more or less) institutionalized process that defines
the "room to manoeuvre", that is: to govern. In general this means that the structure
of government is basically characterized by mechanisms through which "ordered
rule" is maintained: governments are the machinery for making and enforcing
collective decisions by means of public action for a society.

This definition implies a number of distinct but interdependent functional roles:

managing the apparatus of government; regulating public affairs; making decisions
and directing society; implementation and coordination of policy formation;
exerting leadership. (United Nations, 2017).

1.3 Research Objectives

Somalia has suffered enormous instability and civil war in the last three decades,
which have impacted the foreign policy of over the world.

Although Somalia is the one of the most impoverished and corrupt nations in the
world, it has registered small international relation in recent years.

1.3.1 Purpose of the study

The people of Somalia are entrepreneurial by nature and have established business
firms both outside and inside the country. But unfortunately there are still have not
good governance (UNESCO, 2010).
11
Although many studies related to the problem under investigation has been
conducted many parts in the world, however there is no enough study about this
topic.

Therefore, this study is intended to determine the role of government on shaping

foreign policyin Mogadishu-Somalia.

1.3.2 General Objectives

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the role of government on shaping
foreign policyin Mogadishu Somalia.

1.3.3 Specific objectives

 To investigate the role of unitary government on shaping foreign policy in

Mogadishu Somalia.
 To identify the role of federal government on shaping foreign policy in
Mogadishu Somalia.
 To examine the role of monarchy on shaping foreign policy in Mogadishu
Somalia.

1.4 Research questions

1. What is the role of unitary government on shaping foreign policy in

Mogadishu Somalia?
2. What is the role of federal government on shaping foreign policy in
Mogadishu Somalia?
3. What are the roles of monarchy on shaping foreign policy in Mogadishu
Somalia?

1.5 Scope of the study

The scope of the study consisted of; time scope, geographical, and content.

12
1.5.1 Time scope

The study was conducted from February, 2022 to July, 2022.

1.5.2 Geographic Scope

The studyconducted in Mogadishu Somalia.

1.5.3 Content scope

This study was focused on the role of government on shaping foreign policy in
Mogadishu Somalia. The study specifically will focus on the role of Unitary,
federal and monarchy on shaping foreign policy in Mogadishu Somalia.

1.6 Significance of the study

The overall significance or importance of this study and the beneficiaries of this
research work are as follows; it will be of great value to potential local government
and policy makers to embark on efficient policy and decision making. It will help
the people of developing societies or communities to be aware of the essential and
crucial of local government in the community, thus, support and embrace the
subject matter. Students of Public Administration will also benefit as they will
begin to understand and appreciate their course of study in improving local
government and the national economy. Finally, this study after documentation will
serve as a reference material for similar studies in the future.

1.7 Operational definition

Government is the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a

political unit or organization. (UNDP, 2016)

Foreign policy is a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations,
designed to achieve national objectives.(Han et al., 2015)

13
Unitary government is a system of political organization in which most or all of
the governing power resides in a centralized government, in contrast to a federal
state. (University of Catania, 2009)

Federal government is a type of national government in which government has

powers to delegates the power to other elected member of the states. (UN-Habitat,
2018)

Monarchy is a political system based upon the undivided sovereignty or rule of a

single person.. (NDP, 2015)

14
1.8 Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is the concept which the researcher address in order to

achieve asset of objectives of the study. In developing both independent and
dependent variables ( oso and onen,2008)

IV

Government

Unitary

DV

Federal

Shaping foreign policy

Monarchy

15
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 INTRTODUCTION

This chapter presents different literatures related to the role of government on

shaping foreign policy. These literatures have been retrieved from various articles,
scholarly journals, books and studies related to the same problem at hand. The
literature will specifically focus on the role of Unitary, federal and monarchy on
shaping foreign policy.

2.1 The concept and definition of government

Government is a body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a

political unit. First government denotes exercising a measure of control over
others. Second, government is a condition of ordered rule. Third, it refers to a body
of people charged with the duty of governing. Fourth, government is the method of
ruling a particular society. In short, government can be seen as an epi-
phenomenon, which is obvious and obscure at the same time. Jean Blondel puts
this point forward most lucidly: the most curious thing about governments is that
so little is known about them. In this section, the assignment is to develop some
kind of definition which is perhaps not encompassing, but is universally (more or
less) recognizable and empirically applicable. In accordance with the
characteristics of government mentioned, it is at least possible to say, at least, what
government is not Government is, as stated, not identical to the "polity" (i.e. the
rules of the political game). Yet, the idea of the "polity" has an implication for the
meaning of government, which cannot and should not be discarded: it defines by
and large what is considered to be part of "public affairs" within a society. As early
as Aristotle the distinction is regularly made between public and private, on the
one hand, and between authority and autonomy, on the other. Of course, these

16
distinctions are related to the meaning of constitutional government and also to
good and effective governance, i.e. the act of directing matters, controlling actions
and exercising authority in a society. The public– private distinction is purely a
matter of constitutional debate and details. There have been endless debates about
state ownership, public companies and so on, but these matters are not directly
relevant in this context. More interesting is what are considered as public affairs
and what are not.(Otto and Ukpere 2012).

