The Politicization of Diplomacy: Professional Erosion, Personalized Leadership and the Transformation of Diplomatic Practice

 

Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir Yasamis

 

 

 

Abstract

Diplomacy has traditionally been defined as a professional domain grounded in expertise, formal training, and institutional continuity. In the modern state system, ministries of foreign affairs have functioned not only as administrative bodies implementing foreign policy, but also as repositories of institutional memory and analytical capacity. In recent years, however, this classical understanding of diplomacy has increasingly come under pressure. Across different political regimes-particularly those characterized by the centralization and personalization of executive authority- diplomatic practice has been reshaped by political loyalty, personalized leadership, and the erosion of professional norms.

This article examines the politicization of diplomacy as a regime-level transformation rather than a series of isolated appointment decisions or individual political preferences. Adopting a comparative perspective, it analyzes how diplomatic education, career systems, and appointment practices are being redefined in contemporary political systems, with particular attention to the cases of the United States and Turkey. These cases illustrate distinct but converging patterns through which institutional autonomy in foreign policy has weakened and diplomatic representation has increasingly become subordinated to executive-centered political authority.

Beyond the expansion of political appointments, the article argues that the politicization of diplomacy also involves a deeper epistemic dimension: the retreat of the diplomatic profession from systematic analytical and knowledge-producing functions. Drawing on theoretical literature, comparative cases, and the author’s professional experience as a diplomacy educator and practitioner, the article demonstrates how this dual erosion undermines diplomatic capacity, institutional memory, and the long-term coherence of foreign policy. The findings suggest that contemporary transformations in diplomacy should be understood not merely as organizational change, but as reflective of broader shifts in state–bureaucracy relations and the nature of political authority in the international arena.

Keywords: Diplomacy; Politicization; Professionalization; Foreign Service; Personalized Leadership; Diplomatic Education; Institutional Erosion

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Diplomacy has historically evolved as a professional field grounded in expertise, formal training, and institutional continuity alongside the emergence of the modern state. Ministries of foreign affairs are not merely administrative units responsible for implementing foreign policy; they function as institutions that sustain the state’s international memory, diplomatic language, and capacity for negotiation. Within this framework, the diplomat has traditionally been positioned as a public actor representing the long-term interests of the state rather than the temporary preferences of political power. Career systems, merit-based promotion, and professional socialization have served as the foundational mechanisms safeguarding the institutional character of diplomacy.

In recent years, however, this classical understanding of diplomacy has increasingly eroded. Across different regime types -particularly in political systems marked by the centralization and personalization of executive power- the institutional role of diplomacy has weakened, while foreign policy decision-making has acquired an increasingly leader-centric character. This transformation is less about changes in the personal qualifications of diplomats than about a redefinition of the very meaning of diplomatic representation. Ambassadorial posts are gradually shifting away from being professional offices of institutional representation toward becoming arenas in which the political preferences of the executive and the leader’s personal trust networks are tested and consolidated.

The growing prevalence of non-career diplomatic appointments, the declining influence of ministries of foreign affairs in decision-making processes, and the concentration of foreign policy formulation within a narrow executive circle constitute the most visible indicators of this trend. These developments should not be interpreted merely as administrative preferences or isolated appointment decisions. On the contrary, they point to a structural process closely linked to broader transformations in political regimes. In this context, diplomacy increasingly evolves from a field defined by technical expertise into a practice shaped primarily by political loyalty and direct personal ties to executive leadership. Yet diplomacy in the modern state system has been normatively defined as a profession requiring expertise, institutional memory, and continuity (Sharp, 2009; Neumann, 2012).

The cases of the United States and Turkey are particularly illustrative of how this transformation unfolds across different political traditions. In the United States, a long-standing tradition of political ambassadorial appointments expanded significantly during the Trump administration, at times substituting diplomatic merit with personal and political loyalty. In Turkey, by contrast, ambassadorial appointments that are legally defined as exceptional have increasingly become routine practice, signaling a profound transformation within a diplomatic corps historically characterized by strong institutionalization and professional training. In both cases, the common denominator is the erosion of diplomacy’s institutional autonomy and the strengthening of a leader-centered understanding of political representation. Recent scholarship similarly points to the weakening of institutional foreign policy frameworks and the rise of personalized, leader-driven decision-making processes (Fukuyama, 2014; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).

This study approaches the politicization of diplomacy and the erosion of professional diplomatic norms not as the outcome of individual preferences, but as a regime-level transformation. Adopting a comparative perspective, it examines how diplomatic education, career systems, and appointment practices are being redefined across different political contexts, and analyzes the implications of these changes for diplomatic capacity, institutional memory, and the continuity of foreign policy.

Drawing on theoretical literature, comparative country cases, and the author’s professional experience as a diplomacy educator [1] and practitioner, [2] this study further interrogates the transformation of the diplomatic profession from both analytical and experiential vantage points. Beyond political appointment practices alone, it conceptualizes the politicization of diplomacy as a dual process that also involves the profession’s retreat from systematic analytical and knowledge-producing functions. The paper argues that this twofold erosion has significant consequences for states’ foreign policy capacity in an increasingly complex international environment.

