Page 1 of 23
INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN SHAPING DEMOCRATIC
FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS ON INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES
Introduction
There is still the challenge of how to reconcile democratic ideological commitment of the
political system to reflect the people‟s view on security issues and at the same time to respect the
technical advice provided by the professionals. On the one hand, members of the elected
authorities attempt to support and stand for the views and opinions of the people. It is therefore
possible to conclude that security policies which are in compliance with the majority opinion of
the populace are effectively executing people‟s will in a democratic framework. Nonetheless, the
public debate and, consequently, public opinion on national security issues is frequently
characterized by oversimplified and dismissive approaches since these issues are by their nature
complex and sophisticated. The public is known to act spontaneously when it comes to security
issues than it would act after critically analyzing situations, costs and effects of an act or
decision. On the other hand, military and intelligence analysts who are recruited as professional
remain in the employment of the security organizations throughout their career to analyze the
functional and global aspects of security issues. This is why their recommendations to political
authorities are generally more comprehensive and with a wider perspective than noise that the
public might make hear out of anger over a terrorist attack or fear of a deadly disease outbreak,
for instance. However, over-relying on such appointed officials can also erode key democratic
values or what I will refer to as democratic prerogatives. It is not possible to find quick fixes to
such tensions, but it is possible to identify actions that can help address such issues; one of them
is the increase in opportunities for a substantive public conversation. It is also possible to
imagine that efforts directed towards increasing the amount and quality of news media coverage
Page 2 of 23
with regards to detailed policy analysis from multiple experts could prove helpful in shaping
public opinion. Official daily briefings from intelligence organizations, comparable to policy
statements by a central bank, could replace unfounded rumors with accurate threat assessments
and policy explanations in language, which could be easily understood by a layman. Raising
security and foreign policy awareness in educational system can also have some long-term
positive effects. It is therefore inescapable that no strategy can fully eliminate tension between
the majority‟s preference and policy knowledge in the cases to be balanced. It is good to note
that designing communication media that are more inclusive and serious can contribute to
enhancing the quality of public discourse on security concerns and allowing the officials to better
understand the legitimate concerns that they believe should be an object of public debate beyond
simple technical considerations.
Mechanisms of Public Opinion Influence on Security Policy
Polling data impact on policymakers' security stances
Political leaders rely on public opinion polls as a way of determining which way the
public‟s opinion leans on different policy matters in order to frame the legislation and policies
that they want to undertake. This is particularly the case in areas concerning security for the
nation which is often influenced by the people‟s mentality or perception of threats in the society.
Following catastrophic disasters such as the September 11 terrorist attacks or major disasters,
there is usually a significant increase in the poll results of the public‟s demand for enhanced
security and the broad authority granted to government to look for and prevent similar
occurrences in the future. Leaders next hear calls to act and appear concerned when propping up
security in supporting proposals, which may infringe on individual rights or rely on feelings as
opposed to research. For instance, following 9/11 the USA PATRIOT Act granted additional
Page 3 of 23
surveillance and detention authorities linked to national alarm to avoid deep consideration of the
privacy costs. Voting that goes on today still shapes discussions regarding security over privacy,
particularly with a new terrorism threat. Politicians who insist on extreme measures, like blanket
travel bans, domestic intelligence agencies, or preventive military operations after terrorist
attacks, rely on polling, demonstrating that large segments of the public want such measures
even if experts are skeptical of how much they will help or whether they are legal. Nevertheless,
it is crucial to note that more than half of the respondents expressing worry does not, ipso facto ,
suggest that particular laws are reasonable or legal solutions. Policymakers get influenced by poll
results and replicate strategically emotional proposals that are likely to poll well but without
proper analysis as to why such ideas may be popular only for that moment. This presents a
concern because overcorrecting without substantial proof would only lead to eradicating civil
liberties where it is unwarranted, as well as fueling more fear among the public. Challenges arise
from how citizens can be prone to immediate concerns and react impulsively calling for powerful
action while at the same time there are other democratic tenets such as rights, the precedent of
restraint, and the principle of using action proportional to the offenders and grounded in
rationality than emotion. Polling should be used in this regard to help the policymakers and not
as the determinant of over-extension of security powers without taking into consideration the
previous records of the public‟s sentiment during what is perceived to be a crises period. Prudent
policy takes into account the felt anxieties of the public but observes the principles of law even if
they are costly to the party in terms of political capital. Simply because consumers support a
security position at the moment does not necessarily make it proper and resolves long-term when
feelings are not as high.