As a political observer, I could not help but be impressed by the extraordinary

rapidity with which the concept of ‘governance’ diffused itself throughout the
universe of national and international organizations since it was first brought to
their attention in a World Bank report in 1989.1 Manifestly, it had to have
responded to some profound and urgent need for agencies involved in Third World
development to re-orient their policies. As a political scientist, however, I could
not help but be skeptical about the analytical utility of such a concept -- not
because it emerged from “practitioners” and not from “theorists” -- but because its
very diffusion to so many situations and corners of the world seemed to indicate a
basic “fuzziness” and excessive “stretchability.” Only something fundamentally
ambiguous could possibly have been picked up and applied by such a diverse array
of protagonists! Now that I have taken a closer look at how ‘governance’ has been
deployed by these international and national development agencies, I am more than
ever convinced of its utility -- provided that certain caveats be keep in mind: 2 (1)
As usually presented, the concept of ‘governance’ is so capacious that it literally
refers to the e broadest imaginable notion of “getting things done by mobilizing
collective resources” and, hence, tends to lose any specificity it might have. In the
World Bank’s frequently cited definition, it is equivalent to “the manner in which
power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social
resources for development. Needless to say, this is subsequently broken down into
more discrete categories, but they overlap substantially on the one side with routine
17
notions of “government” in which public officials use the legitimate authority of
the state to command persons and groups to obey to prescribed rules and, on the
other side, with various attributes of “market” in which private consumers and
producers interact via competition and the price mechanism to allocate scarce
resources. (Egbewole, 2013).

Admittedly, this capaciousness could well be deliberate since the agencies using
the concept may wish to engage in a wide range of supportive activities and still be
able to pretend that all that they are doing -- say, from supporting the independence
of the judiciary to promoting the prosperity of small and medium-size enterprises
-- will contribute to improving ‘governance.’3 Moreover, it has the appealing
linguistic characteristic of sidestepping more contentious expressions such as “the
state” or “the regime” or “the rulers” or “the government” and hinting at the
ideologically fashionable notion that the role of all four of these public agents of
coercion should be downsized in favor of private and more voluntaristic ways of
managing collective resources. Alternatively, it suggests that these agents -- if they
cannot be reduced or eliminated -- should comply with the imperatives of
economic rationality by submitting themselves to market competition. Governance,
seen from the perspective of “New Public Sector Management,” would be nothing
more than the integration of public agencies and private (i.e. market) mechanisms
with the objective of promoting of a cost-efficient and regulatory state. One might
even have concluded that it has no distinctive property of its own and that is
precisely why its use is so appealing to organizations that might wish to change
their policies without recommitting themselves to any specific program or goal!
(El-Rufai, 2012).

If I believed this, my paper should end here with a laundry list of things that have
to be done -- simultaneously -- to manage collective resources for development. I
am, however, firmly convinced that embedded in all that capaciousness is a

18
distinctive method/mechanism for resolving conflicts and solving problems that
reflects some profound characteristics that are emerging in almost all
contemporary societies and economies -- and, not just in those that are trying to
catch up to the more developed ones. As I shall argue infra, ‘governance’ is not a
goal in itself, but a method or mechanism for achieving a variety of goals that
should be chosen independently by the actors involved and affected. ‘Governance’
is no guarantee that these goals will be successfully achieved, but it may be a more
appropriate method than the more traditional ones of resorting to public coercion
or relying upon private competition. And most importantly, ‘governance’ is never
applied The concept of ‘governance’ comes equipped -- explicitly or implicitly --
with a qualifier that indicates that, whatever it is, “it” is desirable. Usually the
adjective “good” is at least implied -- if not openly stated -- but so have many
others been affixed to it: ”effective,” “sound,” “appropriate, “honest,”
“sustainable,” “accountable,” “equitable,” “gender balanced,” and even
“democratic.” The most obvious problem with this is that, if ‘governance’ is a
method/mechanism for managing common resources that can be applied to many
goals, the results it produces may not always be good -- and certainly not always
for everyone! In other words, those deploying the concept should be sensitive to
the possibility that it can produce “bads” as well as “goods. (Thirlwall 1989).