Aims and Objectives

Aim

The primary aim of this study is to examine the transformation of diplomacy in contemporary political regimes, particularly the shift from a professional field grounded in expertise and institutional continuity toward a model shaped by political loyalty and leader-centered representation. Rather than attributing this transformation to individual administrative preferences, the study approaches the weakening of the relationship between diplomatic education, career systems, and appointment practices as a reflection of broader structural changes within political regimes. In this context, it analyzes the implications of the politicization of diplomacy for state capacity, institutional memory, and the continuity of foreign policy.

Objectives

In line with this overarching aim, the study pursues the following objectives:

To situate the concept of professional diplomacy within a historical and theoretical framework, demonstrating why education, merit, and career systems have traditionally occupied a central role in diplomatic practice.

To analyze the processes of politicization and personalization in diplomacy, and to explain how leader-centered political structures reshape established patterns of diplomatic representation.

To examine, through a comparative lens, the growing prevalence of non-career diplomatic appointments in the United States and Turkey, and to assess whether similar patterns generate convergent outcomes across different political traditions.

To explore the growing disconnect between diplomacy education and appointment practices, and to critically assess the relevance and positioning of academic and professional training in the field of diplomacy under contemporary political conditions.

To identify how the functions and roles of diplomacy are being redefined across different regime types- including liberal democracies, populist democracies, and semi-authoritarian systems.

To evaluate the effects of political and non-career appointments on diplomatic capacity and institutional memory, particularly with respect to the continuity, coherence, and predictability of foreign policy.

Finally, to demonstrate that the erosion of professional diplomatic norms represents not merely a sector-specific challenge within foreign policy, but a broader indicator of transformation in the institutional structure of the modern state.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study seeks to address the following core research questions:

Under what historical and institutional conditions did the concept of professional diplomacy emerge, and why was diplomacy long regarded as a profession grounded in education, merit, and career development?

What does the politicization of diplomacy signify analytically, and how is this process related to the centralization of executive power within political regimes?

How does leader-centered governance in contemporary political systems transform the nature of diplomatic representation and the professional profile of diplomats?

What effects does the growing prevalence of non-career (political) diplomatic appointments have on the autonomy and institutional memory of foreign ministries?

In the cases of the United States and Turkey, how do discrepancies between legal frameworks and actual appointment practices affect the professional character of diplomacy?

How does the weakening relationship between diplomacy education and appointment and promotion practices reshape the function and legitimacy of academic training in the field of diplomacy?

Across different regime types -liberal democratic, populist, and semi-authoritarian- how is diplomacy conceptualized either as an institutional state activity or as an instrument of personal leadership?

What structural consequences does the erosion of professional diplomacy produce in terms of the continuity, predictability, and institutional coherence of foreign policy?

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

This study is designed as a qualitative, comparative analysis grounded in an interpretive research approach. Its primary objective is to examine the transformation of diplomacy from a professional field anchored in expertise into a domain increasingly defined by political loyalty and leader-centered representation across different political regimes. Rather than relying on quantitative measurement, the study focuses on understanding institutional structures, appointment practices, and discursive transformations that shape contemporary diplomatic practice. Comparative qualitative analysis is combined with experience-based evaluation in order to capture both institutional patterns and professional dynamics (Neumann, 2012).

Research Design

The research adopts a comparative case study design. Countries exhibiting distinct diplomatic traditions, political system structures, and appointment practices are selected in order to analyze how similar political tendencies generate different institutional outcomes. The analysis prioritizes systematic transformations observed within states rather than isolated events, aiming to identify broader structural patterns.

The United States and Turkey constitute the primary case studies of the research. Despite their divergent political and administrative traditions, both countries have experienced a notable increase in non-career and politically motivated diplomatic appointments in recent years, rendering them suitable for comparative analysis. Where relevant, secondary comparisons are drawn from additional country cases, such as selected European Union member states or Gulf countries, to contextualize and enrich the core analysis.

Data Collection

The study employs both primary and secondary qualitative data sources. Data collection draws on the following materials: Official documents and legal texts regulating diplomatic appointment procedures, institutional reports published by governments and ministries of foreign affairs, publicly available data and official statements on diplomatic appointments, academic literature, policy documents, and expert analyses, reviews of academic curricula and training programs related to diplomacy education and professional socialization. These sources enable a discursive and institutional examination of the relationship between diplomacy education and appointment practices.

Analytical Strategy

Qualitative content analysis and comparative institutional analysis are employed in tandem. Diplomatic appointments and foreign policy discourse in the selected country cases are first analyzed independently, after which the findings are compared through the conceptual lenses of professional diplomacy, political loyalty, and leader-centered governance. The analysis focuses less on country-specific variation than on shared structural outcomes emerging across distinct political contexts.

Limitations

This study does not seek to measure the quantitative impact of diplomatic appointments on foreign policy outcomes. It intentionally avoids assessments of individual diplomats’ performance and instead concentrates on institutional and structural transformations. While the limited number of case studies constrains the generalizability of findings, this limitation is consistent with the study’s objective of in-depth qualitative analysis.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study draws upon three interrelated theoretical approaches to explain the transformation of diplomacy: professional bureaucracy and Weberian conceptions of the state, the politicization of diplomacy, and leader-centered governance. Together, these perspectives allow for an analysis of why diplomacy historically emerged as a profession grounded in expertise and why it is increasingly redefined today on the basis of political loyalty.

