When David Lammy first outlined his foreign policy vision earlier this year, before the Labour Party won the United Kingdom’s elections and he became foreign secretary, there was renewed optimism in the international democracy-support community. He put forward a concept of progressive realism that aims to balance awareness of global power dynamics with commitment to ethical values. Crucially, Lammy sought to move beyond a transactional, power-driven realism, instead advocating the use of power to advance progressive goals: addressing climate change, defending democracy, fostering economic growth, and reducing inequality domestically and internationally.
For us at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), this presents an opportunity for the United Kingdom to reintegrate its commitment to democratic values into its foreign policy after years of strategic drift. At the heart of Lammy’s vision is a re-embrace of multilateralism, diplomacy, and global partnerships. His focus on collaboration and collective problem-solving offers a way to reset the country’s relationship with democratic actors and processes around the world.
Unpacking Progressive Realism
Lammy is not the first to use the term progressive realism. It gained prominence as a result of the Iraq War, and it evolved in response to the failures of neoconservative foreign policy, particularly the heavy reliance on unilateralism and military intervention that characterised the administration of President George W. Bush. The limits of this approach, highlighted by failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, prompted a reassessment of how power, intervention, and values could coexist in global governance.
There are two main interpretations of progressive realism in international relations. The first, championed by Robert Wright, rejects the unilateralism of US foreign policy, arguing that the experience of Afghanistan and Iraq confirmed the realist contention that military interventions often lead to unintended, negative consequences. Instead, Wright proposes, US foreign policy should focus on global welfare, tackling humanitarian crises and state failures that, if left unaddressed, could pose security threats rooted in inequality and poor governance. His vision emphasises long-term stability through partnerships and international cooperation rather than short-term military victories.
In the second interpretation, Joseph Nye’s progressive realism builds upon his concept of smart power, blending hard power – military and economic strength – with soft power, including cultural influence and diplomacy. Nye outlines four pillars: security, which should be safeguarded through military and diplomatic means; economic strength, leveraged to foster global stability; climate action, positioning wealthier countries as leaders; and democracy promotion, pursued through diplomacy and attraction, not military coercion. Nye’s model also suggests a more multilateral, cooperative approach to global challenges, one that includes recognising the limits of military power in achieving lasting democratic outcomes.
While building from similar foundations, these interpretations of progressive realism differ in how they propose to balance power and values. Wright’s vision is more idealistic in its focus on global welfare and collective responsibility, advocating a restrained approach to military power. Nye takes a more pragmatic stance, accepting the need for military power but within a broader strategy that prioritises diplomacy and multilateralism. For Nye, the central challenge of progressive realism is how to blend different forms of power to achieve security and moral legitimacy, while Wright is more focused on how to mitigate the risks of power, especially military power, to global stability.
A New Focus
In office, Lammy has distilled his vision into five priorities: security, economic growth, climate action, relations with the European Union, and modernising international development. In September, the foreign secretary emphasised the United Kingdom’s commitment to addressing the climate crisis as a central foreign policy goal, focusing on the need for global cooperation and investment in green technology. He framed climate action as a moral responsibility and a strategic priority, linking it to economic resilience and global stability. But in his focus on climate justice, Lammy made no mention of transparent decision-making or inclusive participatory approaches, as highlighted in WFD’s Environmental Democracy methodology, that could lead to more effective climate spending and ensure that all voices are represented.
Similarly, in October, Development Minister Annaliese Dodds presented the United Kingdom’s “modern approach to development,” emphasising the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s focus on addressing climate change, reducing poverty, and responding to humanitarian crises through partnerships and locally led initiatives. She highlighted the need for sustainable growth and reformed global financial systems to support vulnerable regions, while ensuring development aid aligns with local and global priorities. Dodds mentioned the rollback of “democratic freedoms” but stopped short of integrating any firm commitment to democratic governance into her proposed development strategy.
The most fervent defence of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law to come from the new Labour government has been by the attorney general, Lord Hermer, but it is principally focused on the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, his arguments refuting the populist claim that the rule of law conflicts with democracy are compelling. He has emphasised that the rule of law is foundational to democratic values and called for a “restoration and resilience” approach to countering populism: restoring the country’s reputation as a rule-of-law leader and building resilience through a strong, cross-party commitment to democratic values.
Lammy’s five priorities and the focus on democracy at home are a pragmatic response to current pressing challenges, prioritising immediate issues that resonate with the electorate. However, the omission of democracy and inequality from the United Kingdom’s international engagement framework is worrisome, especially given the geopolitical trends of rising authoritarianism and widening economic disparities. While focusing on these priorities may be seen as a necessary trade-off to achieve tangible results, it risks sidelining the foundational issues that underpin social cohesion and long-term stability. In an era where the health of democracies and the fight against inequality are increasingly critical, Lammy’s lack of emphasis on these themes may leave vulnerable communities without a voice, potentially undermining the goals of security and development he aims to promote.
