Personal Histories and Policy Decisions

Summary

For a long time, International relations scholars seldom carry out research on leaders. Instead, their focus has always been on structural theories and abstract models which break down the experiences and personalities of decision-makers. Horowitz, Stam and Ellis make research concerning leaders establishing the claim that their background has an impact on the manner which they carry out foreign policy. They unveil catchy patterns in the leaders’ attitudes towards the use of force and risk. The authors conclude that the predisposition world leaders have towards peacemaking or military action can be gauged by experiences and indicators early in their lives.

Argument

The authors base their arguments using the family, educational, military and occupational backgrounds of leaders like John F. Kennedy, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, and Ho Chi Minh, by explaining their likelihood of initiating military aggression. From the reading, there are different indicators of leaders’ influence on war. These include rebellion against a government which is in power, considering war as some kind of child or combat participation and the loss of a parent at an early age. These indicators are measured against a scale which determines the propensity to engage in violence or risk aversion. These indicators are tested to find out how they can foresee aggressive behaviour among leaders by the use of military force in the future.

Evidence

One of the evidence used to support their argument was that leaders at higher risk of engaging in war are those who have a military background with a lack of experience in combat. For instance, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were among the leaders with a military background and the high propensity of war (Horowitz, et al., 2007). These leaders made positive socialization throughout their military experience. Although they never faced the risk of dying on the battlefield, and this made them prone to engaging in conflict in the office.

Another evidence used by the authors is the leaders’ prior experience of rebellion. Horowitz writes that rebel groups are dangerous because a leader who succeeds in acquiring a high office after joining the group will have acquired some form of reinforcement that using force is the alternative which always works. Hence, leaders who are former rebels are more likely to engage in conflict as soon as they are in office. In general, looking at the leaders’ backgrounds, decision-making and behaviours is a litmus test for the direction of international politics.

Questions

There are four questions which arise from reading this book. The first question is ‘how does childhood interpersonal trauma have a longstanding impact on a leader’s tendency to cause war?’ The second question is ‘why, in democracies, are older leaders more likely to engage in conflict than younger leaders?’ The third question is ‘how does the institutional context act as a simulation of a leader’s childhood interpersonal conflict and its impact on a leader’s decision-making?’ The fourth question is ‘Are leaders more important in regimes which are democratic or authoritative?’ These questions relate to the conclusions drawn by Horowitz, Stam and Ellis.

References

Horowitz, M., Stam, A. & Ellis, C., 2007. Why Leaders Fight. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.