![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Over the years, the logic that decentralisation is the territorial twin of democracy has been employed in the domain of foreign policy to advocate for the transfer of international relations prerogatives to subnational governments (SNGs). Proponents of this argument contend that, because of the proximity of SNGs to local communities, the territorial decentralisation of elements of foreign policy, or paradiplomacy, has the potential to engender greater citizen awareness, interest and participation in international affairs, and thus contribute to the democratisation of foreign policy. This paper draws insight from the paradiplomacy of three South African provinces to assess the extent to which the foreign relations of provincial governments represent a model process that contributes to the democratisation of foreign policy. It argues that, in the absence of effective mechanisms to promote meaningful deliberation, accountability, transparency and representation in the provinces, paradiplomacy has done little more than encourage the monopolisation by subnational elites of the few foreign policy prerogatives that Pretoria has transferred to provincial governments.
Notes on contributor and acknowledgements
Fritz Nganje is a researcher in the Africa Programme of the Institute for Global Dialogue, University of South Africa, in Pretoria, South Africa. He holds a Bachelor's degree in Journalism and Mass Communication from the University of Buea, Cameroon, a Master's degree in Peace Studies and International Relations from the North-West University, South Africa, and a Doctorate in Political Studies from the University of Johannesburg. This article is extracted from his doctoral thesis, which analyses the foreign relations of the South Africa provinces of Gauteng, North-West and Western Cape.The author would like to thank his supervisors, Professor Deon Geldenhuys and Dr Costa Georghiou, for their insight and advice.
Notes
1. There is no term that is generally accepted to denote the foreign relations of subnational governments. Mindful of the controversy around the appropriateness of the term Paradiplomacy, it is used in this paper as a descriptive term only.
2. Keohane RO & JS Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1977, pp. 24–25.
3. Cornago N, ‘Perforated sovereignties, agonistic pluralism and the durability of [para] diplomacy’, in Constantinou CM & J Der Derian (eds), Sustainable Diplomacies. London: Palgrave, 2010, p. 91.
4. See Bardhan PK & D Mookherjee (eds), Decentralisation and Local Governance in Developing Countries: A Comparative Perspective, 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
5. See, for example, Kincaid J, ‘Roles of constituent governments’, Forum of Federations, Winnipeg, 11–12 May 2001.
6. Morgenthau H, Politics among Nations, 5th edn. New York: Knopf, 1978, p. 558.
7. Nel P, J van Wyk & K Johnsen, ‘Democracy, participation, and foreign policy making in South Africa’, in Nel P & J Van der Westhuizen (eds), Democratising Foreign Policy? Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004, p. 51.
8. Miller MC, ‘India's feeble foreign policy’, Foreign Affairs, 18 June 2013.
9. Miller MC, ‘India's feeble foreign policy’, Foreign Affairs, pp. 775–777.
10. Miller MC, ‘India's feeble foreign policy’, Foreign Affairs, pp. 779–780. See also Nel P et al., ‘Democracy, participation, and foreign policy making in South Africa’, in Nel P & J Van der Westhuizen (eds), Democratising Foreign Policy? Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004, p. 51.
11. Cameron A, ‘Democratisation of foreign policy: The Ottawa process as a model’, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 5, 3, 1998, p. 148.
12. Cameron A, ‘Democratisation of foreign policy: The Ottawa process as a model’, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 5, 3, 1998, p. 149.
13. Vitale D, ‘Between deliberative and participatory democracy: A contribution on Habermas’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 32, 6, August 2006, p. 745.
14. Fung A & EO Wright, ‘Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance’, Politics and Society, 29, 1, March 2001, p. 7.
15. Vitale D, ‘Between deliberative and participatory democracy: A contribution on Habermas’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 32, 6, August 2006, p. 750.
16. Huijgh E, ‘Changing tunes for public diplomacy: Exploring the domestic dimension’, Exchange: Journal of Public Diplomacy, 2, 2011, p. 64. See also Tyler M et al., ‘Domestic public diplomacy’, Australian Institute of International Affairs Discussion Paper, April 2012, pp. 5, 7–11.
17. See for example Michelmann H, ‘Conclusion’, in Michelmann H (ed.), Foreign Relations in Federal Countries. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009, pp. 331–346.