Protest movements shaping foreign intervention decision-making processes
Page 4 of 23
Protest movements have remained relevant in shaping in matters of the foreign
interference in present-day world affairs. The citizens are adequately exposed and able to decode
the conflicts and policies of other nations and are more vocal especially when molding their
sentiments. This has led to very big protest actions on decisions on meddling with overseas
conflicts that governments are no longer able to look the other way. One of the recent cases was
Million moments of the anti-Iraq war in 2003 when people from different parts of the world went
to the roads expressing their opinions against the invasion of Iraq by the USA. However, the
protests only managed to postpone the invasion, however, according to the scholars the protests
gave the politicians advocating for interventions more pause and the need for rationale for any
invasion. They also produced public pressures as well as domestic pressures on
internationalization decisions that imposed constraints on the policymakers‟ choices in
subsequent military actions. Protests during the uprising in the Arab Spring raised examples to
political incumbents as to how they could maintain an alliance with and stability over
authoritarian governments whilst responding to demands to support protesters. That is why these
protests were visible and were recorded on videos and photos in social networks that affected the
international image and, in turn, the pressure towards likely intervention. This environment
provided protest movements more material to gain bargaining power in their „for or against
involvement of a foreign state‟ demands in accordance with the protestor‟s direction. In future,
any government which has contemplated on military intervention has to always consider an
opinion that can be fanned by protest groups. It is good to note that while the protest movements
get connected to the global communication networks, they will enhance the power of the
collective action and mobilize the allied activists to coordinate protest actions and apply political
pressure in several countries. Consequently, practical decisions concerning the intervention are
Page 5 of 23
even more clear-cut and affect more people as the protest movements at the same time show how
successful they are in terms of soft power. The chief executant who is dismissing a mass protest
rally movement is a diplomatic problem or loss of popularity at home if he/she becomes involved
and responsible for the stir-up. Therefore, building support across the broad civil society is
slowly becoming vital in sustaining the toehold for foreign influence especially with a politically
awakened citizenry that can stage policy decisions through a global protest.
Voter preferences affecting political party security platforms
Influence is derived from the party system, as the parties formulate their policies and
strategies for a particular election using voter preferences and polls in an attempt to match their
policies to the target voter blocs. It means that this feature is particularly apparent with matters of
national security and defense policy. The foreign policy proposed by political parties to the
public changes as and when threats in various parts of the world change and the public opinion
of the population concerning the use of military force instead of diplomacy or otherwise changes.
For instance, following the terrorist attacks in September 11, 2001, the issue of national security
became a topical concern among voters in the United States of America. The Republican Party
exploited the people‟s terrorisms‟ fear to support an escalated military approach and the
authority to pass the Patriot Act. They packaged these security policies in that context as
measures needed to secure the homeland. The anti-Iraq War sentiment did not rise immediately,
but rather, grew over time mainly due to the duration of the war. These trends reflected the desire
of the voters to see less military presence overseas and both Democrats and Republicans made
withdrawal strategies a major focus of their 2008 campaigns. There is still disagreement on how
the parties‟ security approaches should look, but satisfying the voter fatigue in regards to long
conflicts and nation-building has emerged as an essential goal. In more recent past the tendency
Page 6 of 23
of protectionism and isolationism amongst some sections of the population has made president
Trump and some leading GOP members doubt the loyalty of NATO and its members. This is a
claim that allies must contribute to defense expenditure and not rely on the American shield. This
flexibility of affairs internationally makes national security remain as central in defining the
party agendas seeking electoral votage. While public outlooks on engagement evolve with
developing emerging trends, the defense and counterterrorism proposals should be adjusted to
suit the security needs that dominate the supports and the floating voters. In order to cater for this
dynamism in the voter base, each party has to find ways of maintaining stability in their policy
agenda, but at the same time associate that stability with ideological rigidity.
