Study: Politicians seeking re-election only help create more conflict in the world

By Tom Campbell via SWNS

Armed conflicts around the world are being made worse by politicians seeking re-election, suggests a new study.

Democratic elections could be keeping long-standing conflicts burning as ‘hardline’ policies earn politicians more points than coming to a compromise, say economists.

Leaders often propose tougher settlements than their citizens like in order to signal their ability to manage potential conflict going forward.

For example, hawkish policies have helped leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and Narendra Modi in India get re-elected, the researchers say.

At the same time, this has driven many politicians, who would normally be more nuanced, to adopt harsher policies when it comes to conflict.

Former US President Barack Obama gave a strongly worded speech signaling his intention to come down hard on conflict when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize to gain voter support.

Study co-author Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, Professor of Economics at the University of Birmingham, said: "The Israel-Palestine conflict, for example, has led to enormous costs to both sides and continues to persist.

“Our findings shed fresh light on the persistence of the Middle East conflict and the rise of ideological hawks in the USA following the 9/11 terror attacks."

A model where two groups entered into conflict over an area of land was created by the researchers.

Different scenarios were then run, where an elected leader adopted a softer or harder approach to the hostile situation.

While in some scenarios this was known to voters, in others they were kept in the dark about their leader's ideology.

The probability of conflict breaking out was then calculated based on the leader's proposed settlement or resolution.

If fewer resources were ceded by the leader to the other group, the chances it would not be accepted and end with fighting increased.

Professor Bandyopadhyay said: “During times of conflict, hawkish policies carry the day.

"One only needs to look at the upper hand that hawks had in determining U.S. foreign policy, as well as the electoral success that more hawkish leaders have enjoyed recently to see that tough policies and politicians dominate in times of conflict.”

The findings suggest elections favor politicians who come down hard on conflicts, even though this does not solve the problem.

New politicians in particular, whose political views are not known to voters, benefit from playing hardball, the researchers found.

Professor Bandyopadhyay said: "We show that the political process contributes to leaders proposing tougher settlements than their citizens would like so that they can signal their ability to manage the potential conflict.

"This holds across the ideological spectrum."

Brokering tense political stand-offs with the help of third parties may therefore prove more fruitful.

Dr. Mandar Oak, of the University of Adelaide in Australia, said: "When voters know neither the ideology of the politician nor their ability the electoral process naturally favors the election of those who are ideological hawks.

"We show that in such a scenario, the involvement of third parties, such as the UN, in negotiations can be mutually beneficial.”

The findings were published in the journal PLOS One.