The High Risk of Inaction
Indices such as the ones produced by V-Dem and Freedom House have shown an alarming trend of democratic decline around the world. For over a decade, many countries have seen a steady erosion of democratic institutions, while authoritarian regimes have become more assertive in promoting their models and destabilising democracies. Freedom House’s 2023 report noted that 2022 marked the 17th consecutive year of global democratic backsliding, with nearly 60 countries experiencing a decline in freedoms compared to only 25 improving. V-Dem’s 2024 report highlighted that the share of people living in autocracies had risen to 72%, while that of those in democracies had dropped to 28%, the lowest level in over two decades. This trend poses a significant threat to democratic actors, making inaction a high-risk policy choice for those who value democratic principles.
It is possible that democracy and equality have also slid down the United Kingdom’s foreign policy priority list because advocating them is perceived as paternalistic or worse. Lammy has emphasised the importance of respecting the autonomy of countries and supporting locally led solutions, rather than dictating governance models that may not align with their immediate needs or historical contexts. By focusing too heavily on defending democracy and reducing inequality, there is a danger of repeating past mistakes, when Western countries used these goals to justify interventions that disregarded local circumstances and priorities. Lammy’s approach aligns with his broader commitment to avoiding neo-colonialism and with classical realism’s focus on how states interact with each other, which often overlooks internal governance issues such as democracy and human rights. In the current geopolitical environment, while reflecting a more nuanced understanding of international relations, a focus on respecting the autonomy of countries may also limit the willingness to engage directly with deteriorating democratic conditions.
Internal governance challenges – such as democracy, human rights, and economic inequality – are increasingly being used as tools in international relations, reflecting a significant shift in how states engage with one another. As Thomas Carothers argued when writing about the backlash against democracy promotion, the intertwining of domestic governance issues with foreign policy has become more pronounced, with authoritarian regimes using the narrative of sovereignty to resist external pressures while democratic states grapple with how to uphold their values in international relations.
Furthermore, authors like Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt highlight how authoritarian governments exploit economic discontent and political grievances within democracies to advance their agendas, creating a cycle where internal instability becomes a tool for external influence. This dynamic is evident in various geopolitical contexts, where powerful states actively support or undermine governments based on their internal governance structures, demonstrating that issues like human rights and economic inequality are no longer merely domestic concerns but are now pivotal elements in global power plays. States must navigate this complex landscape, recognising that internal governance challenges can have profound implications for international relations and stability.
Realism, but Critical
The challenge in reconciling progressive ideals with realism may not stem from the progressive element itself but rather from the type of realism employed. Classical realism, with its focus on power as fixed, anarchical, and self-serving, often conflicts with progressive goals like democracy support, human rights, and multilateral cooperation. By contrast, critical realism offers a better alternative by emphasising the interplay between structures and human agency. Unlike classical realism, which views global power dynamics as largely immutable, it acknowledges that these structures can be transformed over time through collective action and evolving norms.
Critical realism encourages a more nuanced examination of how structures such as economic systems and international institutions interact with the actions of states and civil society. It emphasises the importance of long-term developments and the gradual transformation of power dynamics, as opposed to the immediate concerns of military or economic dominance. This framework allows for a more hopeful and adaptable view of international relations and provides a more fitting theoretical foundation for aligning progressive values with the practicalities of global politics.
Toby S. James offers insights into how critical realism might enrich foreign policy. He suggests an alternative to traditional democratic theories in which “real democracy” extends beyond electoral and liberal definitions of democracy by focusing on the preconditions necessary to empower all citizens to realise their capabilities. These preconditions include not just opportunities at the ballot box but also essential factors such as education, healthcare, and socio-economic equality. James argues that democratic outcomes are contingent upon the removal of power inequalities, which arise from the interaction between societal structures and human agency. While there was some progress in this regard in the 1990s and early 2000s, James notes, then came stagnation and even decline in recent years, particularly in socio-economic equality. He argues that addressing these preconditions is essential for reversing democratic backsliding and achieving more equitable political systems.
Incorporating this critical realist perspective into the United Kingdom’s foreign policy would produce a more comprehensive approach to solving the myriad challenges the world faces. At the same time, by addressing the structural conditions necessary for democratic governance – healthcare, education, and economic equality – the United Kingdom could support a more resilient and inclusive form of democracy. While it has long espoused democracy as a fundamentally British value, it has never made it a central theme of its aid policy. Contrary to much perceived wisdom, there need not be a trade-off between development and democracy – there is much evidence suggesting they are mutually beneficial. Adopting a critical realist democracy approach would therefore align with the WFD’s strategy of “doing development democratically”.
Ultimately, this approach could help the United Kingdom assert greater leadership in supporting global democracy, ensuring that its foreign policy remains progressive and realistic. While indicators show democracy in global decline, surveys demonstrate that it remains widely popular as a concept, with a majority of people around the world still supporting it as their preferred form of government. Through a critical realist lens, the United Kingdom can advocate democratic governance by fostering the conditions that enable democracies to flourish.
Author
Dr. Graeme Ramshaw is the Director of Quality and Innovation at Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD). Before joining WFD, Graeme held various roles at public and private sector organisations such as, the World Bank, DFID, KPMG Development Advisory Services, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., and the Institute for Democracy in South Africa in Pretoria. His published work has featured in the Journal of Democracy, The Economist, and numerous conferences. Graeme holds a BA from Princeton University; a MA from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University; and a PhD from the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex.
This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
Photo credit: Ben Dance / Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