The Institutionalization of Diplomacy as a Professional Bureaucratic Activity

Modern diplomacy developed as an integral component of the bureaucratic state model defined by Max Weber’s conception of rational–legal authority. In this framework, public officials perform specialized functions governed by impersonal rules rather than personal loyalty. The diplomat is thus positioned as a professional actor representing the continuity of the state rather than the transient preferences of political power. Diplomacy has been understood not merely as interstate negotiation, but also as a process of knowledge production and interpretation (Sharp, 2009; Constantinou, 2013).

The Weberian bureaucratic ideal legitimized merit-based recruitment, career systems, and professional socialization within diplomacy. Diplomacy education functioned not only as a mechanism for transmitting technical knowledge, but also as a means of constructing institutional identity and professional ethics. Within this framework, the diplomat is not “the leader’s agent” but an institutionally authorized representative of the state. Weberian bureaucracy is thus defined as a rational–legal structure grounded in specialization and professional competence (Weber, 1978).

The Politicization of Diplomacy and the Erosion of Institutional Autonomy

In this study, the politicization of diplomacy is defined as the process through which foreign policy becomes subordinated to party-political or leader-centered preferences, and diplomatic positions are filled primarily on the basis of political trust rather than professional merit. This process is characterized by the declining influence of foreign ministries in decision-making and the transformation of diplomatic representation into a direct extension of executive authority.

The erosion of institutional autonomy should not be understood merely as an administrative problem, but as part of a broader transformation of political regimes. In systems marked by centralized power and weakened checks and balances, even highly specialized public domains such as diplomacy become subject to political control, shifting the balance between technical expertise and political loyalty decisively in favor of the latter.

Leader-Centered Governance and Personalized Foreign Policy

The growing literature on leader-centered governance emphasizes that foreign policy is increasingly shaped by leaders’ personal perceptions, preferences, and interpersonal relationships rather than institutional procedures. Within this context, diplomacy shifts away from multilateral, institution-based engagement toward direct leader-to-leader communication and personalized trust networks. This transformation redefines the nature of diplomatic representation itself. Ambassadors increasingly function not as carriers of institutional memory, but as direct transmitters of the leader’s political stance and discourse. As a result, professional training and accumulated experience in diplomacy become secondary, while personal proximity to leadership assumes greater importance.

Regime Types and the Nature of Diplomacy

This theoretical framework rests on the assumption that the nature of diplomacy is closely tied to regime type. Even in liberal democracies, periods marked by populist and personalized leadership can trigger the politicization of diplomacy, while in semi-authoritarian and authoritarian systems such politicization may become institutionalized as a governing norm. Accordingly, this study treats diplomacy not merely as a foreign policy issue, but as an indicator of broader transformations in the institutional structure of the state and the exercise of political authority.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF DIPLOMATIC PROFESSION

Although diplomacy has evolved alongside the emergence of interstate relations, it acquired the characteristics of a professional occupation relatively late. In ancient and medieval periods, diplomatic activities largely revolved around temporary missions, personal proximity to rulers, and delegated representation on behalf of sovereign authority. Envoys during these eras functioned not as members of a permanent professional corps, but primarily as personal representatives of rulers.

The institutionalization of professional diplomacy began in the early modern period, particularly in Europe, with the emergence of permanent embassies. The practice of resident diplomacy developed by Italian city-states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries established continuity in diplomatic representation and laid the groundwork for diplomacy as a specialized activity. This transformation repositioned diplomats from mere messengers into professionals responsible for negotiation, information gathering, and systematic reporting on behalf of the state.

The nineteenth century marked a decisive turning point in the professionalization of diplomacy. With the rise of the modern nation-state, ministries of foreign affairs became institutionalized, and recruitment, training, and promotion of diplomats were increasingly regulated through formal rules. Diplomacy gradually moved away from aristocratic and personal modes of representation toward a professional public service grounded in legal expertise, international relations, and foreign language proficiency.

In the twentieth century, particularly after the two World Wars, diplomacy education acquired an academic and institutional dimension. Diplomatic academies, foreign service schools, and university-based programs established standardized pre-service and in-service training frameworks. These developments reinforced diplomacy as a professional field grounded in technical expertise, ethical principles, and institutional affiliation. However, this historical trajectory should not be interpreted as a linear or irreversible progression. On the contrary, forms of personalized representation and sovereign-centered authority characteristic of early diplomatic practice have re-emerged in contemporary political contexts. Accordingly, the historical evolution of diplomacy should be understood not solely as a narrative of progress, but as an analytical backdrop for interpreting current transformations.

DIPLOMACY EDUCATION, PROFESSIONALIZATION AND THE CONTEMPORARY DISJUNCTION

The institutionalization of diplomacy as a professional field has historically relied on a relative alignment between education and practice. Diplomacy education has aimed not only to transmit technical knowledge, but also to cultivate professional ethics, institutional belonging, and shared norms of representation. As such, diplomatic training functioned as a socialization process that sustained continuity and predictability in state representation beyond the teaching of international relations, international law, and foreign languages.