Media's Mediating Role in Security Opinion Formation
Traditional media framing of international security threats
Large newspaper chains remain influential in the formation of the public opinion on
global security issues. Traditional media select and frame foreign policy issues to prioritize some
while ignoring others, and they choose the manner in which these issues are presented to
audiences. Our „traditional‟ media sources like major newspapers and television networks have
relatively more power over what constitutes a threat, for example, terrorism, nuclear
proliferation, and cyber threats. This framing also determines whether these threats are seen as
terrifying or already managed or handled. Terrorism as a phenomenon carries objectively low
risk for the populations of developed countries, but when it is constantly reported by the media,
the public perception becomes inflated. Organizational incentives for dramatic, fear-arousing
stories that traditional media encourage may lead to threat inflation with regards to threats such
as „terrorist sleeper cells‟ that receive vivid attention but are hardly a reality. In the same way,
traditional media have been pointed to for presenting war-mongering frames towards the external
Page 7 of 23
threats that these nations, such as Iran, pose. The way wars are framed can lead to spirals of
conflict and escalation that are driven more by perceived slights and ideological differences than
concrete security threats. However, the framing of traditional media is not constant across the
outlets and changes across coverage due to factors like Elite discourse and the fluctuating
balance of power between media organizations. For example, while socially conservative sources
like Fox News are continuously using warlike narratives toward external threats that justify
foreign policy militarism, the New York Times provides dovish or at least ambivalent counter-
narratives. The use of a qualitative approach aims to illuminate the contested and evolving
relationship between mediated communication, elite discourses, and security threats. The
dominance of the traditional media remains pronounced in the shaping of the public threat
perception worldwide as competition from new internet media intensifies. Knowledge of
psychological, ideological, nationalist, and sensationalistic factors underlying security narratives
in traditional media is needed to prevent overemphasizing threats domestically and
internationally.
Social media echo chambers reinforcing security policy views
Individuals spend a lot of time browsing different social media platforms, and the content
that is chosen to be displayed in their newsfeeds on a daily basis, can have a substantial effect on
enhancing the subjects‟ attitudes towards specific security policies. When users are mostly used
to consuming content from, or communicating with other people with similar ideological
predispositions to themselves, there is an echo chamber formed with some opinions repeatedly
expressed while others are barely given airtime. This may create a mutual cycle of polarization
and approach the issue in a way that is consistent with the initial political stance on the matter.
For instance, people with similar interests in for instance immigration or cybersecurity are likely
Page 8 of 23
to accept the group created on the social media platforms of their interests. The generalization
that the researchers make regarding the belief is that whenever the participants do not often
interact with the counter-arguing it leads to the confirmation of the belief. That of course is what
lodges dislikes, and after the views have evolved then come the attitudes around those views. As
people settle in Matrix 4 a defense of positions, contingencies and vagaries of security policies
are lost in the echo chamber. This is something that is prevalent with most of the social media
platforms since their recommendation system seeks to populate user‟s feed‟s with more such
content that the individual holds supportive of such a stand. Their power to contribute to and
participate in policy debates and making cannot be overemphasized. They grant permission to
disinformation as well as politically motivated narratives regarding security risks that are
beneficial to one party‟s agenda. Otherwise, even such doubtful reasons can be considered rather
logical in the case of echo chambers because people have limited exposure to the views of the
other side. This is why the discourses regarding policy on social media tend to occur in a
predetermined script of the loyalist fervent congregation that has no doubt in the storytelling‟s
credibility.
Some of the procedures suggesting that it is hard to move out of security policy echo
chambers include, most of the users delete or block the following list containing persons with
opposing opinions. It means that is necessary to further the debate on the need to extend the
range of the possibilities of what one need to discourse in social networks. One is a change that
can be made is for platforms themselves to potentially increase the exposure of the other sides by
changes in the algorithm. It is also important to take individual responsibility and go out of one‟s
way to practice positive policies even when it comes to the freedom of expressing different
opinions on the internet. Understanding the extent of the effect that ensues from the social media
Page 9 of 23
echo chambers regarding the reinforcement of opinions over issues of security policies cannot be
underestimated and they trigger concerns over the increasing presence of extreme opinions and
point to others‟ need to present other credible and truth sources.
