Page 1 of 25
ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL LEADER SURVIVAL ON WAR
INITIATION IN DEMOCRATIC STATES
Introduction
Political leader survival as a key factor in democratic war decisions
Decisions regarding war and conflict are complicated when taken by political leaders in
the democracies than in the authoritarian systems. Unlike dictators who can go ahead and
implement policies and decisions without consulting anyone, the democratic leaders have to
continuously court the support of the electorate and the legislature in order to stay in power. This
sets up straightforward political returns for democratic leaders that encourage war choices that
enhance or, minimally, don‘t drastically weaken their hold on power. In some ways, it can be
concluded that political survival does matter in the context of democratic war policy, even
though this relationship may not always be as direct as one might expect. For example, the
studies reveal that the longer the war stays and the less it is supported by the population,
democratic presidents are likely to widen goals of the war and use the sterner language to
condemn the opponent. This behaviour seeks to perpetuate the views of the war‘s relevance and
painting any form of retreat as an unfathomable sign of weakness. Unpopular wars also result
into other risks relating to political survival through loss of re-election or intra-party leadership
deposition. Leaders attempt to avoid further political backlash through one of three ways:
proclaiming victory in the war, altering the definition of victory to something more realistic, or
ending support of the war while claiming to have been against it from the start. These major
decisions in terms of strategies such as a ‗surge‘ move in the same way: leaders will undertake
high-risk escalation when confronting foreign policy crises that are likely to erode their support.
Thus, while democracies may avoid some excessively risky wars autocrats tend to launch,
Page 2 of 25
concerns about political stability pull democratic leaders into escalation and openly aggressive
rhetoric as soon as initial war choices turn into political ones. This pattern indicates there is a
schism between the nature of warfare and political motivations that are not limited to non-
democracies only. Most often even democratic publics and legislatures provisionally fail to have
the incentive to function as a constant bulwark against executive war excesses. Consequently,
political survival constitute one of the defining drivers for democratic war policy, not only in
terms of what conflicts democracies actively engage in, but also in how tenaciously and
vigorously they subsequently decide to wage those wars as political and military burdens
accumulate.
Interplay between domestic politics and international conflict initiation
The relationship between domestic politics and conflict initiation is rich and is a subject
of numerous discussions and the leadership in states must weigh the political implications in
their country and the strategic necessity in the international system when deciding to pursue an
international conflict. On the domestic level, leaders are expected to be responsive to some core
stakeholders such as the military, economic powers, and the voting population. Some generals
may seek an international war for fundraising and to have a reason to purchase new equipment
and weapons. Military spending hawks that represent economic interests related to armaments
can also call for war to create demand for weapons and production. Similarly, ordinary citizens
can push leaders towards war, particularly if the leaders mobilize them using nationalist
sentiments or a perceived injustice that has been done by another country. The voting public, on
the other hand, has the power to remove leaders from office for losing or unpopular conflicts
through a vote. On the international level, leaders have to take into account such factors as the
balance of forces of their state, the structure of the alliances, the economic objectives, and the
Page 3 of 25
estimates of the enemy‘s determination. Therefore, it is normally expected that there must be a
combination of domestic and international factors that would compel a given state to engage in
international conflict. For instance, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 may have stemmed from
neoconservative domestic politics, but it was also motivated by power transition post Cold War
where it is possible for the US to recast the Middle East at a reasonable cost. International
conflict may also occur even when it is contradictory to the foreign policy goals of state leaders,
where they miscalculate the expected costs or their opponent‘s commitment. Also, conflict
between nations portrays adverse domestic political effects such as the mobilization of people
behind ineffective leaders or permitting repression in the guise of security. In sum, while
domestic political actors can sometimes push reluctant state leaders to undertake conflict
initiations which are otherwise unwarranted, international strategic considerations can also
sometimes prevent a state from entering into a conflict even if domestic opinion is heavily in
favour of it. Decomposing the relationship between these domestic and international antecedents
and outcomes of war and peace involves fine-slicing the structural environment of conflict
initiation and critical choices in foreign policy.
Examining democratic accountability's role in war-making processes
Democratic accountability plays a great role in the processes leading to war by requiring
one‘s justification to the people and parliament before mobilizing the armed forces. In a
democracy going to war is not an executive‘s prerogative, but the citizens through their
representatives must approve the declaration of war and the necessary support; this is only
possible if the need for war and thus the war plan is available to the public. Democratic systems
of governance also lack mechanism for restraining the declaration of war hence enabling leaders
to wage wars in the interest of a particular clique or party regardless of the welfare or morality of
Page 4 of 25
the citizens. However, achieving the democratic consent poses challenges due to the fact that
executives feel that the opinion of the public and presence of a legislative branch hinders their
flexibility, and the surprise, speed, and secrecy that are likely to accompany the use of certain
strategic resources. Of course, the citizens are right to request explanations concerning the high
costs of war; at the same time, leaders should have an opportunity to react quickly to new threats.
