Public Opinion, Polls and Foreign Policy

Abstract

x Y rHEN Parliament are discussing, for example, the length of the zA/ term of service for National Service men, are they discussing domestic s s matters or are they discussing foreign policy ? It is clear that the answer is " Both " and many such instances can be found. And yet, at any rate in the wntings of political theorists, a sharp distinction tends to be drawn between domestic and foreign policies. The explanation is partly historical; England had a " foreign policy " long before she had a " domestic policy". There has always existed some kind of state apparatus for handling relations with other countries with its own forrnal mles of procedure, with all the paraphernalia of representatives and Ambassadors. Yet one has to go back less than 300 years to find the " domestic " apparatus of the Central Government consisting of little more than H.M. Customs and Excise, whose funds the King raided at pleasure, and whose funds, moreover, arose largely from dealings with foreign parts. It was not at all clear, accordingly, that even H.M. Customs vas a " domestic " Ministry. All domestic measures were ad hoc, designed to deal with a particular set of circumstances arising at the moment. Political theorists inevitably wrote about foreign policy, because little else existed as a policy and so could not be discussed coherently. Foreign policy has throughout tended to remain segregated, a separate subject for study, and any discussion of its general relationship to domestic policy is spasmodic and incidental only. It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been little discussion of foreign policy and public opinion. Foreign policy has tended to be the preserve of the well-to-do (a Foreign Ofiice official, who made an unorthodox entry into the Foreign Office dunng wartime, quoted with wry relish how he was greeted by a famous diplomat, " It's refreshing to meet a face that doesn't seem to have come out of Balliol"), a field for the skilful negotiator,