Government communication strategies influencing public security perceptions
It is crucial that it is pointed out that methods which various governments employ to
communicate the issues of security do help in changing the attitudes of people. In this paper, an
attempt will be made to understand how with reference to crime, terrorism, disasters and any
other threats, issues are constructed by government officials and how citizens perceive and
respond when called to mobilize or when in danger. An administration which employs rhetorical
strategies that appeal to fear, or that energize fear, may very likely contribute to a condition of
increased public insecurity even in a condition in which the base rate threat has not changed. On
the other hand, leaders who over attempt to be calm or who give a perception that they are
capable of taming threats assist in restoring the public‟s confidence. In matters concerning public
security, communication is one of the activities that call for balancing of one or some very
sensitive ratios. This means that government spokespeople cannot dismiss threat reportage or just
say that all is well. However, if the utilisation of anxiety is through employing exaggerated
messages or even sheer threats, to raise the anxiety levels to the improper extent it becomes
damaging to society in an attempt to diminish the trust in institutions. Potentially credible
information about the risks, details about the level of threat in the present time, and
recommendations with respect to measures or actions that can be done or policies to be followed
is of greater use to the public often. However, the provision of such information and the
dissemination of a particular message should be done as objectively as possible so as not to give
a skewed picture. The same applies to the case of how the public will have to interpret the
Page 10 of 23
information from the government, with trust or bias; one accounts for such a mammoth
difference too. This is why it is necessary to indicate that although such messages sound rather
comfortable for the supporters of an administration, they can cause certain concern among the
opposition. Such dynamics drive the need to unambiguously comprehend who is conveying
what, to whom, and for what purpose and the necessity of the interaction between the parties
belonging to different poles of politics concerning the perception and regulation of security risks.
It also assists to check the sources and go in a purely partisan approach is not very helpful as
independent studies and fact-checking can also be insightful. It may be concluded that although
the fight against lawbreakers has always remained one of the primary motivations for citizens to
vote for the leaders, the officials have to refrain from using the language that splits society.
Domestic Political Structures and Opinion-Policy Linkages
Electoral systems' effect on security policy responsiveness
Electoral systems do impact electoral responsiveness of a country‟s security policy and to
the populace‟s sentiment. The “first-past-the-post” or majoritarian systems where one has to beat
the contesting rivals to win a seat encourages the formation of two party systems. This should
result in a more responsive security policy as the two major political parties have to consider the
median voter to get elected. Surprisingly, the major parties are slowly changing their positions
based on the changing public opinion regarding security issues for the sake of carrying elections.
This was evident in the US during and after Vietnam War and the September 11 attacks where
the public‟s attitudes towards military operations and homeland security became more rigid or
lenient depending on events and government policies under the two party systems have been
quite responsive to these changes. According to the PR systems, the parties are awarded
proportionate seats according to the national vote; this means that it can only accommodate more
Page 11 of 23
parties and coalition governments, which can negatively affect security policy responsiveness in
several ways. Sandel and Teauckle argue that the compromises that are part of the coalition can
dilute the policy goal of the median voter in a given legislation. Furthermore, coalitions are
formed because of the need to balance interests while the formation of veto players implies that
even when the public demands a change of policy, they cannot be easily implemented. The
diversified opinions which are encompassed within the PR systems may also hinder the general
agreement on security issues. However, once the number of effective parties in a PR system
becomes low, it starts gravitating towards the majoritarian systems. In total, majoritarian
democracies with the general predisposition towards tension between two parties tend to have
high security policy responsiveness to the median voter, but with PR systems it is often unclear
how to respond to a number of parties, although the quantity does matter. Thus, hybrid systems
try to achieve some of the benefits of proportionality and local representation. It also means that
the impacts that these factors have on security policy relate to specific district and national
dynamics.
Legislative-executive dynamics in translating opinion to policy
Since legislation and the executive are two distinct branches of government, they act as
mediators and presiding bodies in determining what citizen concerns and priorities are
subsequently implemented at the policy level. Since legislators are chosen by the people, they
have every reason to also serve the interests of people, or else lose their seats, therefore they
have the responsibility of championing the interest of the people by enacting or lobbying for
laws that meet the needs of the people. However, it should also be mentioned that legislators also
have their own policy agendas and beliefs which they bring to the process. The President and the
executive branch of government also have their own priorities and agendas, in relation to
Page 12 of 23
congress. It can happen that the branches are in conflict when the legislative branch adopts laws
that the President does not agree with ideologically or that he would reject under policy
considerations. Although compromise legislation is made, the negotiations are very complicated
and they take place in the background. Interest groups that lobby both branches do so in order to
also shape the ways in which information is framed to fit their needs. Publicizing specific issues
places them in the focus of decision-makers‟ attention boosted with the help of media messages.