2.1.1 Unitary governmentand shaping foreign policy

Unitary government is a kind of government system in which a single power,

which is known as the central government, controls the whole government. In fact,
all powers and administrative divisions authorities lies at the central place. Today
most of the government systems in the world are based on unitary system of
government. It is slightly different from federal model of government. In unitary
government, central government has the power to increase or curtail the power of
subnational units. It can create and abolished the same. UK, Afghanistan, Italy,

19
China, Saudi Arabia, Spain, etc., are the important examples of unitary
government. The unitary government system is based on the concept of
consistency, unity, and identity that’s why the centralization of power and
authority system remains at the top priority. The decision-making power rests with
the central government that are shared by the government with the lower level
government when needed. There are not so many options for change and new
innovation as the people have a very limited voice in this government system.
There are many merits and demerits of unitary government. It is useful in the term
that rules and regulations in this government systems remain consist and equal
throughout the country. Moreover, it is less expensive as compared to the federal
government because the number of powerful people remains very low. In a time of
emergency, it makes timely decisions as compared to the federal government
system. But at the same time, the concept of freedom of speech and expression
always remains at a low priority that’s why most of the principles of unitary
government are much similar to that of dictatorship system of government.(Mear
and Schneider 2009).

A unitary government is one in which all the powers of administration are vested
in a single centre. The centre is omnipotent. A unitary state may be divided into
small units for the sake of administrative convenience but the units do not have any
constitutional status of their own. In other words, the constitution does not confer
any powers on the units. It is the central government which dele gates certain
powers to the units on its own accord. The units are, therefore, subordinate agents
of centre. The powers enjoyed by them are the gifts of the centre and as such these
can be taken back at any moment. The units are thus not autonomous and
independent in any way. In a unitary government, there is a single set of
governmental apparatus. There is a single supreme legislature, single executive
body and one supreme judiciary. England, for example, is a unitary state. She has
one parliament as her legislature, the King-in-Council as the executive and the
20
judicial committee of the House of Lords as her supreme judiciary. A unitary
government may or may not have a writ ten constitution. As for example, England
and France are unitary states. France has a written constitution but England has
none Unlike a federation, a unitary state may or may not have a rigid constitution,
e.g., the constitution of England is flexible but that of France is slightly rigid.
There is no need of having a special judiciary with wide powers of judicial veto in
a unitary government. Even the highest court of U.K., for example, cannot sit in
judgment over the law passed by Parliament. (Maduagwu 2011).

Unitary State. By unitary state, I mean the set of political arrangements where all
powers - executive, legislative and judicial - are concentrated at the centre. A
unitary state may involve the separation of powers horizontally, i.e., the separation
of executive, legislative and judicial powers within a political unit. However, it
will not permit the separation of power vertically, between a political unit and
subunits. A unitary state may 6 permit the delegation of such powers to a
subordinate unit, but it will not permit the alienation of powers. Under a unitary
system of governance political powers that are granted to a subordinate unit can
always be retracted at the discretion of the central state. Examples of unitary states
include France and Sri Lanka. unitary state, a system of political organization in
which most or all of the governing power resides in a centralized government, in
contrast to a federal state. A brief treatment of the unitary state follows. For
additional discussion, see Political system: Unitary nation-states.In a unitary state,
the central government commonly delegates authority to subnational units and
channels policy decisions down to them for implementation. A majority of nation-
states are unitary systems. They vary greatly. Great Britain, for example,
decentralizes power in practice though not in constitutional principle. Others grant
varying degrees of autonomy to subnational units. In France, the classic example
of a centralized administrative system, some members of local government are
appointed by the central government, whereas others are elected. In the United
21
States, all states have unitary governments with bicameral legislatures (except
Nebraska, which has a unicameral legislature). Ultimately, all local governments in
a unitary state are subject to a central authority.(Azariadis 1998).

The original institutional design of Dutch administration and intergovernmental

relations is commonly referred to as the ‘decentralized unitary state’. However, the
views of traditional administrative theorists have been misrepresented. Hierarchy,
uniformity and the separation and delimitation of layers of government are not, as
often alleged, the theoretical underpinnings of the Dutch unitary state. Rather,
classical theory emphasized interdependence, diversity and the dynamic interaction
of relatively independent layers of government. This image suggests that Dutch
administration does not need a greater separation of layers of government but
better means for regulating conflict. It also suggests that the unitary state comes in
several guises and cannot be equated with a monocentric system of government. In
contrast to unitary government, federal government is the country based on
federalism. Federalism “is the principle of sharing sovereignty between central and
state (or provincial) governments” (Hague and Harrop, 2001: 202). Because of the
division of sovereignty between the centre and the periphery, “at least in theory,
neither level of government can encroach upon the powers of the other”
(Heywood, Any political system that puts this idea into practice is called a
federation (Drazen, 1990)

2.1.2 Federal government and shaping foreign policy

Federal government is a type of national government in which government has

powers to delegates the power to other elected member of the states. There can be
two level of federal government in a country either it is performing through
common institutions or through powers as prescribed by a constitution of the state.
It is totally opposite to the unitary government. In federation or federal

22
government, provinces or territories enjoys some rights as are available to the
independent states. However international diplomacy, national security, Page 3 of
4 foreign affairs and other kinds of international dealings are solely made by the
federal government. Pakistan, India, Brazil, Switzerland, Australia, Belgium,
Canada, etc., are the significant examples of federal government. Mostly the
federal government system is referred to the United States government. This
government is based on the republicanism and federalism. In the federal system,
power is jointly shared between the state and federal governments. In the federal
government system, the powers never rest with one national government.
However, there can be certain powers and authorities that remain totally with the
federal government like policies on defence, budget, international diplomacy, etc.
The hierarchy of power in federal government system starts from the federal level
and then flows to the state and then local level. In a federal form of government
both the centre and the units have their separate set of governmental apparatus.
America is a federation of states. States have therefore separate legislatures and
Separate executives. (Enders & Sandler, 2012).