18. See in this regard Criekemans D, ‘Regional sub-state diplomacy from a comparative perspective: Quebec, Scotland, Bavaria, Catalonia, Wallonia, Flanders’, in Criekemans D (ed.), Regional Sub-State Diplomacy Today. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010, pp. 37–64.
19. Kincaid J, ‘Constituent diplomacy in federal polities and the nation-state: Conflict and cooperation’, in Michelmann H & P Soldatos (eds), Federalism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 45–76. See also Kincaid J, ‘Roles of constituent governments’, Forum of Federations, Winnipeg, 11–12 May 2001.
20. Lecours A & L Moreno, ‘Paradiplomacy: A nation-building strategy? A reference to the Basque Country’, in Gagnon A, M Guibernau & F Rocher (eds), The Conditions of Diversity in Multinational Democracies. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2003, pp. 267–289.
21. Hocking B, ‘Bridging boundaries: Creating linkages. Non-central government and multilayered policy environments’, Welt Trends 11, 1996, pp. 36–51. See also Hocking B, ‘Patrolling the “frontier”: Globalization, localization and the “actorness” of non-central governments’, in Aldecoa F & M Keating (eds), Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments. London: Frank Cass, 1999, pp. 17–39.
22. Zhimin C, ‘Coastal provinces and China's foreign policy’, in Hao Y & L Su (eds), China's Foreign Policy Making: Societal Force and Chinese American Policy. London: Ashgate, 2005, pp. 187–208.
23. Hocking B, ‘Patrolling the “frontier”: Globalization, localization and the “actorness” of non-central governments’, in Aldecoa F & M Keating (eds), Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments. London: Frank Cass, 1999, p. 20.
24. Hocking B, Localising Foreign Policy: Non-central Governments and Multilayered Diplomacy. London: Macmillan, 1993, p. 26.
25. Hocking B, ‘Bridging boundaries: Creating linkages. non-central government and multilayered policy environments’, Welt Trends, 11, 1996, pp. 41–42.
26. See the following case studies: Wah Loh FK, ‘Federation of Malaysia’, in Michelmann H (ed.), Foreign Relations in Federal Countries. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009, pp. 188–210; Jenkins R, ‘India's states and the making of foreign economic policy: The limits of the constituent diplomacy paradigm’, Publius: Journal of Federalism, 33, 4, 2003, pp. 63–81; Zhimin C & J Junbo, ‘Chinese provinces as foreign policy actors in Africa’, SAIIA Occasional Paper, 22. Johannesburg: South African Institute for International Affairs, 2009.
27. Soldatos P, ‘An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as foreign-policy actors’, in Michelmann J & P Soldatos (eds), Federalism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 34–53. See also Duchacek I, ‘Perforated sovereignties: Towards a Typology of new actors in international relations’, in Michelmann J & P Soldatos (eds), Federalism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 1–33.
28. Duchacek I, ‘Perforated sovereignties: Towards a typology of new actors in international relations’, in Michelmann J & P Soldatos (eds), Federalism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 32.
29. For insight into how the foreign economic activities of Chinese coastal provinces were perceived as encouraging external interference in Beijing's policies, see Segal G, ‘Deconstructing foreign relations’, in Goodman D & G Segal (eds), China Deconstructs: Politics, Trade and Regionalism. London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 344–345. See also Zhimin C, ‘Coastal provinces and China's foreign policy’, in Hao, Y & L Su (eds), China's Foreign Policy Making: Societal Force and Chinese American Policy. London: Ashgate, pp. 202–203.
30. See Ravenhill J, ‘Australia’, in Michelmann J & P Soldatos (eds), Federalism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 104–112, for an account of the concerns of the Commonwealth government in Australia over the insensitivity of its constituent states to the divisive and exploitative tendencies of Japanese multinational corporations wooed by Australian states.
31. The foreign relations of the Canadian province of Quebec in the 1990s represent a classic example of how paradiplomacy, if not properly managed, can threaten the territorial integrity of a state. See Lecours A, ‘Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the foreign policy and international relations of regions’, International Negotiation, 7, 1, 2002, p. 107.
32. See European Commission delegation to South Africa, Development of Provincial and Municipal International Relations (PMIR) Strategy, December 2006, p. 5.
33. Wolff S, ‘Paradiplomacy: Scope, opportunities and challenges’, Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs, 10, 2007, p. 142.
