Party politics, Issue entrepreneurs, and Foreign Policy: Explaining Bulgaria's relations with Russia

This paper contributes to refining theories about the domestic politics of foreign policy-making. It seeks to explain how political actors navigate changes in the party system and how this affects a state's foreign policy. The scholarship on foreign policy analysis recognizes partisan dynamics and international opportunities as affecting foreign policy decision-making. However, these accounts do not explain why some foreign policy positions were privileged over others. I argue that we need to consider the meanings attached to foreign policy and how party competition locks in or out particular meanings to understand why some foreign policy decisions were at the disposal of parties’ strategies. Parties do not only politicize foreign policy issues to mobilize support, but they also take issues out of the political arena. They try to change the focus of the political conflict onto foreign policy issues that can disadvantage the opponents. By doing so, they attach meanings to the foreign policy space that evolves together with the party competition, and this produces changes in the ideological positions of parties, motivating policymaking outcomes. In my argument, issue entrepreneurs allow for locking in and out meanings and producing a given foreign policy outcome. The theory is tested by taking the example of Bulgaria’s foreign policy, and its relations with Russia. The instability of party competition in the Balkan country should predict continuous episodes of foreign policy abruption. Nevertheless, the country has experienced comparatively few and gradual variations in its positions towards Russia. Therefore, I show how the continuous shifts in political competition affect partisan strategies, which offer opportunities for change or continuity.