Throughout much of the twentieth century, diplomatic academies, specialized schools, and university-based programs constituted the primary mechanisms for training diplomats. These institutions aimed to shape candidates around shared norms, codes of conduct, and professional identities, ensuring that diplomacy was practiced on the basis of institutional responsibility rather than personal loyalty. In this respect, diplomacy education operated as a buffer protecting the institutional character of foreign policy from the transient political preferences of executive leadership. The erosion of institutional effectiveness under personalized leadership has emerged as a central theme in the contemporary literature on democratic backsliding and authoritarianization (Fukuyama, 2014; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).

In recent years, however, the relationship between diplomacy education and appointment and promotion practices has markedly weakened. Across numerous political systems, individuals with formal diplomatic training and career progression are increasingly replaced by candidates selected on the basis of political preference. As a result, diplomacy education risks being reduced from a professional prerequisite to a loosely connected body of knowledge with limited relevance to actual diplomatic practice. Institutional demand for professionally trained diplomats declines, and diplomacy increasingly transforms from a learned profession into a position defined by political trust.

This disjunction generates consequences not only for practitioners, but also for institutions providing diplomacy education. As organic links between educational programs and foreign ministries weaken, diplomacy programs face the risk of becoming academically isolated from practice. The severing of ties between education and employment calls into question the legitimacy and functional relevance of diplomacy training.

The weakening nexus between education and appointment practices is closely associated with leader-centered political systems. In contexts marked by concentrated and personalized executive power, personal trust relationships with leadership outweigh professional expertise as the primary criterion for diplomatic appointment. Under such conditions, diplomacy education loses its role as a rationalizing instrument of foreign policy and instead assumes a secondary, and in some cases entirely marginal, position.

From the perspective of this study, diplomacy education is not a supplementary component of professional diplomacy, but a constitutive condition of its existence. The rupture between education and appointment practices indicates that diplomacy is being redefined on the basis of political loyalty and that the professionalization process is effectively being reversed. Consequently, the contemporary crisis of diplomacy education reflects not the shortcomings of individual programs or institutions, but a broader transformation at the level of political regimes.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF DIPLOMACY IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL TRENDS

Recent transformations in diplomacy are not confined to specific countries or individual political leaders. Across diverse regime types and political traditions, strikingly similar patterns have emerged, indicating that the erosion of diplomatic professionalization reflects a shared structural transformation rather than isolated national practices.

One of the most salient dimensions of this global trend is the relationship between the centralization of executive power and the personalization of diplomatic representation. Even within liberal democracies, periods characterized by the rise of populist leadership witness the displacement of foreign policy decision-making from institutional structures toward narrow executive circles. Diplomatic appointments increasingly become arenas in which political loyalty prevails, diminishing the coordinating and technical role of foreign ministries and reinforcing leader-centered modes of representation.

Developments observed in selected European Union member states illustrate this tendency. Particularly during periods in which populist and nationalist political discourse gains prominence, foreign policy is often framed through narratives of restoring “national sovereignty.” Within this framework, career diplomats are replaced by politically reliable and ideologically aligned figures. Rather than overtly rejecting diplomatic professionalism, such practices deliberately render it functionally marginal.

A comparable but distinct transformation can be observed in Gulf states and certain authoritarian regimes. In these contexts, diplomacy may retain a formal appearance of professionalism and technical competence, yet key diplomatic positions are predominantly occupied by individuals embedded within personal trust networks of ruling elites. Professional training and technical expertise are not entirely excluded; instead, they are subordinated to political loyalty as secondary attributes. Professionalism, therefore, operates not as an autonomous principle, but as a controlled and instrumental resource.

This global landscape presents a critical paradox for the future of diplomacy. While international relations have become increasingly complex, multi-layered, and technically demanding, the institutional foundations of professional diplomacy are weakening. Digital diplomacy, direct leader-to-leader communication, and personalized channels increasingly substitute for institution-based diplomatic engagement.

Accordingly, contemporary transformations in diplomacy should be understood not as a technical adaptation to changing international conditions, but as part of a broader debate concerning the exercise and limits of political authority. The global trend suggests that professional diplomacy is no longer a universal norm, but a contingent practice shaped by regime type and leadership style. The cases of the United States and Turkey provide analytically rich and comparative contexts through which this global pattern can be examined in greater depth.

A COMPARATIVE CLUSTERING BASED ON SIMILARITIES: A TYPOLOGY OF GLOBAL DIPLOMATIC TRANSFORMATION

Recent changes in the institutional and professional character of diplomacy represent not isolated national deviations but a global pattern clustered around regime types and leadership styles. Countries can therefore be grouped according to shared patterns in diplomatic recruitment, the centralization of foreign policy decision-making, and the position of professional diplomats within political systems.

Liberal-Democratic Traditions Moving toward Personalized Leadership

Countries in this group possessed strongly institutionalized diplomatic traditions but have recently shifted toward loyalty-based appointments due to the centralization of executive authority.

The United States during the Trump presidency represents a clear example. Although political ambassadorial appointments have long existed in the U.S., under Trump this practice evolved into an overt system of personal loyalty, financial contribution, and political allegiance. Career diplomats lost influence, foreign policy became personalized, and institutional memory eroded.

