Download - LSE Theses Online - London School of Economics and ...

Overall, with reference to both case studies, two patterns may be discerned. Thefirst is that rhetoric and the allocation of resources have been relatively easier todeploy for issues more distant from the prime, regional, locus of each state’sinterests. Second, the influence of the ruling party in any general, institutionalised,sense is limited, for different reasons in each case. This means that while the rulingparty may exert control primarily through the structure of the political system (as inSouth Africa), or through a number of strategically-placed individuals (as in Brazil),its leverage is conditioned by institutionalised practices and material constraintsoccurring at the bureaucratic, national, regional, and international levels. Leadershave more traction in specific contexts.At the bureaucratic level, Mbeki faced few limits, owing to his institutionalrestructuring resulting in a strengthened state presidency. He faced limits at thenational level because of resource constraints on South African foreign policy; at theregional level because of the legacy of liberation politics and struggle-era loyalties, aswell as South Africa’s reticence to act as a hegemon in Southern Africa.Internationally, an expansive foreign policy was welcomed and expected as long as itconformed to Western interests.For Lula, meanwhile, the limits of the bureaucratic level were overcome by thepositioning of like-minded individuals in key decision-making roles. Whilediscontent over foreign policy simmered in some quarters of Itamaraty, at the top,there were few obstacles to the Lula foreign policy. Nationally, expansiveness inBrazil’s foreign policy was facilitated by a growing economy and by anaccommodating and longstanding national goal of winning recognition and statusfor Brazil. The regional context proved more limiting, as Brazil struggled to winfollowers for its leadership in South America. Finally, at the international level,Brazil’s increasing resources provided the platform for a wider range of globalinterests, but also led the country somewhat astray from its traditional foreign policypostures and interests.In theoretical terms, the institutional freedom and legitimating power enjoyed byruling parties ultimately affect the resource mobilisation and extraction capabilitiesof the state, meaning that activism in foreign policy is subject to these forces.281