The responsibility of the democracy in affairs pertaining to war-better decision making and not
been individualistic in this regard. It means careful analysis of the supporting evidence for the
imperative of war, war aims, exhaustive examination of all the alternatives to war and open
discussion of war as the decision with the advantages and disadvantages. Such accountability is
inclusive of the duration of war, as it engulfs the reliability of the leader to report to the
legislature and the voters about the progress, and barriers faced, where one receives difficult
questions on strategies to be employed and is able to modify the initial plans that are
dysfunctional for the better ones if needs be. That democracies have engaged in heinous,
unpopular warfare cannot be debated; nonetheless, the assurance of democratic responsibility is
by itself likely to increase the chance that if and when democracies do enter wars, they do so for
explicable, popular, and pertinent reasons over absolute prerogative or desperation as opposed to
illusory objectives. It enables the citizen themselves make a decision through a poll, or a protest,
or the vote as to whether the vicious defeats of war are warranted and achieving objectives. Thus,
democratic accountability, if nothing else, gives the decision for war the least of emotional
reactions in the string of contingencies that military action implies.
Electoral Pressures and War Initiation Calculations
Polling data influence on leaders' conflict stance
Page 5 of 25
The part played by people‘s opinion is important in leadership due to the fact that leaders
can factor the public opinion depending on positions that are taken concerning different issues
over certain matters like conflicts and foreign policies. The kind of information gotten from
polling is useful in gauging the current status of people‘s opinion as well as possibly forcing the
leaders into embracing either a more war like stance or the diplomatic approach. For example,
the polls undertaken before the escalations of Vietnam War showed rising anti-war sentiments
and this may have impacted Lyndon Johnson‘s decisions not to contest for another term and
Nixon‘s Vietnamization policy of gradual withdrawal of troops. Similarly, when Obama got
evidence that Assad was using chemicals, lack of public support in getting concerned in Syria
hinder Obama from doing more in the country. Leaders however do not simply only rely on polls
but also other parameters of the developing relations such as the degree of mutual interest that
the particular two countries possess and consultations of other leaders. Saddam Hussein‘s
invasion of Kuwait The president of the United States during this period was president George
H. W. Bush Despite the crass ignorance that the American populace displayed in the early
beginning expressing a lack of understanding of why military action was needed to oust Saddam
Hussein from Kuwait. Last but not the least, the advocacy along with the speaking and political
persuasion contributed in the person that was needed by Bush regarding the intervention as the
UN deadline nears. Though, making decisions within the framework of the crisis, Kennedy relied
only on the opinions of professionals and in response to the people‘s worry about the atomic war,
he explained that the matter is beyond people‘s comprehension. Thus, by means of televised
speech, he explained the naval blockade as effective and commensurate. It can also divide along
party lines regarding when force can be applied as it did in the case of UK polling.
Page 6 of 25
Specifically, it is easier to identify the general trends when it comes to supporting the
military action: The former has a disposition for supporting such actions than the latter while the
Democratic identifiers have a disposition for opposing it. This is particularly so where overall
low approval is in question; issues relating to threats of the national security and/or the alliances
must be used to pursue support of the president‘s party. Trump focused on the need to maintain
check marks, which he wanted to undertake limited attacks on Syria using the pretext of
chemical weapons. It can intimidate presidents, in that, they will be forced to decline poll data
results that they do not favores for party affiliations‘ sake. Presidents often consider several
aspects in conflicts and crises while arriving at policy decisions. In voting, there is a perception
regarding the population‘s position, but there are also other factors such as security, partners,
advisors, and values. In what measures public opinion matters can change according to specific
conditions and the presidents‘ potential to gather people following his charisma to alter their
opinion about the actual relevance of the stakes involved.