The United Kingdom, particularly in the post-Brexit era, exhibits a comparable though distinct trajectory. While the UK maintains one of the world’s strongest diplomatic traditions, Brexit has shifted decision-making authority from the Foreign Office toward the Prime Minister’s Office. This has diminished the role of career diplomats and increased political appointments, especially in trade diplomacy. In these cases, professionalism is not eliminated but clearly subordinated to leadership preferences.

Countries Where Elected Leaders Deliberately Weaken Institutions

The second group consists of countries where elected leaders intentionally weaken state institutions, incorporating diplomacy into the regime’s ideological apparatus. Hungary under Viktor Orban exemplifies this pattern. Under the rhetoric of “national interest,” ideological alignment and leader-level negotiations have replaced institutional diplomacy. Similarly, under Poland’s Law and Justice Party, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been marginalized, with foreign policy increasingly driven by presidential and party structures. In such cases, regime continuity, rather than state continuity, becomes the defining principle of diplomacy.

Semi-Authoritarian and Authoritarian Consolidation Regimes

The third group includes countries where authoritarian consolidation has advanced substantially, transforming diplomacy into an instrument of regime security and power projection. In Russia under Vladimir Putin, ambassadorial posts are frequently filled by individuals from the security services, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs functions primarily as a transmission belt for presidential directives. In China under Xi Jinping, diplomacy has been reshaped as a test of Party loyalty. “Wolf warrior diplomacy” recasts diplomats as ideological combatants rather than expert negotiators. Professional expertise remains relevant but is subordinate to political allegiance.

Monarchical Systems Practicing Controlled Professionalism

The final category comprises monarchical or semi-monarchical systems that preserve diplomatic professionalism while centralizing ultimate authority.

The United Arab Emirates illustrates a model of controlled professionalism: diplomats are well trained and technically skilled, yet strategically sensitive posts are reserved for individuals trusted by the ruling elites. Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salman reflects a similar pattern, with traditional bureaucracy weakened and loyalty-centered leadership prioritizing personal channels over institutional diplomacy. Professionalism persists, but within carefully circumscribed limits.

DISCUSSION: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE DIPLOMATIC PROFESSION BETWEEN INSTITUTIONALITY AND LOYALTY

The comparative findings demonstrate that diplomacy is increasingly detached from its traditional role as a technical domain of foreign policy expertise. In regimes marked by centralized executive power and personalized leadership, diplomacy shifts from an element of state capacity toward a direct extension of political authority.

This transformation challenges core assumptions of the traditional diplomatic profession, which presupposed long-term training, institutional socialization, merit, and hierarchical progression. These principles are increasingly replaced by personal trust, political loyalty, and ideological compatibility.

The findings also show that this process is not uniform. In liberal-democratic systems, professional diplomacy endures but is weakened; in regimes characterized by deliberate institutional erosion, diplomacy becomes openly ideological; and in monarchical systems, expertise is maintained but subordinated to centralized authority.

The central question, therefore, is not whether diplomacy requires education, but under what political conditions education retains meaningful value. This question will be further explored through the comparative case studies of the United States and Turkey.

CASE STUDY I: THE POLITICIZATION OF DIPLOMACY IN THE UNITED STATES

(An Assessment of the Trump Era)

The United States is widely regarded as one of the strongest examples of institutionalized professional diplomacy. The Rogers Act of 1924 [3] provided the legal foundation for a career-based Foreign Service system grounded in merit and hierarchical advancement. Throughout the twentieth century, this structure underpinned the continuity of U.S. foreign policy. Under Trump, however, institutional continuity gave way to loyalty-based appointments (Hall, 2018).

Although political ambassadorial appointments have historically existed in the U.S., they traditionally supplemented-rather than supplanted- the professional system. (McDougall, 2016) Under Donald Trump’s presidency (2017–2021), this balance was fundamentally altered. Donors, personal associates, and political allies increasingly filled ambassadorial positions, while career diplomats were marginalized.

Foreign policy decision-making became centralized in the White House, transforming the State Department into an implementing rather than policy-shaping institution. This led to resignations, early retirements, and weakened institutional memory. Diplomatic performance became defined by loyalty and message discipline rather than negotiation skill or regional expertise.

Despite these shifts, institutional counterweights -Congressional oversight, media scrutiny, and bureaucratic resistance- limited the extent of personalization. Thus, the Trump era represents not the elimination of professional diplomacy, but a profound and temporary politicization. The U.S. case demonstrates that legal frameworks alone cannot safeguard professional diplomacy without corresponding respect for institutional norms and constraints.

CASE STUDY II: THE TRANSFORMATION OF DIPLOMACY IN TURKEY

From an Institutional Profession to Political Loyalty

Since the founding of the Republic, diplomacy in Turkey has been structured as one of the central pillars of state-building. In the early Republican period, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was designed not merely as a technical bureaucracy responsible for conducting foreign policy, but as an elite institutional cadre representing the international legitimacy, secular identity, and rationalist foundations of the newly established state. Consequently, diplomacy in Turkey was long regarded as a profession grounded in formal training, meritocratic recruitment, and hierarchical career progression.

