10 March 2008: Foreign interference in elections is hardly a new phenomenon. It was a staple of imperialism and was also used by the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the cold war. It was forthright, obvious, and unapologetic with foreign governments installing and propping up foreign heads of states. In the age of globalization—that old chestnut—it seems to be occurring again, but in a different manner.

U.S. Primary

Over the past month, stories of Senator Hillary Clinton’s imminent demise in the race for the Democratic nomination were ubiquitous. Her rival, Senator Barack Obama, had strung together 11 straight primary and caucus victories and vaulted into the lead. Members of Mrs. Clinton’s staff were backbiting and she had fired her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle. The Clinton campaign was reeling as she tried to win two states that had previously been considered her “firewall” against the surging senator from Illinois—Ohio and Texas. She was particularly vulnerable because of her previous support of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a trade deal that was signed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and is the bête noire for many Americans.

Then came a bombshell; according to a Canadian news report, a leading advisor to the Obama campaign—later identified as University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee—had informed a Canadian government official that any anti-free-trade rhetoric coming from the Obama camp was simply that—rhetoric. (Apparently, someone from the Clinton campaign also informed America’s neighbour to the north to take any anti-NAFTA talk “with a grain of salt.”)

The backlash was quick with Senator Clinton claiming convincing wins in both primary contests, which was seen as essential if her campaign was to continue, leading to the inevitable Comeback Kid metaphors. Mark Penn, the chief strategist to the Clinton campaign, later acknowledged that the affair had a “significant impact” on the two crucial races.

Iran’s Upcoming Election

In the upcoming elections in Iran (check out the Courier’s Spring Issue for more on the subject) there have also been cries of international interference. According to the AFP, a leading Iranian cleric lambasted the United Nations for passing “a hasty resolution in order to influence the elections, so that people would not go and vote.” Last week, the UN passed a third round of sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment. Whether there was any political calculus involved in the timing of the sanctions effort is unclear, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

So while Prime Minister Stephen Harper might reject claims that Canada “could interfere in the American election and pick their president for them … [and] deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election,” the fact is that such interference is a fact of life in this day and age.

International Interference

It is not so simple to remove all international interference. Indeed, it’s inevitable that it will happen. No longer can an election guru rest his or her case about an election with “it’s the economy, stupid.” The economy is now influenced by Hyderabad’s IT industry, Shanghai’s booming exports, and oil facilities in Niger delta as never before. The same can be said for many key election issues; they have gotten more complex with the addition of more global factors over the past two decades.

You might say that international relations have always played a role in elections and that is true. But the Internet and 24-hour news has made the relationship far more dynamic. Now, smaller issues are going to have a larger impact. The influence of Youtube was seen in the 2006 elections in the U.S. and its reaches, by their very nature, are not restricted by international boundaries. In the future, it is inevitable and unavoidable that domestic elections will be influenced by external forces that previously would not have come to bear.

In this brave new world, it is no longer possible for politicians and diplomats to address a domestic audience or a foreign audience. As never before, any word or gesture made by the world’s leaders will be seen and analysed by everyone—regardless of whether the viewer lives in Boston, Berlin, or Bangladesh. To lead a country or a constituency, this is now a fact of life, and indeed this fact may even alter a campaign’s message.

So what is the role of diplomacy in this increasingly globalized world? Can the effects of the so-called Internet 2.0 be controlled? How much harder is it to control the message in an election? And finally, do foreign countries have a responsibility to stay out of the domestic elections of other states?

Send us your thoughts here.