Opinion polls aimed at capturing the mood of the country on policy issues provide a momentary
snapshot that is relied on by legislators to explain their stand. However, there is time-lag in
transitioning from a shift in public opinion to changes in policies. Drafting of laws is a complex
process which sometimes involves negotiations and therefore many lawmakers will always have
to put aside their political affiliations to agree on a certain law.
The complex and diverse nature of the interactions between and within the branches of
the legislature and the executive leads to slow processes of fine gradual changes rather than
policies reflecting the public will and preferences in a manner of a snap. This point alone is
enough to underscore that there are numerous entry points where groups can introduce their
desired policies to the mix. The actual political process that is involved in building coalitions,
compromises, and lobbying often results in a different final product than the public demands.
The compartmentalization of powers makes it difficult to correlate straightforward opinion, no
matter how dominating, to effective policy implementation. To get to the finish line, people have
to make compromises while those who would otherwise follow the mass opinion only when
acting within the context of a less complex system must make some concessions. Thus, while the
public agenda does set more or less clearly define what in fact concerns the American people and
what should take place in their country, structural factors limit the perfect correspondence
Page 13 of 23
between demand and supply created by the political actors and institutions placed within the
context of separation of powers. The level of reactivity that is embedded into the frameworks of
the American governance is a good help in explaining inherent gaps between opinions and
policies.
Political polarization's impact on security consensus building
The political climate in the recent past has been characterized by increased polarization,
which has made it challenging to rally support towards themes that support security in the
country. In recent years, this ideological split between the two major political parties has only
widened, and as such, bipartisan consensus and cooperation in matters related to security
policies, defense budgets, and foreign policy decisions have become significantly rarer.
Politicians from different factions of the same party are more interested in creating political
deadlines that involve not working with the other side to achieve common objectives that
endanger America in foreign policy missions. This splits the population as people act on the
directions of their party membership instead of analysing security matters in the content of their
merit. Notably, there is no consensus on security affairs, which results in incongruity and
incoherence in addressing long-term issues. The idea of flipping policies from one administration
to another or even the target of those policies based on partisan ideologies makes it rather
difficult to tactfully respond to threats posed by rival nations. It is also evident that political
leaders are more hesitant to go on record or use clear straightforward language to refer to threats
outside in an increasingly polarized political environment where the opposing party can
politicize such information with the public instead of working together to address these threats.
This situation is made worse by party leaders and their supporters who appeal to their respective
party‟s core voters who are always hostile to any form of agreement or negotiation with
Page 14 of 23
competitors. Agreement ceases to be the goal since political loyalty is more important than
political compromise. The political leaders of the day, who have to develop this necessary
security consensus to overcome the divide need to be primarily statesmen when it comes to the
protection of their respective interests and decisions of war and peace, which may depend on
such advancements as reducing barriers to constructive cross-aisle communication and
enhancing effective trust between the concerned heads. However, polarized dynamics allow the
extremism of voices within a particular bipolar spectrum to prevail over the moderate, reasonable
ones. Unless these trends alter, one of the basic principles of politics, which is that politics ceases
at the water‟s edge in dealing with common external foes, is no longer true in contemporary
polarized America.