Rally-around-the-flag effects in pre-election war decisions in relation to international security
The rally, around the flag effect can be defined as a situation which people support their
political leaders on the backdrop of war or conflict on the basis of patriotism. This effect is rather
literal and straight-forward and is directly relevant to issues concerning predisposition to war
before an election and what it implies regarding the stability of the world. Hence, there is an
empirical question of whether leaders which are likely to be planning to seek election soon are
likely to engage in international or military conflicts to create rally events and build support at
home. While the rally effect might be looked at as a phenomenon that does not have much
potential for boosting electoral fortune, there may always be perceptions that going to war might
be good for the vote. This is rather worrying given that research has established that leaders can
Page 7 of 25
fan hate when there are polls to be won as they normally experience threaten feel especially
when their electoral prospects are not very bright. The risk is that decisions on the use of
quantitative questions could be colored by their self-serving needs of being in office. This does
not only threat the professionalism in the policy decisions, but also get worse effects in the
international security it those wars are predominantly for political purposes in countries. To
prevent a situation in which no country can avoid staging pre-election adventures it is still
necessary to spread the norms of non-interference and to establish institutional constraints and
special mechanisms concerning such actions, to link the results of elections and the given
country‘s electoral prospects with the policy outcomes, not with rallies as such. Furthermore,
also in democracies, the procedural measures in decision making of war powers and also the
public‘s expectancies regarding ordinary change of a leader by votes may assist also in lessening
the inclination to generate pre-election stunts from an unnecessary conflict. While leaders ought
not to grope for real threats to security, international security is most probably best aided where
decisions to go to war or make peace are based more on the rhetoric of strategy, norms, and law.
It is also possible to come up with the perjuring protection that would help to avoid the buildup
of military forces and arms primarily with the aim to boost up the ratings before the elections.
Opposition party positions shaping incumbent war policies
The position and stand of the political opponents and other political parties can reveal a
lot of information concerning the extent and type of war as well as foreign policy of the
incumbent government. When an opposition party takes a clear position on a current or potential
conflict through hard security, it helps the incumbent president and his or her advisors to ponder
how they will formulate or proclaim decisions with party politics in mind, which implies that
criticisms from the opposition can extend to other facets of a military operation that includes the
Page 8 of 25
justification of the operation, the need for the operation, how the operation is to be conducted
and the purpose or mission of the operation. It also has the potential of affecting the legislature‘s
capacity to allocate larger amounts of money and mobilize troops. The fierce armed position of
the Republicans minority in the last years of Vietnam War impacted the diminishing of the
public support to that war under Nixon. The Democrats endlessly focused on numbers of lives
and money invested in the war and on the capacity of the military commanders to say that the
events were progressing. This made it easier to measure the level of Nixon‘s war policies as a
benchmark to the level displayed by Eisenhower. Due to criticisms from both sides of the area of
Bipartisan Opposition his personal desire to end this unpopular war was because he wanted to
keep the support of the electorate, who day by day became more skeptical. Thus, both the
tendencies of overt politically motivated destructive opposition on the one hand and of equally
absurd over-enthusiastic blinded submission to the incumbent political power on the other are
equally dangerous and counterproductive; all the same, the remembering minority opposition
demonstrated in the case under analysis plays an important function of forcing in those interested
in a military intervention arguing the case and making respective alterations or corrections to
their actions. It assists in setting the attention on the ‗big picture‘ parts despite the fact that other
regular organizational prejudice, the aversion to shift in bureaucracies and institutions might
result in their act i. e. , lip service offering to such prospects. Consequently, it is possible to state
that various opponents alongside with those who armed the public with the instruments to put
pressure on the representatives from their own party, can initiate corrections, which, in most
cases, become possible only after a terrible amount of avoidable suffering. Reasoned opposition
as an aim is not to score a philosophical point on the speaker or party, but it is to provide some
indication of how warfare is prosecuted on behalf of the nation.
Page 9 of 25
Term Limits' Impact on War Propensity
Lame-duck presidents' freedom in military engagements
In particular, presidents who are in office for a period after an election where their
successor has been elected but who have not yet handed over power are likely to be in a position
to undertake military actions which are highly contentious than those presidents who are still in
office but are some time before an election. Since the presidents do not have to contest for
another term in this case, they are not as likely to worry about domestic political consequences of
launching a big military campaign in a foreign country. They do not have to consider how the
military attacks or the deployment of troops will help or hinder their chances of getting approval
from the people or cause opposition from congress and thus they can focus more on the policy
objectives and the perceived interest of the country. This freedom allows for aggressive actions
such as launching airstrikes or carrying out extrajudicial operations that presidents in the past
shunned in the period leading up to reelection. Though, the military freedom of lame-duck
presidents has its limits. They cannot do things which will put constraints on their successors or
on future courses of action too severely. Large-scale ground invasions, which are common
military escalations, for instance, would be met with some sort of resistance. Outgoing presidents
also have the desire to influence the historical outcome of their administration; however, these
decisions may be negatively influenced by military mishaps.. It can be seen that most lame-duck
presidents therefore avoid very high risk options and being content with the moderate options as
the limited air strikes or gradual raise in troops or special operations. In the final analysis, lame
ducks must find a middle ground between using their relative freedom of action to make
significant changes albeit to the detriment of overdoing things that might attract drastic domestic
or international repercussions. Only an intricate balance of military tactics and strategies is
Page 10 of 25
achieved. That is why even lame-duck presidents seem to possess more leeway in using armed
force due to the reduction of political checks imposing restraints on them, at the same time, their
margin of freedom is not unlimited. Continuous reference to formal rules for managing power
transitions and an appeal to historical continuity as a source of legitimacy remain influential. It is
most common for modern lame-duck presidents to pursue relatively achievable and scoped
military operations that are within their grasp but can still mark the president as a strong and
assertive leader.