34. This is exemplified in China where the provinces play a key role in executing Beijing's development aid programmes and cooperation agreements in Africa, thereby contributing to consolidating a grassroots presence necessary for deepening Sino-African relations. For more on this, see Zhimin C & J Junbo, ‘Chinese provinces as foreign policy actors in Africa’, SAIIA Occasional Paper, 22. Johannesburg: South African Institute for International Affairs, 2009.
35. Menocal AR, Editorial, Development in Practice, 14, 6, November 2004, p. 724.
36. Lecours A, ‘Political issues of paradiplomacy: Lessons from the developed world’, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, 98. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2008, p. 12.
37. Michelmann J, ‘Conclusion’, in Michelmann J & P Soldatos (eds), Federalism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 313.
38. Lecours A, ‘Political issues of paradiplomacy: Lessons from the developed world’, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, 98. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2008, p. 12.
39. This term is used to denote the often small segment of the population in any country which remains attuned to issues of foreign policy and international relations.
40. Kincaid J, ‘Foreign relations of sub-national units’, in Blindenbacher R & A Koller (eds), Federalism in a Changing World: Learning from Each Other. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, p. 88.
41. Lecours A, ‘Political issues of paradiplomacy: Lessons from the developed world’, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, 98. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2008, p. 12.
42. Menocal AR, Editorial, Development in Practice, 14, 6, November 2004, p. 724.
43. Cornelissen S, ‘“Entrepreneurial regions”? The foreign relations of South African cities and provinces’, in Carlsnaes W & P Nel (eds.), In Full Flight: South African Foreign Policy After Apartheid. Midrand: Institute for Global Dialogue, 2006, pp. 125–136.
44. See Zondi S, ‘The international relations of South African provinces and municipalities: An appraisal of federated diplomacy’, in Landsberg C and J Van Wyk (eds), South African Foreign Policy Review, 1. Pretoria: AISA and IGD, 2012, pp. 42–67.
45. See European Commission delegation to South Africa, ‘Development of provincial and municipal international relations (PMIR) strategy’, December 2006, pp. 2–5.
46. Western Cape Provincial Government, ‘Draft policy framework on international relations’, April 2012, p.5.
47. See Gauteng Provincial Government, ‘Gauteng Provincial Government international relations and cooperation framework’, February 2011. See also Gauteng Provincial Government, ‘Draft Gauteng NEPAD strategic framework’, 2007.
48. See North West Provincial Government, ‘Proposed visit to Manitoba Province of Canada– May to June 2011’, internal memo, April 2011.
49. Email conversation with official in the Western Cape's trade and investment agency, Wesgro, 12 April 2012; personal interview with official in the Gauteng Economic Development Agency, 2 August 2012; personal interview with a former senior official in the North West's Premier's office, 3 August 2012. Also consult Department of Trade and Industry, ‘Export marketing and investment assistance 2008/2009 annual report’, June 2010.
50. See North West Provincial Government, ‘Proposed visit to Manitoba Province of Canada– May to June 2011’, internal memo, April 2011.
51. North West Provincial Government, ‘Draft fifteen-year review of the international relations of the Northwest Province’, April 2009.
52. Western Cape Provincial Government, ‘Report of bilateral agreements review workshop’, Internal Report, June 2008.
53. French Embassy in South Africa (2007), ‘Île-de-France delegation visits Gauteng Province’, July 2007, http://www.ambafrance-rsa.org/Ile-de-France-delegation-visits (accessed 4 May 2012).
54. See European Commission delegation to South Africa, ‘Development of provincial and municipal international relations (PMIR) strategy’, December 2006, p. 5.
55. Department of International Relations and Corporation, ‘Measures and guidelines for the enhanced coordination of South Africa's international engagements’, November 2008.
56. In 2011, the Premier of the Western Cape, Helen Zille, announced that Dr Ivan Meyer, the provincial Minister for Sports, Arts and Culture, would henceforth double as the Minister for International Relations. Dr Meyer is expected to provide political leadership to the province's external relations on behalf of the premier.
57. Personal interview with official in the Intergovernmental and Provincial Protocol Directorate, Department of International Relations and Cooperation, 16 October 2012.