In a federal government the powers of administration are divided between the

centre and the units. The powers may be distributed in two different ways. Either
the constitution states what powers the federal authority shall have, and leaves the
remainder to the federating units, or it states what powers the federating units shall
possess and leaves the remainder to the federal authority. The remainder is
generally known as residuary powers. The first method was employed in America
and the second in Canada. The federal government in U.S.A., for example, is weak
in relation to the states whereas the federal government in Canada is more
powerful. In a federation both the federal and state governments are independent
and autonomous in the spheres of their powers. 'One is not subordinate to the other.
Both derive their powers from the constitution which is the supreme law of the
land. The powers enjoyed by the units are, therefore, original and not delegated by
23
the centre. A federal government must have a written constitution. As a federation
is a political partnership of various states and consequently there must be a written
agreement in the form of a written constitution. The constitution of a federation
should be more or less rigid. It is regarded as a sacred agreement, the spirit of
which should not be easily violated. A flexible constitution allows a scope to the
central government to curtail the autonomy of the federating states. In a federation,
there are possibilities of constitutional disputes arising between the federal centre
and the units or between one unit and another. All these disputes are to be
adjudicated in the light of the constitution. For this purpose a special judiciary with
wide powers must be established. It should act as the custodian and guardian of the
constitution. It should be vested with powers of declaring any law, national or
local, ultra vires if it is at variance with the articles of the constitution. The
constitution is thus the supreme law in a federation to which both the centric and
the state must adhere to. (Orphanides2004).

By federalism, I mean the broad class of political arrangements within a single

political unit between a unitary system, where all powers are concentrated at the
centre, and secession, where there are a minimum of two independent political
units. Federal arrangements can range from quasi-federal ones, like India, to
federal arrangements, like the United States. A federal arrangement involves
autonomous spheres of political action for the primary political unit and the
subunits. Neither can encroach on the other in ordinary politics. Nevertheless, it is
possible to renegotiate the division of political powers during moments of extra-
ordinary political change. My own conception of federalism follows the traditional
one in distinguishing two spheres of autonomous political action for the central
government and the political subunits. It departs from some interpretations of the
traditional conception in not requiring the consent of both the central state and all
the subunits for renegotiating the division of vertical political powers. Other than
the broad contours outlined above my discussion of federalism in this chapter
24
neither presupposes, nor advocates any particular institutional instantiation of it.
The intension of the government is to add a new category between customary law
and institution (Azrak, 2004). (3) In another draft law regarding local government
six the status of civil servants is replaced with contractual personnel in order to
supply public goods and services. This is an retrogressive step in terms of civil
servants’ rights. (4) The article 40 of the law indicates that the external auditing of
central and local government organizations will be (Arin&Omay (2009)

Federalism is a system of government that establishes a constitutionally

specifieddivision of powers between different levels of government. There are
usually twomain levels: (a) a national, central or federal level; and (b) a state,
provincial orregional level. In some cases, however, a federal system may
prescribe a three-folddistribution of power by recognizing the constitutional
powers of localgovernment (e.g. South Africa) or by creating complex forms of
overlappingterritorial and linguistic federalism (e.g. Belgium). Federalism thereby
allows distinct communities, defined by their territorialboundaries, to exercise
guaranteed autonomy over certain matters of particularimportance to them while
being part of a larger federal union through whichshared powers and
responsibilities are exercised over matters of common concern.To achieve this, the
components of a federal system include, in addition tolegislative and executive
(and sometimes judicial) institutions at each level ofgovernment, a relatively rigid
constitution that sets out the distribution of powersamong the various levels of
government and a supreme judicial body that isresponsible for adjudicating
disputes between them. There are two main contexts in which federalism may be
considered. Identity federalism occurs when two or more culturally, linguistically,
religiouslyor otherwise distinct national communities have enough commonality of
interestor identity to make them want to live together in one polity, but
enoughdistinctiveness of interest or identity to make them demand substantial
autonomywithin that polity (Tarlow, 2014).
25
2.1.3 Monarchy and shaping foreign policy

A constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy is a hereditary

symbolichead of state (who may be an emperor, king or queen, prince or grand
duke) whomainly performs representative and civic roles but does not exercise
executive orpolicymaking power. Constitutional monarchies are found in parts of
WesternEurope (e.g. in Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden), in Japan and
Malaysia,and formerly in Nepal. Quasi-constitutional monarchies can also be
found insome Arab states, although often these fall short of genuinely democratic
practice.Constitutional monarchy is often associated with a history of British rule
andstill exists in the 16 Commonwealth realms where the British monarch
continuesto be head of state. Outside the UK, the Queen is represented by a vice
regal official, called the governor-general, who acts in place of the monarch and
serves as the de facto head of state. A constitutional monarch, with a ceremonial
figurehead role, may provide continuity and stability, provide a unifying non-
partisan representative of the state, and reinforce democratic legitimacy with other
sources of authority, including traditional and in some cases religious authority. In
some circumstances, the retention or restoration of a hereditary monarchy may
reassure key elites and gain their support for democratic transition. (Sachs 2005).