From a legal perspective, diplomatic posts in the Turkish public administration are classified as exceptional positions, which in principle allows for external appointments. However, for decades political and bureaucratic traditions restrained the use of this flexibility, and non-career ambassadorial appointments remained quantitatively and qualitatively exceptional. In this respect, Turkey once offered a notable example of alignment between legal discretion and institutional norms. Over time, however, foreign policy decision-making has become increasingly centralized, and the institutional weight of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has gradually diminished. (Kalaycıoğlu, 2020)

This balance began to erode markedly in the late 2000s and became particularly pronounced following the transition to the Presidential Government System. Foreign policy making has grown more centralized, leader-centered, and personalized, while the institutional role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has weakened. Diplomacy has increasingly been shaped by the political priorities of the executive rather than by long-term state interests and institutional memory. This transformation closely aligns with the literature on competitive authoritarianism. (Özbudun, 2015)

The shift is most visible in ambassadorial appointments. The rise in non-career ambassadorial appointments reflects not merely a quantitative change, but a qualitative rupture in the meaning of diplomacy itself. Criteria such as diplomatic training, regional expertise, and professional experience have steadily lost centrality, while political loyalty, ideological alignment, and direct personal trust with the leader have become decisive. As a result, the technical and deliberative dimensions of diplomacy have weakened, and external representation has been increasingly equated with political representation.

The key distinction between Turkey and the United States lies in the durability of this politicization. Whereas in the U.S. congressional oversight, media scrutiny, and bureaucratic resistance have constrained the full personalization of diplomacy, the weakening of countervailing forces in Turkey has rendered this transformation far more structural and difficult to reverse. Foreign policy decision-making has been concentrated within a narrow executive circle, and ambassadors have increasingly functioned less as policy interlocutors than as extensions of centralized authority.

In this context, diplomacy in Turkey has shifted away from being an instrument of state policy in the classical sense and has become a vehicle for transmitting the regime’s ideological and political orientations to the external world. This transformation affects not only the internal dynamics of the diplomatic profession but also foreign policy outcomes. The erosion of institutional coherence, declining predictability, and reliance on personalized relations have rendered Turkey’s international positioning more fragile.

Ultimately, the Turkish case renders the question of whether diplomacy requires education largely irrelevant. The core issue is not the existence of diplomatic training, but the disappearance of its binding force vis-à-vis political power. In this respect, Turkey represents a paradigmatic case of regimes in which diplomacy is redefined primarily along axes of political loyalty rather than professional expertise. When considered together with the U.S. case, this assessment demonstrates that the fate of contemporary diplomacy is driven not only by systemic international dynamics, but directly by transformations in domestic political regimes.

THE FUTURE OF DIPLOMATIC EDUCATION: FROM PROFESSION TO LOYALTY-BASED DOMAIN?

The central finding derived from the U.S. and Turkey cases is that diplomatic education and professional expertise have become increasingly marginal determinants in contemporary political regimes. This development, however, should not be superficially reduced to the conclusion that “diplomacy no longer requires education.” Rather, the core problem concerns the political conditions under which diplomacy can continue to function as a meaningful profession.

Historically, diplomatic education has rested on three core assumptions:

(i) foreign policy is a state activity requiring continuity;

(ii) this activity necessitates technical knowledge, linguistic competence, and negotiation skills;

(iii) political authorities are institutionally dependent on such expertise.

Today, the third assumption is steadily eroding. In leader-centered and personalized regimes, diplomacy is increasingly shaped less as a domain of technical expertise than as a field in which political loyalty is tested. Diplomatic education is not rendered obsolete, but rather downgraded to a secondary and replaceable qualification from the perspective of political authority.

This transformation profoundly affects institutions of diplomatic education. Traditionally designed to train professional diplomats for the state, these institutions now face increasing ambiguity regarding their purpose. In foreign policy environments structured around regime needs rather than institutional continuity, academic degrees and professional training cease to function as binding prerequisites for diplomatic careers. Diplomatic education risks being reduced from a professional gateway to a symbolic form of credentialing.

At the same time, models of “limited professionalism” observed in monarchical or tightly controlled authoritarian systems indicate that diplomatic education has not disappeared entirely, but has been confined within strict political boundaries. In such systems, education remains valuable, yet its legitimacy derives not from autonomous expertise but from its capacity to serve the political center. This shift reshapes curricular priorities, marginalizing critical thinking, normative international law, and multilateralism.

Accordingly, the future of diplomatic education depends fundamentally on the institutional nature of political regimes. In liberal-democratic contexts, diplomatic education -though increasingly constrained- retains latent potential as a source of institutional resistance. In semi-authoritarian and authoritarian regimes, by contrast, diplomatic education is either rendered ineffective or transformed into a technical training mechanism aligned with regime priorities.

Rather than reaffirming diplomatic education as a normative ideal, this study raises a more demanding question: under what political conditions does diplomatic education retain genuine professional meaning? This question concerns not only academic programs, but also the future of states’ foreign policy-making capacity and long-term rationality.

