This week's lecture focused on personalism, similar to last week, however with an emphasis on the causes and consequences that personalist rulers may have on a state, as well as the different approaches to foreign policy that personalist rulers may engage with. I was curious though, I wondered which approach to foreign policy would benefit and ensure the longevity of a personalist ruler the most? An aggressive approach to foreign policy? Or an isolationist approach instead?
We looked at aggressive approaches to foreign policy during this week's lecture. An example of a personalist nation with an aggressive foreign policy is Russia. Currently as of 2024 Russia is still continuing the invasion of Ukraine, with mass casualties over 500 thousand. The aggressiveness of this invasion has led to mass sanctions by various members of the United Nations, such as the United States and many of the western aligned nations in europe. This invasion was a result of the aggressive foreign policy that Russia undertook during President Vladimirs Putins rule, this has led to many negatives as trade with various countries and regions such as the europe region has been negatively affected. However it still seems that support for Putin is high, even as casualties from the war continue to climb. However, how does this affect Putin's long term reign? I believe that as casualties and economic sanctions continue to rise, Putin's rule will be threatened by economic turmoil within Russia, leading to civil unrest and the possible end of his reign. However this is all my theory.
On the other hand the state of Turkmenistan is governed by a personalist ruler however they continue to remain strong due to their isonalists policy. In fact, many of their foreign policies are highly isolated and trade with the outside world remains rare in comparison to other nations. Turkmenistan has only just started opening its borders up towards tourism, having opened up its borders in march 2023. Despite their isolanists rule, the ruler of Turkmenistan; Serdar Berdimuhamedow has had strong support and the country faces no economic sanctions or war that would threaten the economy of the nations. I believe that a country, especially one with a personalist ruler, has a much better chance of their rule continuing as long as the economy within the state is relatively stable.
I believe that an isolationist foreign policy prevents war and economic sanctions that would threaten personalist rule. An aggressive foreign policy places too much pressure and attention onto the state, which can lead to negative effects, such as foreign manipulation and economic sanctions. By having an isolated foreign policy I believe that a personalist ruler is able to maintain better control over its citizens and nation, and prevents outside involvement from other states. However it's important to note that this is a case by case basis and that many other factors impact the longevity of a personalist ruler.
https://index.minfin.com.ua/en/russian-invading/casualties/
https://central-asia.guide/turkmenistan/turkmenistan-visa-information/#:~:text=Turkmenistan%20is%20Open%20and%20Welcoming,test%20performed%20at%20the%20arrival.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-russia/sanctions-against-russia-explained/
Good points Manate - I thought you might have been referring to the policy of other states towards personalist dictatorship when I started to read your post, though. Aggressive foreign policy may also result from other factors - personalism is only one of the possible factors; but you are right that some personalist rulers do not engage in aggressive foreign policies.
ReplyDelete