As elections unfold in key countries, the potential for significant shifts in foreign policy appears muted, a trend consistent with historical patterns. Notable past instances where elections directly influenced foreign policy are exceptions rather than the norm. For example, when Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in 1952, he quickly arranged an armistice to end the Korean War, and in 2019, Boris Johnson finalized a Brexit deal shortly after his electoral victory.
Current high-profile elections, such as those in Israel and the United States, are generating hopes for foreign policy changes. However, experts suggest that dramatic shifts are unlikely. Even in nations like Serbia and Hungary, which have seen long-standing leaders defeated, changes in foreign policy tend to be more subtle than sweeping.
Scholars offer two primary reasons for the limited impact elections have on foreign policy. First, voters often prioritize domestic issues such as economic and social policies over international ones. Political scientists note that governments can win elections despite unpopular foreign policies based on their domestic successes. A notable example is Tony Blair’s victory in 2005, despite widespread opposition to the Iraq invasion two years earlier.
Secondly, incoming administrations often find it challenging to implement significant foreign policy changes. International Relations scholars, particularly those who adhere to Realist theory, contend that states have long-standing foreign policy interests that new leaders generally adjust rather than completely overhaul. For instance, regardless of which party wins in Japan, the country’s foreign policy is expected to largely center around its alliance with the U.S., a cautious approach towards China, and opposition to North Korea. Any new government might introduce nuances but is unlikely to stray far from Japan’s established ‘core interests.’
Structural constraints also complicate efforts for radical policy changes. Security infrastructures and economies are typically deeply connected to longstanding alliances and enmities, making substantial adjustments potentially contentious and time-consuming. This contrasts with domestic policy changes, which new administrations often prioritize as they seek to implement their electoral mandates.
Uncertain future in Israel
The recent elections in Israel have yielded inconclusive results, with Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition securing 53 seats in the Knesset and the opposition, led by Gadi Eisenkot, capturing 48. Arab-led parties achieved a historic 19 seats, indicating lengthy coalition negotiations ahead. Even if Netanyahu is replaced, Eisenkot’s foreign policy stance does not significantly diverge from his predecessor’s. Although he criticizes Netanyahu’s approach to Iran, advocating against regime change, he still endorses military action regarding Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
Additionally, Eisenkot opposes the annexation of the West Bank, contrary to some of Netanyahu’s coalition partners, but supports continued settlement activity in occupied territories. His vision for Palestine includes an autonomous region within parts of the West Bank that does not require the evacuation of Israeli settlements. If Eisenkot assumes leadership, any advances in his plans may necessitate cooperation with Arab parties in Israel’s parliamentary structure.