However, hereditary succession is an undemocratic way of choosing leaders,and

some argue that a constitutional monarch, even with little or no effective power,
necessarily represents undemocratic values. In some cases, depending on history,
the monarchy may be compromised by association with a former nondemocratic
regime, or the monarch may be a divisive rather than unifying figure. This Primer
focuses on the role of constitutional monarchs in parliamentary democracies,
where (a) the effective powers of government are wielded by a prime minister and
cabinet who are politically responsible to the parliamentary majority; and
(b) there is a hereditary monarch who is restricted to representative, ceremonial

26
and civic duties, and sometimes to the role of a constitutional arbiter. The modern
parliamentary system developed in the European constitutional monarchies of the
18th and 19th centuries. It emerged, in response to the pressure of popular politics,
from a gradual transfer of governing power from titular hereditary ruler to
ministers whose position was acknowledged to rest on the consent of parliament.
The powers of the monarch passed, by conventional usage, to the responsible
ministers, leaving a monarchical office with great symbolic importance but little
substantive power. Thus, the offices of head of government and head of state were
separated, with a prime minister (head of government) acting as chief executive
and the monarch (head of state) relegated to a symbolic representative role, with
only marginal and occasional discretionary powers of impartial constitutional
arbitration. (Sala-i-Martin 2004).

Constitutional monarchs embody and represent the legitimate

constitutionalauthority of the state, performing ceremonial and official functions in
which theidentity and authority of the state as such, rather than that of the
incumbentgovernment, is emphasized. For example, the monarch will usually
accredit andreceive ambassadors, open sessions of parliament and designate or
appoint theprime minister. The monarch might also formally appoint certain high-
rankingofficials, and will almost always formally promulgate laws. In most
parliamentarydemocracies, monarchs usually have little or no discretion in the
performance ofthese official duties (being required to act, in most circumstances,
on the '‘advice'’of ministers), but their presence helps to strengthen the legitimacy
of governmentacts, adding the monarch’s universal and traditional authority to
thegovernment’s—usually partisan—democratic mandate. It follows from the
above that the separation of offices between the head of government and the head
of state helps to maintain a symbolic separationbetween the incumbent
government, which is party-political, and the permanentinstitutions of the state,
which are supposed to be politically neutral anduniversal. The monarch
27
symbolically ensures that those who lead the governmentare at least notionally
inferior to a higher authority that represents theconstitutional order as such, and the
leader of a ruling party or coalition is thussubordinate to a non-partisan
embodiment of the whole. Representation Constitutional monarchs can be effective
representatives of the nation, promotingits image and reputation both at home and
abroad. Having non-executive andnon-partisan status, and being freed from
political responsibility, they can devotemore time to such activities, and are less
easily compromised by the politicaldecisions of their governments..(Collier Paul
2006).

Civic leadership As a civic leader, a constitutional monarch may reflect and

articulate the sharedmoral values and aspirations of the people. The civic
leadership functions of themonarch may include patronizing arts and culture,
supporting or encouragingcharitable activities, visiting local communities, making
speeches and hostincultural events. Being free from day-to-day politics and from
partisanship, yethaving a national platform from which to speak, a constitutional
monarch can actas the conscience of the nation, perhaps speaking up for those who
are otherwiseforgotten by the political process. The line between civic leadership
and politicalinterference is, however, a thin one: to protect their independence,
constitutionalmonarchs are in many jurisdictions forbidden by law or custom from
makingpublic comments that could be interpreted as politically controversial.
Religious authority In some countries, the monarchy has a religious dimension,
with the monarchacting as the head of a national religious institution or claiming to
have divine sanction for their rule. This combination of civil and religious
authority can helpto legitimize civil institutions and hinder the spread of
destabilizing religiousextremism. However, in religiously polarized jurisdictions
where the monarch isassociated with one side and not the other, it can have
divisive and antidemocratic effects. Constitutional arbitration A constitutional
monarch may be entrusted with certain discretionary powers which, by
28
constitutional law or conventional practice, can be exercised at royal discretion.
The terminology used to denote these powers varies. This Primer uses the term
‘discretionary powers’; in Australia and Canada, for example, the term' reserve
powers' is more common. Discretionary powers are exempt from the rules of
ministerial responsibility, meaning that ministerial countersignature is not required,
and that ministerial advice may be ignored. The concept of constitutional
arbitration is distinct from constitutional adjudication, as performed by judicial
institutions. (Rodrik 2013

The former International IDEA 73. Functions and powers of constitutional

monarchs relates to the maintenance of the democratic constitutional order by
themoderation and arbitration of political disputes between the main institutions
ofgovernment (i.e. acting as a balance between the parliament, government
andpeople).These powersmay include:

1. the discretionary authority to nominate and dismiss the prime minister—usually

subject to the rule that the prime minister must enjoy theconfidence of the
parliamentary majority.