58. See, for example, Zondi S, ‘The international relations of South African provinces and municipalities: An appraisal of federated diplomacy’, in Landsberg C & J Van Wyk (eds), South African Foreign Policy Review, 1. Pretoria: AISA and IGD, pp. 62–63.
59. This insight was obtained from personal conversations with officials in the Western Cape's Department of the Premier in April 2012.
60. Mogale City, ‘International trips discussed’, The official Mogale City website, http://www.mogalecity.gov.za/news-archive/february/560-international-trips-discussed (accessed 12 February 2014).
61. Personal interviews with officials in the premiers' offices in Gauteng, North West and Western Cape provinces.
62. Personal interviews conducted in 2012 with past and current heads of international relations directorates in the provinces of Gauteng, North West and Western Cape. As indicated in an earlier section, there have been attempts in provinces like the Western Cape to address this problem, but it is still too early to assess the impact of these interventions.
63. Information revealed in an interview with an official in the North West Provincial Government who would like to remain anonymous.
64. Personal interview with official in the Western Cape provincial parliament in Cape Town, 2April 2012.
65. Maseko L, ‘Opening address delivered at the Public Participation Conference hosted by the Gauteng Provincial Legislature’, Johannesburg, 29 February to 2 March 2012.
66. Lodge T, ‘Provincial government and state authority in South Africa’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 31, 4, December 2005, p. 751.
67. Lodge T, ‘Provincial government and state authority in South Africa’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 31, 4, December 2005, p. 751.
68. See, for example, Masiza Z, ‘Silent citizenry: Public participation and foreign policy-making, Centre for Policy Studies’, Policy Brief, 15, September 1999. See also Nel P et al., ‘Democracy, participation, and foreign policy-making in South Africa’, in Nel P & J van der Westhuizen (eds), Democratising Foreign Policy: Lessons from South Africa. Oxford: Lexington Books, 2004, pp. 39–62.
69. South Africa, Western Cape Provincial Government, ‘Draft policy framework on international relations’, April 2012, p. 28.
70. The Regional Leaders Forum is a network of seven subnational governments, which aims to foster productive information sharing as well as seeking opportunities for bilateral and multilateral commitments to joint projects and programmes in areas of common interest. Its membership includes Bavaria in Germany, Georgia in the US, Quebec in Canada, São Paulo in Brazil, Shandong in China, Upper Austria in Austria and the Western Cape in South Africa.
71. In the South African context, an Imbizo is a forum that gives effect to participatory democracy by enhancing dialogue and interaction between government and the people.
72. See Modise T, ‘State of the province address’. Mahikeng: Northwest University, 17 February 2012. See also Mokonyane N, ‘State of the province address’. Johannesburg: Gauteng Provincial Legislature, 20 February 2012.
73. See Zille H, ‘State of the province address’. Cape Town: Western Cape Provincial Legislature, 17 February 2012.
74. For example, the North West's 2012 State of the province address was delivered at the local North West University and not the provincial legislature as has traditionally been the case, highlighting the recent trend in the provinces to use the addresses as a means to engage with local communities on the work of provincial governments.
75. ‘Draft fifteen-year review of the international relations of the Northwest Province’, April 2009.
76. South Africa, Western Cape Provincial Government, ‘Report of bilateral agreements review workshop, Internal Report’, June 2008. See also Gauteng Provincial Government, ‘Annexure A: Departmental inputs on the review of sisterhood agreements 2009/2010’.
77. Records of study tours and other forms of foreign trips by provincial officials are difficult to obtain because in most cases they do not exist. However, the seriousness of the problem can be deduced from the fact that all the recent policy frameworks on paradiplomacy developed at the national and provincial levels put a very strong focus on reducing and rationalising foreign trips.
78. See European Commission delegation to South Africa, ‘Development of provincial and municipal international relations (PMIR) strategy’, December 2006, p. 5.
79. See Carothers T, Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999, p. 194.
80. Thurer D & M MacLaren, ‘Swiss federation’, in Michelmann H (ed.) Foreign Relations in Federal Countries. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009, p. 287.
81. Huijgh, & J Melissen, ‘Public diplomacy of federative entities: Quebec, Compendium of a study into the public diplomacy of Quebec's Ministry of International Relations (MRIQ) for the Flemish Department of Foreign Affairs (DIV)’, 2008, pp. 18–24.