AN INTERNAL CRITIQUE OF DIPLOMATIC EDUCATION: THE NEGLECT OF ANALYTICAL CAPACITY AND EMERGING FIELDS

The findings of this study also indicate that the diplomatic profession faces internal weaknesses alongside external political pressures. These weaknesses manifest most clearly in the relationship between diplomatic education and professional practice. Despite substantial advances in qualitative and quantitative analytical methods within international relations scholarship, such techniques remain largely disconnected from diplomatic practice.

Field-based experience suggests that many trained diplomats regard analytical reasoning and data-driven assessment as belonging primarily to academia rather than to their professional domain. Diplomacy is widely understood as an activity limited to negotiation, message transmission, and the execution of central directives. This narrowed professional definition substantially diminishes the diplomat’s intellectual role in policy formation. The limitation of diplomatic training to technical negotiation skills has also been criticized in the literature (Berridge, 2015).

A key consequence of this approach is the absence -or superficiality- of meaningful, comparative, and forward-looking analyses in foreign policy decision-making processes. Diplomatic reporting frequently remains descriptive, repetitive, and oriented toward immediate developments, failing to engage with structural trends, alternative scenarios, or measurable risks. This constrained analytical capacity reinforces the perception that academic knowledge is secondary or irrelevant to diplomatic practice.

Such assumptions are reproduced within institutions of diplomatic education. Many programs remain centered on static, traditional, and normative bodies of knowledge. While international law, protocol, and historical foreign policy narratives dominate curricula, fields increasingly critical to contemporary diplomacy, such as environmental diplomacy, economic and financial diplomacy, tourism diplomacy, public diplomacy, or research methodologies, are either marginal or entirely absent.

Particularly striking is the near-total exclusion of research methods from diplomatic training. Yet contemporary foreign policy environments are increasingly unmanageable without data-driven decision-support systems, multivariate analysis, and scenario construction. Nevertheless, diplomatic education continues to privilege passive application over analytical inquiry, producing diplomats trained as implementers rather than reflective policy actors.

This landscape suggests that diplomacy is weakened not only by political loyalty pressures, but also by its own contraction of intellectual ambition. In other words, the profession has become a victim not only of politicization, but of its own epistemological self-limitation.

EXPERIENCE-BASED OBSERVATIONS ON THE LIMITS OF DIPLOMATIC EDUCATION

The analytical shortcomings of diplomatic education are not merely theoretical observations, but structural issues directly witnessed in educational practice. Graduate-level programs in diplomacy reveal that many students -and even career diplomats- regard analytical competence and knowledge production as the domain of academia. Diplomacy, within this perception, is conceptualized as an applied activity that transmits pre-analyzed information and manages negotiations rather than generates analysis.

This view is directly reflected in curricula. Programs frequently fail to accommodate the rapidly diversifying and increasingly technical domains of foreign policy. Areas such as environmental governance, economics, tourism, public diplomacy, or data-driven policy analysis occupy marginal positions or are excluded altogether. Contemporary diplomacy, however, has evolved into a complex constellation shaped by climate crises, economic vulnerabilities, perception management, and multi-actor governance structures. It suffices to note that over 250 multilateral environmental agreements are currently in force, addressing issues such as climate change, global warming, biodiversity, and ozone protection.

Despite this complexity, diplomatic education rarely provides systematic training in qualitative and quantitative research methods capable of addressing such multidimensional challenges. Diplomats are trained as formal practitioners rather than as critical analysts capable of questioning assumptions, generating scenarios, and assessing policy alternatives. This contributes to the erosion of diplomacy’s intellectual authority - not only due to political pressure, but also because of its own restrictive professional self-definition. This outcome is further exacerbated by the fact that multiple ministries -such as environment or finance- are often authorized to conduct international relations without sufficient coordination with foreign ministries.

WHERE EDUCATION MEETS POLITICS

These experience-based observations demonstrate that the crisis facing diplomacy cannot be explained solely by political appointments, loyalty-based representation, or institutional erosion. Diplomatic decline also stems from the narrowing of the profession’s relationship with knowledge and its retreat from analytical and explanatory engagement with international developments. This helps explain why, despite the continued presence of educated diplomats, their intellectual weight in foreign policy processes has diminished.

Accordingly, the fundamental question today is not whether diplomatic education is necessary, but whether existing models of diplomatic education are capable of responding to the analytical and multidimensional nature of contemporary international relations. The answer to this question will shape not only academic curricula, but the long-term rationality of state foreign policy-making.

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT: STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF TWO APPROACHES

The following comparison treats the two approaches not as empirically pure forms, but as dominant tendencies observed under different political regimes.

