Political science: key concepts and contemporary issues

Copyright ?2008

The argument found within the article by Byman and Pollack is that political scientists should begin theorizing about the impact individual leaders have upon their countries' foreign relations. Scholars recognize that three levels of political analysis exist with regard to international relations. The first level deals with how individual leaders influence the behavior of their nations. The second level deals with how nations' international behavior is affected by domestic forces such as parliaments, bureaucracies, opposition parties, public opinion and so forth. The third level deals with how nations' behavior is determined by their relative power position within the world. For a long time political scientists have marginalized the importance of the first level of analysis based on the notion that the more impersonal second and third levels more significantly shape a country's foreign policy. Byman and Pollack argue that political scientists should not marginalize the impact of individuals on international relations because of the following reasons. The first reason is that a diverse array of human personality traits exist within leaders and these can help explain why certain leaders behave in certain ways. For example leaders who are aggressive, prone to risk-taking, and greedy most often take their nations to war. The second reason is that first level political analysis can contribute towards the creation of complex political theories capable of predicting the behavior of nations. The third reason is that first level analysis can help to explain nations' intentions, which are often made independently of matters dealing with security. In other words how states want to maintain their security in the world is dependent upon whether they (or rather their leaders) intend to make war or peace with others. Byman and Pollack go on to provide evidence towards supporting their argument; they accomplish this by showing that first level analysis can create testable hypotheses that could later be turned into political theories about foreign relations. They themselves derive thirteen hypotheses, some of which will be described here, for further testing. The first hypothesis is that a nation's primary and secondary intentions are set by its political leaders. This means that a leader is capable of influencing his/her country's intentions towards making either war or peace. A good example brought up for demonstrating this, was in comparing Germany's foreign policy while it was under the rule of first Bismarck and then Wilhelm II. Bismarck made sure to clarify to Germany's adversaries that its intentions were peaceful; he showed this by having Germany form alliances with its rivals France and Russia. Wilhelm II on the other hand changed Germany's intentions completely by breaking its alliances, supporting the creation of a German Navy, and alarming rivals with expansionist ambitions. This change in intentions came about despite the fact that the country faced no new imminent external threats and had no radical changes occur within its internal institutions. A second hypothesis is that individual leaders can have a significant influence upon their countries' diplomatic or military might. The French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte is an example to demonstrate this hypothesis; he was considered to be one of France's greatest military generals who personally led his army from one victory to another throughout Europe. A third hypothesis states that nations possessing leaders prone to risk- taking are more likely to wage war. Hitler demonstrated this by first invading France and later trying to invade Russia despite the enormous risk of incurring military defeat. A fourth hypothesis states that nations led by leaders with predictable behaviors can develop longer lasting alliances. Democratic leaders are thought to best exhibit this behavior as seen by the close alliance fostered by the US and Britain through their leaders Franklyn D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. A fifth hypothesis states that the more power is exclusively concentrated in the hands of one leader, the more influential he/she will be. The grand Ayatollah Khomeini exhibited this behavior best when he fashioned the Iranian government in a way that made it easier for him to possess the final say in every political matter. A sixth hypothesis states that a leader starts becoming more powerful when the nation is experiencing a time of great change or crisis. A good example of this happening is when Hitler was able to take full control of German politics from the people due to the after effects of WWI, the rise of Communism and Fascism, and the economic chaos wrought by the Great Depression. A seventh hypothesis is that individuals can influence a nation's internal institutions to reflect his/her foreign policy choices. So it can be seen that a leader like Hitler was able to bring various internal forces, such as the German military and public, together towards supporting his ambitions of conquest. An eighth hypothesis is that individuals can shape their countries' position of power in the world. A clear example is how France was able to attain an even greater status as a major world power thanks to Napoleons military successes in Europe.