Public Opinion Volatility in International Security Crises
Rally-around-the-flag effects during international security emergencies
Rally effects: Rally-around-the-flag is the specific condition in the course of which the
citizens of a precise country support their political leadership during conflicts or while
approaching significant issues of the international relations. This is not something that has not
been written before in the political science discipline and among the literature and has been
highlighted in other works. In this case, individuals ignore inner conflicts and fighting it out
within the assigned nation and partly attempt to assist the head to some extent. Many scholars
have provided noticeable yet fleeting increases in presidential approval ratings after the
incidence of international events including the September 11 terrorists‟ attack, war, or
declaration, or increased tensions with unfriendly countries. It is not petty virus partisanship or
simply labeling a leadership or the policies of the country, we are looking for a change that is
embodied on people. However this „rally round the flag‟ effect does not persist – it seldom does,
Page 15 of 23
no more than a few months at the longest; the danger is less visible, dissident voices are heard,
and „business as usual‟ resumes. This means that for example rally effects as it were especially
centre on issues like coverage in media and framing of such crises, the degree of threat and the
nature of it, the political and elite rhetoric on the matter and last but not the least but if such a
crisis engulfs specific victories or failure for the leadership of the country. Similar to such trends,
the approval this rise usually is linked to demonstrates is not open-ended that embraces leaders,
although the alert levels are rubbing on the high. Still, in the emergencies where people need to
be joined together it still needs the manifestations of power and thoughtful actions of the
government. However, if the leader of the country look weak, or if after the implementation of
such policy there occur a disastrous eventuality, then it is the backlash effect that is most likely
to surface, not the rally effect.
Opinion shifts following terrorist attacks or military casualties
The public‟s mode is volatile particularly due to the alteration in mood after a terror
attack or other military operations resulting in deaths. In the short-run, one finds more pride in
his or her country and support to leaders and military activities associated with such incidents.
However, they may only be said, for instance, during events like those and are unlikely to be the
true portrayal of the population regarding the military and nationalism. In this conventional case,
where people get angry and alarmed because of an attack or battle, time and distance may offer a
way of appeasing the situation and coming up with more naturalistic attacks or questioning the
usefulness and gain of recurrent military fights and operations. For instance, after the September
11 attacks in 2001, President Bush got approval ratings of what can be described as a highly
favorable population, the threat that existed forced most people into bipartisanship when
supporting both the government and the military. Nevertheless, in the wars in Iraq and
Page 16 of 23
Afghanistan, years no one side has gained a lot of upper hand, plenty of fatalities, and sharp turn
in the public sentiments occurred because of some scandals on the policies or behavior of the
armed forces. As citizens, people got frustrated with the political leadership‟s apparent failure to
cease overseas wars that seemed to lack accomplishment or rewards satisfactory enough that
would warrant the warriors and citizens to continue to lose their lives, money, and resources. It is
important, however, to underline that the analogous choices of single events and their
consequences for people‟s perceptions of military actions always occur in a context. Indeed,
more than after any similar, specific, exceptionally „terrorizing‟ occurrence, say September 11,
one would note the public much more predisposed undertakers of war demanding restitution,
vengeance and tougher security measures from the elected representatives. However, the
shooting of numbers of enemy in the armed combats which may not appear to have definite and
specific goals not even on the distant hills or far away erode the voter‟s sympathy with the „head
counts‟ and not the „feet on the ground‟. It is rather the circumstances where death or the level of
threat to national security was a precursor or followed that formed the opinion among the public
than a predisposition for war or peace after each terrible occurrence individually. When people‟s
feelings are involved with subjects that affect policies that may possibly take a long time to be
implemented, then, rational and stable analysis is a tad harder though still crucial.
Long-term vs. short-term opinion trends in security policy-making
When developing security policy, there are usually short-term public demands and
necessities and long-term strategic vision to consider. This suggests that in crises or conditions of
higher threat, the public support may rapidly turn in favor of neo-reactionary security policies
that ensure safety and security at the expense of democratic values at the given time.
Nevertheless, the policymakers cannot ignore these short-term opinion fluctuations alongside the
Page 17 of 23
shift in the long-term trends in the public sentiments, Constitutional provisions regarding civil
liberties and even the strategic security needs of the country. Bursts in public demand
encouraged by fear are not a good foundation on which to set policies that are immediately put
into law to limit such activities. A vivid example is the peak of the popularity of severe counter-
terrorism actions among the American people right after the 9/11 tragedy. The polls conducted in
late 2001 revealed that 8 out of 10 Americans are ready to surrender their rights for the sake of
protection against terrorism. The American public was aghast at such threats and the powers that
be proceeded to enact the USA PATRIOT Act thereby endowing the government with vast
surveillance and detention authority over the people‟s rights. But, according to the survey
conducted in 2003, public willingness to sacrifice rights had declined to 180, which was nearly
20 points lower than the initial figure. Nonetheless, over the following decade, people‟s support
for such policies weakened further, when the stimulus of 9/11 wore off. Thus, by 2011, most
Americans preferred freedom from the unlimited powers of the state to extensive security
measures. Many of those laws have had to be unwound in response by policymakers in the
aftermath of the shocking events of 9/11. This shows that there is merit taking long-term view on
the changes that happen in public attitude than to do what is normally categorized as knee jerk
reactions caused by occurrences.