2. The discretionary authority, in certain circumstances, to dissolveparliament (e.g.

if it is not possible to appoint a prime minister who enjoysparliamentary
confidence, or if parliament passes a vote of no confidencein the government but
the government refuses to resign) or to refuse adissolution (e.g. if the government
has lost the confidence of parliament,and if a new government that does enjoy the
confidence of parliament canbe appointed without a parliamentary election).

3. The discretionary authority (albeit only in rare circumstances) to refuseassent to

legislation.

29
4. The discretionary authority to award honours. For example, the Queen ofthe
United Kingdom personally awards the Order of the Garter, the Orderof the
Thistle, the Order of Merit and several other orders.

5. The discretionary authority to make certain non-political appointments.The King

ofSpainispermitted,
Underarticle65.2oftheSpanishConstitution, to ‘freely appoint and dismiss civil and
military members ofhis Household’ without ministerial advice or countersignature.
It shouldbe noted that this refers to the king’s personal staff, who are not part of the
government and have no jurisdiction over public policy or administration. (Miguel
and Roland 2011).

2.2 Concepts and definition of foreign policy

Foreign policy as the relations between sovereign actors in the international

system. Thus, foreign policy objectives can be understood as a range of intended
actions as well as a set of strategies adopted by some sovereign actors with the
express purpose of influencing the behaviour of other sovereign actors within the
international system.

• According to Witt opt et al (2003),foreign policy embraces the goals that the
nation’s officials seek to attain abroad, the values that give rise to those objectives,
and the means or instruments used to pursue them.

• Foreign policy has also been described as the courses of action adopted by a
nation in the interest of the welfare of its peoples.

• In other words, the foreign policy of a state is pursued by the state, in the interest
of the welfare of its people.

30
• Keith R. Legg and James Morrison define “foreign policy as a set of explicit
objective with regards to the world beyond the borders of a given social unit, and a
set of strategies and tactics designed to achieve these objectives”.

• Also Joseph Frankel defines foreign policy as consisting of decisive actions

which involve to some appreciable extent relations between one state and the
others.

• A Marxist definition of foreign policy should also be mentioned. Foreign policy

is explained as the policy of the ruling class of a State, which is directed towards
the outside, i.e. towards the external relations of the State. It comprises the
principles, responsibilities and aims of the State in the area of international
relations with other States, with groups of States, and with international
organisations and movements. It also comprises the means and methods for their
achievement. (Flammang, 2005)

A foreign policy is a set of pre-established strategies designed and implemented

systematically to manage a country’s relationships with other nations. They are
structured guidelines that regulate international political dealings. Hermann defines
foreign policy as the behaviour of states. George Modelski, defines it as “the
system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other
states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment. It is
important to point out that Modelski, noted only those aspects of policy that aim at
the change in the existing behaviour of states, as the primary objectives of foreign
policy. According to Joseph Frankel, “foreign policy consists of decisions and
actions, which involves to some appreciable extent relations between one state and
others”. By this, foreign policy involves set of actions that are made within state’s
borders, intended to wards forces existing outside the country’s borders. It
comprises the formulation and implementation of a set of ideas that govern the
behaviour of states while interacting with other states to defend and enhance their

31
national interests. In the words of Padelford and Lincoln, “A State’s Foreign Policy
is totality of its dealings with the external environment. Therefore, Foreign Policy
is the overall result of the process by which a state translates its broadly conceived
goals and interests into specific courses of action in order to achieve its objectives
and preserve its interests”. There are five main models in foreign policy analysis.
They are the rational actor model, the bureaucratic politics model and the
organizational process model—all three of which were developed by foreign
policy analyst and scholar, Graham Allison, and outlined in his book, The Essence
of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis—as well as the inter-branch
politics model and the political process model. In order for international relations
professional to effectively analyze foreign policy as a whole, it is necessary to
determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of each model therein and
understand the ways in which each approach has the potential to remedy the
inadequacies of the others. There are several approaches/models for the study of
foreign policy. (Bartik, 2009)

