“Diplomats are professionally expected to be most representative of their country.
yet by function of their very own profession they may live in it the least”
(Aljowaily, Amr, 2020, p98)
Representing their countries in ‘foreign’ societies may put diplomats in a constant phase of comparison, especially as they are asked to report on the countries of their accreditation, hence inviting them to monitor and overserve, often critically, the situation of their host countries.
When diplomats publish, especially in their memoirs, they often recount their experience in the different countries where they served. This can provide a crosscutting comparison between a relatively large array of countries, often at different stages of development since most diplomatic services require, or follow, a series of postings based on standards of living in an attempt to mainstream fairness and equality of opportunity. Hence, by definition, the scope of comparison, including in describing experiences of social or economic development, is quite wide in this case. When diplomats publish their experience in one particular posting, there is still a dimension of comparison, yet admittedly with a narrower scope, which would mainly be focused on the country of posting and that of origin.
Diplomats’ Publications and Projecting National Developmental Experience
Since representation and defending national interest are core functions of diplomatic services, projecting the national development model is often part and parcel of the work of diplomats. In recounting their memoirs, diplomats’ publications are expected to cover a large array of such activities, while also addressing how they were received, and evaluating their successes (or even failures).
In doing so, lessons learned on the applicability and relevance of developmental experiences to other societies would be the likely subject of such writings, or at least form part of their content, even if these would include accounts of promotional activities in the name of the sending country. Such findings and ‘lessons learned’ are of great relevance to comparative development experiences. This is particularly the case for diplomats serving sending foreign ministries whose mandate includes development cooperation, and hence the related agencies. 1A review of the related mandates, often evolving, of foreign ministries can be found at Zonova, T, et al, (2007)
Diplomats’ Publications and Importing Foreign Developmental Experience
The other side of the coin is for diplomats whose sending countries are more on the receiving end of development cooperation from the host states. Once again, if their diplomatic services are charged with development cooperation, this is part and parcel of their work and hence would likely feature in their publications recounting their diplomatic experience. This can be the case for developing countries on the receiving end of development processes, given the expected austerity measures leading to limited staff in diplomatic representation. Such duties are performed by ‘regular’ diplomats, who once again may reflect this in their publications.
In fact, diplomats from developing countries posted to ‘more advanced’ countries are expected to be constantly on the look out for relevant development experiences, in different fields. While they would report on it in the dispatches they send back home, these would actually be more prone to be included in their publications, under the assumption that these are relevant, if not interesting, material for the readership back home who may not have the opportunity to travel, live, explore, and study such cases and issues with the access and privileges of a diplomatic role.
The expectation here is that these development experiences cited would be the most relevant and applicable to the ‘home’ country, given the diplomat’s knowledge of national priorities. That would distinguish it from ‘template’ development models derived from theoretical underpinnings that may rest on an ideological agenda or political advocacy not necessarily linked to the indigenous priorities and real needs of the concerned country. That makes such publications by diplomats even more valueable to the readership and policy makers alike, given that they would have passed the test of scrutiny from the perspective of applicability to the home country.
Diplomats’ Publications and Development Studies
Diplomats’ publications do therefore address areas of comparative development. This would carry over to related studies, whose definition we cite from Choudhury, M. A. , (1993, p33) as follows
“…we can now clearly define the field of comparative development study: it may be seen as an ethico-economic study of economy and society through the interface of multiple factors impinging upon sustainable development. But these multiple factors are analysable either by pure critical reason or by empirical reasoning. In either case, this leads to the determination of cause and effect between global ethical values, the market system, and the polity. The latter is taken in the widest sense to mean global governance as well.”
We note that this definition covers not only empirical methods, which may not necessarily be expected in diplomatic memoirs, given the academic rigor that it would require. It also extends to critical reason, which would logically form part of diplomats’ publications, given their professional expertise and the information available to them through their networks. Another relevant definition would also encompass diplomats’ writings within the field as follows:
“Development Studies (also known as ‘international development studies’ or ‘international development’) is a multi- and inter-disciplinary field of study rather than a single discipline. It seeks to understand the interplay between social, economic, political, technological, ecological, cultural and gendered aspects of societal change at the local, national, regional and global levels.”
(EADI, n.d)
Here it is clear that the dimension of multidisciplinary allows for the inclusion of several inputs into developing these studies, where related diplomats’ publications can be included as one such ‘input’. As the majority of diplomats around the world and across diplomatic systems are more ‘generalists’ than ‘specialists’ for several reasons including challenges related to the number of personnel possible compared to the financial resources available, diplomats’ publications would be expected to cover more than one disciplinary focus, hence further enriching them as sources of multidisciplinary examination. Once again, diplomats’ writings may be considered both as primary and secondary sources in this context, depending on the level and quality of analysis and interpretation contained therein.
Conclusion
A diplomat’s journey is one of perpetual comparison by virtue of their living in one country yet representing another. When they publish, the element of comparison is almost inherent in their writings. When that relates to development experiences either one’s own or the other’s, such writings contribute to comparative development by definition, and if they pursue a more rigorous form of scrutiny, then also to development studies. This is particularly the case for ‘development diplomats’ who work for agencies of development that belong to foreign ministries, as is the case in several examples around the world, perhaps the latest of which being the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Cooperation offices in the UK. Such writings bring even more value as they are expected to be devoid of ideological bias or political advocacy agendas aiming to impose certain development models and templates on other societies, without taking into consideration the specificity of their situations. They would rather be expected to be driven by genuine national interest benefits that are sought by sharing such experiences.
References
Aljowaily, Amr (2020), Quote Unquote – Iqtibasat Min Alzat (Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization) ISBN:9789779127040.
Choudhury, M. A. (1993). Comparative development studies: in search of the world view. Springer.
European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes. (n.d.). Definition of development studies. EADI. https://www.eadi.org/development-studies/definition-of-development-studies. Accessed on 27 December 2024.
Zonova, T., Hocking, B., Rana, K., Blackwell, A., O’Keefe, J., Srivihok, V., … & Kurbalija, J. (2007). Foreign ministries: Managing diplomatic networks and optimizing value. DiploFoundation.
Click to show page navigation!