Legacy-building through conflict in final terms
Since this is a common phenomenon, before retiring or losing their positions, the leaders
switch to priority of so-called ‗‗last imprint projects,‘‘ that is, projects that will provide positive
outcomes after their time in the executive positions. However, if a leader wants to make
significant departures in policy or enunciate noble goals and missions during his/her last days in
the leadership position, he/she risks fomenting conflict, because private interests and those who
benefit from the current state of affairs will not want to have their comfortable positions
threatened by a leader with limited time in office. Some leaders engage in conflict of interest in
the anticipation of achieving organizational objectives with the aim of leaving a legacy because
history justifies the actions taken. They believe in the occurrence of major battles and even when
they lose they gain value in raising the profile of key issues that need to be discussed, to set the
agenda, and to put pressure on recalcitrant opponents who are slowing down necessary social
change. The conflict highlights the heritage ideological, social or institutional issues that the
successors have to deal with . However, skeptics opine that SOPH late-term legacy quests are
manifestations of either arrogance or selfishness in the leader at the expense of creating deep
scars in their country or organization for narcissistic purposes of buffing up. Late-term reform
Page 11 of 25
campaigns continue to be very energetic and highly contentious, and while the issues raised are
multifaceted, complex legacies have been observed with the lessons learned being transferable
across eras and areas of leadership. Though viewed in a different light in retrospect, the concern
to address urgent issues and shape an ideological agenda before influence runs out is something
many final act leaders, be it presidents such as Winston Churchill in his second premiership or
CEOs of large corporations including Microsoft‘s Steve Ballmer at the end of his term, can
readily comprehend. Nevertheless, successors are likely to experience volatility, antagonism, and
rebuilding after such a contentious climax. Hence, there still exists an appetite for exercising late
power and necessarily waging the battles that define leadership among the determined
individuals keen on raising the bar of their legacies; it is wiser to avoid aggravating schisms
when stability carries more immediate benefits. The philosophical legacies from final-act
conflicts are multifaceted and show the struggles between idealism, realism, and compromise as
defining facets of leadership tests in their closing acts.
Successor concerns influencing outgoing leaders' war decisions
Evaluating the pressures received by presidents in their last term differently concerning
the foreign policy crises that may lead to war. In other words, they have to hear the appeal for
building a favorable image on the one hand and concern with restricting the sphere of activities
of the successor on the other. Those who are invading, thinking of a certain type of invasion or
an aggression, are always worried about the capacity of their successors and the incoming regime
on decision-making especially on issues that are multifaceted and can mean something different
from what is said. But they also desire to act and have expectations of an action that would
improve their past picture. That tension commonly appears when an outgoing administration has
an opportunity to start new military actions but is not eager to do so because they do not wish to
Page 12 of 25
bind the next administration. For example, the Obama‘s team discussed, to what extent it was
appropriate to interfere in America‘s political process, when Russia tried to intervene in the
presidential elections of 2016. Whereas some said it was time to get revenge, others had
concerns that the move could escalate the already tense America and Russia relationship that
would be unpredictable under the new Trump presidency. But the lack of action has a cost and
the next generation of historians could very well label those who did not act as chicken.
Similarly, the final years of Bush‘s presidency also saw internal debate in America‘s policy
circle about planning an attack on Iran nuclear facilities or an irate leaving over the nuclear issue.
However, some officials liked that a new war or a crisis started under their term may limit the
next president‘s options, and thus they behaved in a way that was barely understandable to
people outside the Beltway. In other words, political or emotional reasons may make leaders go
to war when they know they will not have to deal with the consequences at home: the effects on
the successor and developing strategic interests frequently make leaders avoid such steps. It
speaks for their dynastic intention while at the same not wanting to appear as if they are
recklessly chaining the flexibility of the next president.