The most widely cited foreign policy analysis approach is the rational actor model.
This approach assumes that the main actor in foreign policy is a rational individual
who can be relied on to make informed, calculated decisions that maximize value
and perceived benefits to the state. The rational actor model relies on individual
state-level interactions between nations and government behavior as units of
analysis; it assumes the availability of complete information to policymakers for
optimized decision making, and that actions taken throughout time are both
consistent and coherent. There are four main steps in the rational actor’s
decisionmaking process: identify the problem, define desired outcomes, evaluate
the consequences of potential policy choices and finally, make the most rational
decision to maximize beneficial outcomes. The rational actor theoretical approach
can be useful to understanding the goals and intentions behind a foreign policy
action. However, critics of this model believe it does not account for instances
32
when complete information may not be available, as well as the relatively
subjective concept of rationality or factors that might inhibit rational decision
making. Unlike the rational actor model, which looks at the state as a unitary actor,
the bureaucratic politics model analyzes decisions on the premise that actions are
taken by a number of independent, competing entities within a particular state.
Each of these separate entities brings values to the decision-making process, as
well as its own view of what’s best for personal, organizational and national
interests. Each party attempts to satisfy its goals, meaning any collective action is
contingent upon successful negotiations and the arrival at an ultimate consensus
between all entities. . The increasingly partisan nature of U.S. politics provides an
excellent example of this model in action. The bureaucratic politics approach is
often touted as an explanation as to why states sometimes act irrationally.
However, some argue the model doesn’t account enough for highly concentrated
power held by certain entities, such as the executive branch in U.S. governance.
(UNDP 2007),

A number of factors can influence each party’s decision making and how it
achieves its goals, such as the relative power and degree of influence of each other
actor in the group. Each party has opposing viewpoints and desired outcomes
related to an array of issues, and success in achieving certain goals may require
other parties to make certain concessions, resulting in decisions that are often seen
as more beneficial to one side than the others. Additional factors that impact
decision making include the degrees of importance of certain goals and the
political values each party represents. It is also seen as very U.S.-centric and
difficult to apply in the context of other styles of government. In contrast to the
two aforementioned approaches, the organizational process model views
government as a mix of powerful organizations working in concert rather than an
individual or a group of partisan entities. This model examines foreign policy
decisions as made within the rigid strictures of bureaucracy, where actions may
33
only be taken with proper authorization and adherence to the chain of command,
respecting established processes and standard operating procedures, or SOP. Here,
government leaders don’t tackle the broader scope of a crisis but instead delegate
smaller facets of the issue to committees, departments and other bureaucratic
entities supporting the government. Critics often bemoan the fact that this model
limits individuals’ ability to act, which results in reduced insight and a lack of
alternative perspectives. The organizational process model can also decrease the
overall flexibility of an organization. However, applying this model has the
potential to streamline decision making with the establishment of standard protocol
for certain circumstances with predictable, measurable outcomes. In other words,
the organizational process model anticipates the measured pace of bureaucratic
practices and seeks to create protocol that can be readily applied in the event of a
crisis. (Hoover and Giarratani, 2009)

2.3 Relationship between government and foreign policy

The sovereign nation-state has traditionally been conceived as the main actor in the
international system, with the ability to pursue independent foreign policy
considered an integral part of state sovereignty. While international relations have
always been more than the sum of inter-state relations, in recent years the rescaling
of social, political, economic and cultural systems has produced a plethora of
actors and networks both public and private, and at different territorial scales that
question central states’ monopoly in international relations and, potentially, the
very nature of sovereignty. This paper deals with the external action of sub-state
regions, which has grown exponentially in last decades, and asks under what
conditions is this external action perceived as a challenge to nation-state foreign
policy and, by extension, to the sovereignty of the nation-state. We center our
analysis on the development of SSE external action in Spain since the
reestablishment of democracy in 1978, and specifically that of Catalonia. The

34
analysis of this case is understood as a plausibility test for checking the factors and
the conditions under what paradiplomacy turns to protodiplomacy. (Achumba and
Ighomereho 2013)

The political process model of foreign policy analysis was developed by Roger
Hilsman in his book, The Politics of Policymaking in Defense and Foreign Affairs.
According to Hilsman, there are a large number of actors involved in the foreign
policy decision-making process, mainly concentrated in the office of the President
and Congress, but across all levels of government as well. Similar to the
bureaucratic politics model, the political process model emphasizes bargaining and
the presence of various power centers seeking to achieve their respective goals—
these goals can either be in conflict or consensus with those of others. However,
this model differs from the bureaucratic politics model as it focuses more on the
individual participants and their personal goals and mindsets about international
politics rather than organizations and groups as a whole. According to Hilsman, the
individual ideology of each political actor is one of the most important factors in
determining and explaining decision-making. Critics of the model, however,
maintain that it is too similar to the bureaucratic politics to make a substantive
contribution to the field of foreign policy analysis. Foreign policy analysis is
necessary to improve our overall understanding of the government and the political
decision-making processes that play out on the world stage. Each approach to
diplomacy offers a unique set of potential drawbacks and benefits, and emphasizes
the importance of the political actors and structures involved and how they work to
attain their foreign policy goals.(Hilsman 2001)