Table 1. Comparative Assessment of Two Diplomatic Approaches
Dimension	Profession-Based / Analytical Diplomacy	Loyalty-Based / Practitioner Diplomacy
Appointment Criteria	Education, career progression, expertise, institutional seniority	Political trust, personal loyalty, ideological alignment
Role of the Diplomat	Policy actor generating analysis and options	Representative transmitting messages and executing instructions
Educational Model	Research methods, qualitative–quantitative analysis, interdisciplinary knowledge	Protocol, representation, traditional knowledge transfer
Approach to Knowledge	Analytical, data-driven, scenario-oriented	Descriptive, short-term, center-focused
Institutional Memory	Strong, transferable, cumulative	Weak, personalized, fragile
Flexibility	High	Low
Political Alignment	Limited—includes institutional resistance	High—full regime alignment
Foreign Policy Coherence	Medium to long-term	Short-term, volatile
Risks	Slowness, tension with political authority	Superficiality, unpredictability, institutional erosion
Strengths	Rationality, sustainability, predictability	Speed, control, leader-centered coherence

 

These approaches should be understood as ideal types rather than mutually exclusive alternatives. Profession-based analytical diplomacy prioritizes institutional rationality and long-term interest formation, while loyalty-based practitioner diplomacy responds to political authority’s demands for speed, control, and message coherence.

While analytical diplomacy offers clear advantages in managing complexity, measuring risks, and developing scenarios, it may appear slow or overly cautious to strong political leadership. Loyalty-based diplomacy, by contrast, enables rapid decision-making and political alignment, but undermines predictability and institutional memory. Over time, this weakens foreign policy coherence and state capacity.

The comparison reveals the core tension confronting contemporary diplomacy: the trade-off between analytical depth and political control.

GENERAL EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

This study reconfigures classical questions concerning whether diplomacy constitutes a profession and whether diplomatic education is necessary. The comparative analysis of the United States and Turkey demonstrates that diplomacy has increasingly evolved from a technical field into a practice shaped by domestic regime structures and leadership styles. This transformation extends beyond ambassadorial appointments to encompass foreign policy production as a whole.

The central finding is that the crisis of diplomacy is multidimensional. Political authorities increasingly restructure diplomacy around loyalty and control, while the profession itself narrows its analytical capacity. These trends reinforce one another, producing a cycle that weakens diplomacy’s intellectual authority. Diplomacy thus becomes constrained both by external politicization and internal epistemological contraction.

The U.S. case illustrates that even states with strong institutional traditions are vulnerable, though capable of partial self-correction. The Turkish case, by contrast, represents a model in which diplomacy has been transformed into a regime instrument in a more durable and structural manner. Together, these cases reaffirm that the nature of diplomacy is determined not solely by the global system, but decisively by domestic political regimes.

The study also demonstrates that diplomacy education, in its current form, fails to offer an adequate response. Despite advances in analytical techniques, diplomatic training remains largely disconnected from these knowledge domains. As diplomats increasingly define themselves as implementers rather than analysts, the absence of substantive foreign policy analysis deepens.

The conclusion, therefore, is not that diplomatic education is unnecessary, but that it has lost functionality in its existing form. Unless it reintegrates analytical thinking, interdisciplinary knowledge, and research methods, diplomatic education will remain incapable of producing independent professional authority vis-à-vis political power. Even this, however, is insufficient without supportive political contexts.

Ultimately, this study does not prescribe a normative solution but instead raises a threshold question: under what political regime conditions can diplomacy once again function as an analytical, knowledge-producing, and long-term rational profession? This question concerns not only diplomacy, but also the future of institutional rationality and the state’s relationship with knowledge itself.

 

REFERENCES

 

Berridge, G. R. (2015). Diplomacy: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Constantinou, C. M. (2013). Between statecraft and humanism: Diplomacy and its forms of knowledge. International Studies Review, 15(2), 141–162.

Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hall, I. (2018). Trump and the consequences of American leadership. International Affairs, 94(3), 515–536.

Heper, M. (2016). The state and Kurds in Turkey: The question of assimilation. Palgrave Macmillan.

Jönsson, C., & Hall, M. (2005). Essence of diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2020). Turkish dynamics: Bridge across troubled lands. Palgrave Macmillan.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown Publishing.

Magen, A., Risse, T., & McFaul, M. (Eds.). (2021). Authoritarianism goes global: The challenge to democracy. Oxford University Press.

McDougall, W. A. (2016). The tragedy of U.S. foreign policy: How America’s civilian leaders lost control of America’s destiny. Yale University Press.

McFaul, M. (2020). From cold war to hot peace: An American ambassador in Putin’s Russia. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Neumann, I. B. (2012). At home with the diplomats: Inside a European foreign ministry. Cornell University Press.

Özbudun, E. (2015). Turkey’s judiciary and the drift toward competitive authoritarianism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(2), 250–266.

Sharp, P. (2009). Diplomatic theory of international relations. Cambridge University Press.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press.

---

[1] The author has served as the Director of the Master’s Program in Diplomacy at the American University in the Emirates (Dubai) and has taught courses on international relations and diplomacy at several universities in Turkey.

[2] In addition, the author held senior public service positions as UNICEF Representative in Turkey and as Undersecretary at the Ministry of Environment.

[3] Rogers Act of 1924 (Foreign Service Act) unified the United States’ diplomatic and consular services under a single, professional Foreign Service structure. With this legislation, diplomatic representation and consular functions were formally established as career-based positions governed by merit, competitive examinations, and seniority. The Act institutionally constrained the scope of political appointments and redefined diplomacy as a public service grounded in professional expertise rather than personal loyalty. The Rogers Act provided the legal foundation for the transformation of U.S. diplomacy from a tradition of “gentlemen amateurs” into a modern, professionalized, and institutionalized occupation.