Search

This article explains how right-wing populist leaders in Hungary, Poland, Russia and Turkey have transformed their states' foreign policy institutions through personalization and politicization. We examine the transformation of foreign policy institutions in the four cases and make two contributions. First, we differentiate between disparate types of personalization by proposing the term 'hyperpersonalization'—populist leaders' reliance on security institutions in foreign policy decision-making—which distinguishes the populist transformation of foreign policy institutions in Russia and Turkey. We argue that lower levels and speed of autocratization lead to politicization combined with milder cases of personalization of the foreign policy bureaucracy, while higher levels and speed of autocratization lead to higher levels of personalization in the foreign policy institutions. Second, we lay out the steps and patterns of populist politicization and hyperpersonalization that bring 'deinstitutionalizing restructuring' to foreign policy institutions. As we illustrate, this deinstitutionalizing restructuring involves concurrent bureaucratic expansion and bureaucratic retrenchment. The process is accompanied by a populist narrative that this restructuring is done to realize the 'popular will' or to regain 'full sovereignty'. We conclude the article with the policy implications of this populist transformation of foreign policy institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political Islam and Islamist organizations have broadly gained strength across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the post-Cold War era. Following the Arab uprisings, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), generally viewed as the world’s largest and most influential Islamist organization, has shaped the wider landscape of MENA politics. This study examines MB leadership by comparing M. Morsi of Egypt, R. Ghannouchi of Tunisia, and K. Meshaal of Gaza as examples of Islamist leaders to explain their political belief systems and predict their foreign-policy behavior. We use the operational code approach, a content-analysis software and statistical tests to conduct the study. Results show that the three leaders’ foreign policy beliefs are analogous to the averages of world leaders. Results also partially support the hypothesis that their foreign-policy propensities are similar to each other. We conclude that despite the conventional portrayal of MB leadership, these leaders use negotiation and cooperation to settle their differences in foreign affairs, and the best way to approach them is to engage in a Rousseauvian assurance game that emphasizes international social cooperation. Results also suggest important implications in terms of mainstream international relations theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Relations / Uluslararasi Iliskiler is the property of International Relations Council and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)