2.4 Summary

This literature review shows us that how the government managed their inferior
policy can affect the foreign policy. Functions and powers of constitutional
monarchs relates to the maintenance of the democratic constitutional order by
35
themoderation and arbitration of political disputes between the main institutions
ofgovernment (i.e. acting as a balance between the parliament,
authority to nominate and dismiss the prime minister—usually subject to the rule
that the prime minister must enjoy the confidence of the parliamentary majority. 2.
The discretionary authority, in certain circumstances, to dissolve parliament (e.g. if
it is not possible to appoint a prime minister who enjoys parliamentary confidence,
or if parliament passes a vote of no confidence in the government but the
government refuses to resign) or to refuse a dissolution (e.g. if the government has
lost the confidence of parliament, and if a new government that does enjoy the
confidence of parliament can be appointed without a parliamentary election). 3.
The discretionary authority (albeit only in rare circumstances) to refuse assent to
legislation. 4. The discretionary authority to award honours. For example, the
Queen of the United Kingdom personally awards the Order of the Garter, the Order
of the Thistle, the Order of Merit and several other orders.

36
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the methodology of the study. It consists of the research
design, study area, target population, sample size, sampling technique, research
tool, data analysis, ethical considerations and limitations of the study.
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

The study used Descriptive analysis. It used descriptive analysis because the
researcher intends to collect research data at one point in time because of time
circumstance.
The study was quantitative in design which means to determine a particular
problem numerically.
In this type of design, the research intends to determine the problem at hand
quantitatively.
3.2 TARGET POPULATION

The target populations of this study 100, where selected from the staff of ministry
of foreign affairs.

This sampling method is conducted where each member of a population has an

equal opportunity to become part of the sample.

37
 3.3 SAMPLE SIZA

In order to determine the required sample size, solvent’s formula was used as
indicated below:

n=

1 + N(e)2

n = required sample size

N = target population

e = error 5% (0.05)

100
n =n = 80.

1 + 100 (0.05)2

S/ CATEGORY TARGET SAMPLE

POPULATION

1 Minister office 20 16

2 general director office 50 40

3 deputy minister office 30 24

100 80

38
3.4 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

The sampling procedure of this study used non-probability generations included in

different aged, sampling procedure particularly Sample random procedure, because
every respondents of this study have equal opportunity of being selected. So, the
non-probability sampling is the only sampling procedure that ensures the selection
of a representative sample (Amin, 2008).

3.5 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The research instrument of this study was questionnaire as the tool of data
collection, the questionnaire is used in a quantitative research method.

3.6 RESEARCH QUALITY

3.6.1 VALIDITY

Validity and reliability are very important for research to be accurate. Therefore,
the researchers of this study used adopted questionnaire, which has already been
tested by other researchers, validity and reliability are common problems for all of
the researchers. To increase validity and reliability, this study conducted a pilot
survey to pre-test the questionnaire .After the collection of data researcher will
utilize Cronbach Alpha to test the reliability of measurements.

3.6.2 RELIABILITY

It is concerned with the extent to which a measure gives consistent results. It is

also a pre-condition for validity.
3.7 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

During data collection, the researcher used closed questionnaire in order to collect
numerical data from study participants. Respondents were briefed about the study

39
objectives and were also requested to answer the questionnaire as honest as
possible.
The time available as well as by the objectives of the study.
3.8 DATA ANALYSIS

Data will analyze using Statistical Package for Social Science – SPSS. Descriptive
analysis was done and then frequency tables and charts were used in order to
present study results.

3.9 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

During the study, here are some of the challenges that the researcher may
encounter: Internet availability and speed is the main challenge we face while
we were searching literature review of the study since there is no library books to
get as reference. Security problems is challenge exist in our country since there is
no political stability, sometimes the roads are blocked and that is problem
because we can’t reach the destination we want easily and Financial problems

3.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

The major ethical problem of this study is the isolation and the confidentiality of
the responding, and also was used for information provided by the respondents the
study was used only for an academic purpose, the report of the respondents and
companies was coded instead of naming and during the data collection the
researcher ask for permission through a write request to the concerned officials
which included in the study. Acknowledge should be make to everyone participate
in this study and the authors quoted through their citations and referencing.

This relates to moral standards that the researcher was considered in all research
methods in all stages of the research design.

40
Respect: the researcher will treat the participants as capable of making decisions.
The researcher was respect respondents privacy when entering their private sphere
and when asking questions.

Confidentiality: the researcher will guarantee maximum confidentiality for the

participants. Their information was only be used for the purpose of the study.

Freedom to participate: participants will be informed that they are free to

participate. They was also be informed that they have the right to withdrawal.

Informed consent: consent will be secured from the participants after fully
informing the nature, potential risks and benefits of the study.

Limitation:

 Difficult to determine whether the outcome followed exposure in time or

exposure resulted from the outcome.
 Unable to measure incidence.
 Associations identified may be difficult to interpret.
 Susceptible to bias due to low response and misclassification due to recall
bias.
 Non-response is a particular problem affecting cross-sectional studies and
can result in bias of the measures of outcome. This is a particular problem
when the ch
 aracteristics of non-responders differ from responders.

41