Die publiek, die parlement, die burokrasie en buitelandse beleid met spesiale verwysing na Suid‐Afrika

Abstract

In this article some of the most important arguments in favour and against secret diplomacy in a democracy are discussed. Specific reference is made to the respective roles of parliament, the executive's upper echelon, the bureaucracy and public opinion. It is argued that foreign policy should be seen as a special area of governmental action where, for reasons of prudence, normal democratic processes and procedures cannot be expected to be followed blindly, notwithstanding increasing pressures for greater democratisation in this area of decision‐making. This does not mean, however, that foreign policy‐making should be totally absolved from any form of checks and balances. In this respect the legislature, in view of its composition, competence and responsibility, ought to play an important role. This is particularly the case in countries like the United States, where the division of governmental powers is very rigid and control is institutionalised. In countries ruled along the lines of the Westminster model, where the overlapping of legislative and executive powers is conspicuous, the former enjoys a much greater measure of freedom of action, resulting inter alia in high‐handed bureaucratic practices and a very liberal discretion as to what information should or should not be kept secret in respect of diplomatic dealings. After having analised these aspects, the article briefly turns to diplomatic practices in the Republic of South Africa. The conclusion is reached that although there is much to be said in support of the thick veil of secrecy surrounding this country's diplomatic dealings, there is a real danger that this practice may develop counterproductive tendencies.