Of course, the policymakers cannot also afford to disregard major changes in the
perception of the masses concerning security matters. However, structural shifts in policy with
Constitutional consequences should not be initiated for the short term with split and inconsistent
support from the public. Decision-makers need to pay less attention to changes in attitudes, and
instead, make small adjustments with regards to the direction that has been set. They also need to
guide public opinion and do so in a systematic manner in terms of the messages and ways in
Page 18 of 23
which security threats will be framed, without being preoccupied with the latest polls. The idea
of governing by constantly monitoring the results of weekly approval polls brings unstable
policies that further undermine the long-term security and constitutional principles. More
strategic and long-term security policies that can be sustained with the public‟s support can be
instituted by the policymakers than in the short term.
Globalization's Impact on Public Security Opinion Formation
Diaspora communities influencing domestic foreign policy views
Diaspora communities influencing domestic foreign policy views meaning that they bear
major potential in shaping their respective home countries‟ foreign policy perspectives and
actions. The diaspora is a term that refers to the large populations that are living in foreign
nations while still retaining their cultural links to their home country through family, culture,
business, and politics. They are long-standing connections that provide diasporas with a clear
stake in their home country‟s foreign policy orientations and outcomes. The Armenian
population living in the United States, France, and Russia has been actively engaged in lobbying
the respective countries‟ policies concerning the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the
conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan with support from Turkey. Organizationally and
financially supporting or advocating for Armenian nationalist positions such as the recognition of
the 1915 genocide and favouring positions beneficial to Armenia in regional disputes among
others. Likewise, the Jewish American diaspora, largely residing in the United States, has
influenced America‟s vigorously supportive foreign policy towards Israel through political
lobbying and financial contributions in order to solicit the attention of the legislatures. On the
other side, Cuban Americans migrated to the US have been advocating for the US embargo on
Cuba for over fifty years. In later decades, however, the Indian American populations have had
Page 19 of 23
significant influence in determining positive policies of the United States towards India. The
influence operations can cause tension between the diaspora perspective and the adopted policy
when the diaspora view is opposed to domestic opinion or national interests. National
governments of home countries can also consider the diaspora‟s actions as a threat or an attempt
to dictate the foreign policy of the homeland. The diaspora voices are likely to persist as shaping
foreign policy as governments increasingly recognize the potential of tapping into their overseas
constituencies for investment, votes, and wooing individuals and communities globally. In the
current world where the barriers of communication and transport are more flexible breaking the
geographical barriers, the ties between Diasporas and their homelands will always be strong. It
means that their priorities and perspectives towards regional affairs, alliances, trade tensions, and
many more will determine how nations engage with other nations in the international system.
Global media exposure shaping international security perceptions
Post-modern globalization of the world through communication technologies, media
platforms, and social networks that have developed and proliferated in the last few decades has
influenced the perception of people in the world on issues to do with international security.
Television, the Internet, and social networking platforms have enabled individuals belonging to
different societies and cultures to witness events that take place in other regions of the world in
almost real time. They therefore influence public opinion and attitude formation to this level and
in various ways due to this high exposure to international news and information. On the one
hand, texts and visual images such as pictures or videos showing war, warlike situation, or
humanitarian disasters makes people feel pity and angry which makes the governments or
international organization to be forced to act. The manner in which the general public reacted to
pictures of non-combatants, shared on the social media amidst the conflict in Syria civil war is a
Page 20 of 23
good example. However, media coverage can also create false expectations or contribute to
fuelling conflict in a counterproductive manner, particularly when war situations are reduced to
black and white, good against evil, narratives for ideology or politics. For example, biased
depictions of ethnic and religious diversity conflicts in some areas have in the past made
intergroup tensions worse and ruled out reconciliation or compromise solutions. Given that
channels of mass communication are no longer restricted by boundaries, all societies face these
effects in their consumption of domestic media content or that of other societies. To understand
how crises and conflicts reflect changing nature of international security politics it is also
important to analyze the role of such factors as technology, media institutions, public opinion
and political decision making in different cultures. Frank has acknowledged that mass media on
the one hand can use moral anger to mobilize humanitarianism, while on the other hand,
inflammatory narratives are capable of eradicating complexity and thus contributing to the
deterioration of conflict solution It is evident that as the new communication technologies
advance and the already existing ones become accessible, the challenges of dealing with these
influences as a way of creating a sustainable outlook of international security in the future are
progressive.
