Populists challenge diplomacy

It’s February 17, 2018. On stage at the Munich Security Conference, British Prime Minister Theresa May declares: “Europe’s security is our security.” She pledges that the UK will remain closely tied to the EU on defense and security after Brexit, through a new agreement.

Two years later, the UK has left the EU without such a deal. How did it come to this?

In a new article, NUPI researcher Øyvind Svendsen and Benjamin Martill (University of Edinburgh) explore how populist leaders reshape diplomacy once in power, with Brexit as their case study.

“Diplomacy depends on cooperation, norms, and agreed rules for how problems are handled. The question is: what happens when populist leaders disregard those norms?” asks Svendsen, Senior Research Fellow at NUPI.

A politicized diplomacy

“When the Brexit process began in 2016, most assumed security and defense cooperation would be straightforward. The UK and EU had shared interests, especially given the threat from Russia,” Svendsen explains.

But after three failed attempts to secure a withdrawal deal with the EU, May stepped down as prime minister.

In the summer of 2019, Boris Johnson took over and immediately adopted a tougher stance. He strengthened his position by attacking May’s ‘weak’ approach and promising a harder Brexit. Instead of seeking compromise, he openly attacked the EU. He removed diplomats he considered too pro-European and appealed to the most uncompromising Brexit supporters.

“Johnson did succeed in striking a withdrawal agreement, but with a completely different style of diplomacy. He politicized the diplomatic service, turning professionals into political instruments. In a way, he hijacked diplomacy,” says Svendsen.

Populists often claim to represent the ‘will of the people’ in opposition to established institutions. They present themselves as outsiders in contrast to the elite, underlining this distance by deliberately breaking political and diplomatic norms. Bureaucrats and diplomats are often described as part of a ‘deep state’ that blocks the people’s interests.

“This is a distinct political style. It builds support through authenticity, norm-breaking, polarization, and an aggressive defense of national interests. When this approach is directed at diplomacy, which has traditionally been insulated from partisan conflict, the processes are disrupted in a completely new way,” Svendsen explains.

The authors show how Johnson used this tactic in practice: He portrayed May’s attempts to preserve security cooperation with the EU as weak and unsuccessful. He then broke with the established arrangements and used the break itself to rally political support at home.

No EU security agreement

“With this confrontational style, he destroyed the cooperative climate. That made it impossible to establish a separate security deal between the EU and the UK,” says Svendsen.

Instead, Britain pursued bilateral deals with individual states, a far less effective route than negotiating through the EU. By the time the transition period ended in 2021, the UK was left without a formal security framework.

"They were left with weaker security cooperation with the EU than Norway, Canada, and the United States, all of which have their own agreements with the EU,” Svendsen notes.

Two competing views of competence

Traditionally, research on diplomacy has emphasized social competence. Diplomats operate within certain rules: to be a good diplomat, you need social skills. You must know the rules of the game in the room.

“In the article, we show that when research on diplomacy emphasizes social competence, it overlooks what happens when populists come to power and do not recognize these rules. Boris Johnson broke with these norms and applied a different type of competence: a populist competence.”

Populists redefine what counts as effective. And because they hold power, they can force the diplomatic service to bend to their rules.

"Diplomats saw this as rule-breaking and incompetence. Johnson’s voters saw it as strength and competence. Two different understandings of ‘competence’ collided,” says Svendsen.

Nationalism versus cooperation

“At its core, this is about the tension between nationalism and international cooperation. Many Britons supported Boris Johnson because they believed national interests had to come first, and because they regarded the EU as undemocratic,” Svendsen explains.

In his view, diplomacy works best when left to professionals and shielded from partisan politics. Once populist leaders make it about national interests, international cooperation becomes far more fragile.

“Brexit is one case. Another is Hungary, where Viktor Orbán has placed loyal party members in the diplomatic corps. They actively resist EU policy, including on Ukraine.

This shows how much international cooperation is weakened when bureaucracy and diplomacy lose their independence.”