Transnational advocacy networks affecting security issue salience
TNAs are also significant in focusing attention and creating awareness about security
issues in the international system. These networks which include activists, NGOs, civil society
organizations and other non-state actors utilize their knowledge, prestige, and access to
information to agitate for specific issues to be included in political agendas and to maintain their
prominence. For instance, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines Consortium reframed
the unregulated landmine problem as a humanitarian issue to propel the ban laid down in the
Page 21 of 23
Ottawa Treaty. This way, these networks reorient problem perceptions and generate pressures on
states to act, which often occurs in partnership with like-minded politicians, IOs, and media.
Conflict over minerals used in products that civilians in other countries consume, guided
transnational activism over conflict minerals from mines controlled by armed groups in the
Democratic Republic of Congo that revealed that continued violence and turmoil were being
supported by global demand for tin, tungsten, and gold. From here, there was legislation like the
Dodd Frank Act in the United States to ensure that companies undertook some level of due
diligence on their supply chain; this was a major achievement. There are also dangers and
criticisms connected to the increased number of transnational advocacy practices; the issues
might be too generalized by networks, and who is given a „place at the table‟ to participate in
policy making still remains skewed in a more top-heavy global north manner, excluding still
more marginalized voices from the global south. It means that there are several questions for the
further research concerning the more appropriate and efficient interaction of these networks with
the state-cent(r)red diplomacy and governance with regard to some security challenges. With
regard to raising awareness, transferring knowledge, making norms creating pressures beyond
state level, it can, beyond doubt be claimed that transnational issue-focused networks have an
important and influential function of defining how some of the most worldwide important issues
in peace and conflict, human rights and governance in the contemporary world is conceived and
tackled. Security issues‟ placement on both elite and mass political agendas as well as their
sustained positioning requires these actors due to transnational social mobilization.
Conclusion
The interface between the public and security policy-making is thus a two-way system,
and hence a challenge in practicing democracy in the governments that are charged with the
Page 22 of 23
implementation of defense policies. On one hand there is the requirement for a security policy
that is desired to reflect the whole policy of the nation and on the other hand, the policy should
fit the values and concerns of the voting citizen as a way of checking the democratic credentials
of the policy makers. Specifically, security threats in the framework of the modern non-
traditional warfare, and threats connected with non-state actors, need more complex approaches
for assessment and management, which regard the concerns of civil societies in the context of
western values, such as, liberty, privacy, and human rights. Yet security is not different from any
other opinion poll whereby people can be enlightened, passionate or swayed by hearsay, in
distinctively, not necessarily endorsing realistic, let alone, sustainable policies. The research
done in this article sympathizes with the need to enhance public awareness on international
security matters as a way of getting a population that is more asserted and informed for policy
contribution. Increasing the public‟s knowledge and understanding of global environment, new
risks, opportunities and vulnerabilities of protection systems contributes to creating factual
accounts and detached attitude towards policymaking while developing suitable and receptive
policies and strategies. Even keeping in mind the fact that the public nor is often well informed,
the issue is where people are more concerned with immediately palpable physical safety than
with the less concrete and multifaceted geopolitical stakes in the future. Thus, governments
cannot fully pay attention to public opinion and adjust policies and needs of the population
accordingly as it is unpredictable and may be guided by short-term desires However, at the same
time, governments cannot simply disregard the population and just impose STEM-based security
policies and actions that the population will not like but which may be necessary because of the
threats. It is this equilibrium that is at the heart of the direction and stability of a security policy.
And finally in democracy, the government needs to have the confidence of the people by
Page 23 of 23
informing and sometimes persuading the „public‟ so that accept the fact that even if they do not
like the proposed security measures needed for the wellbeing of the country and recommended
by the experts, they are necessary to have even if people are not always aware of their „true‟
needs as formed by the local and national newspaper headlines.