Coalition Dynamics in Parliamentary War Decision-Making
Junior coalition partners' veto power in conflicts
In other cases, where there are many political parties and none of them can form a clear
majority in the government, the government is formed by a coalition of two or more parties.
Such governing coalitions might become problematic if the senior and the junior partners have
dissimilar perspectives or objectives. The junior partners in the coalition, usually the parties with
fewer numbers but whose support is vital in accordance with the principle of majority rule, have
enormous powers including veto powers because by threatening to pull out their support they can
Page 13 of 25
pull the plug on the whole coalition. The fact that it has this kind of influence stems from the fact
that they are minor parties in most cases but are able to ‗bring down‘ the government by
withdrawing their support and precipitating new elections. Hence, junior members of a coalition
government – even those who are ‗junior‘ in the sense of having few parliamentary seats –
possess significant veto power over policies, appointments, and other decisions that affect them
or their supporters. This can in real sense allow minor parties to hold veto over the major
agendas of the larger senior coalition partner. This veto power by junior partners has influenced
policy disputes in different nations with a coalition system of government. For example, there is
a small religious party in Israel who succeeded in preventing some modifications to the military
draft exemptions formula although their size would not allow them to do so if it were not for the
fact that they are part of the ruling coalition. Likewise, a regional India party effectively blocked
retail reforms across the country because they are the junior partner supporting the Indian
government. The Free Democrats in Germany in a similar manner used their junior status to push
through nuclear power phase-outs and tax changes against the wishes of the senior conservative
coalition partner. Such as the disproportionate power wielded by junior coalition partners, which
stem from the fact that the small partners always have the leverage to bring down the entire
government if they are dissatisfied. This effective veto power is seen by critics as undesirable
and undemocratic especially when minor parties have more influence in the decision-making
process that the share of votes they got. Critics argue that there is a lot of focus on coalition
stability and this is because stability is rewarded through the compromise solutions. Citizens
deliberately cast their votes for such an option that would result in a divided government and no
single party in the majority. It can be concluded that junior partners in ruling coalitions are useful
Page 14 of 25
for creating stably functioning multiparty system at the same time; they also give small factions
significant influence over national processes.
Ideological diversity effects on war consensus building
Ideological differences in the society of a nation can also influence the chances of
attaining internal consensus for the purpose of going to war. It is easier for a nation to mobilise
support for a cause when their leadership and citizens share a broad set of values and beliefs, but
this is less likely when there is a vast divergence in the range of potential beliefs. This is because
in the perspective of different ideological systems, the justification for the war, its need, the goals
it propounds or the possible fallout from this war might be radically divergent. For instance,
political and social beliefs regarding war were seen vividly in the United States prior to Iraq war
in 2003. The more liberal opinion makers were drastically more cynic and opposed to the war,
challenged the evidence, the rationale for war and its aftermath, while most of the conservative
opinion makers were in favor of the war due to their ideological stance on security and Middle
East policy. These unresolved discrepancies ensured that it was virtually impossible to reach any
semblance of understanding between the general populace and the Argument for the war.
However, when the ideological context is coherent, it can facilitate the formation of a war
consensus by providing a united vision of priorities, threats, preferred policies, and national
identity at the leadership and societal levels. For instance, the American attack on Pearl Harbor
led to a war where Americans were politically united in supporting the war against the Axis and
diplomatically united in the fight of the Axis. In the event that internal ideological diversity
cannot be identified in a particular country, the leadership in the country in question will face
minimal inconvenience when seeking to generate national war support. But high ideological
diversity is hardly a bad thing; indeed, it is often seen as a sign of a healthy, democratic society.
Page 15 of 25
It is true that such divisions within help develop essential counterpoints and critical assessments
of the case for war, albeit at the cost of the all-pervasive war consensus. On the same note, the
ideological diversity might place certain constraints on the war preparedness of a country, but
ensures that the debate on such important matters as the one in question is not restricted.
Coalition stability concerns impacting military action choices
As leaders considered the possibility of military engagement, the Executive also has to
think through psychological variables and coalition partner‘s opinion. Comprised of two or more
sovereign states, military coalitions need consistent political support and cooperation and thus,
state unease can limit choices. If key members of a coalition are sparing with their endorsement
or active involvement in a proposed plan of action or approach, or are reluctant to commit to
certain courses of action due to domestic political pressures, perceived risks or different
objectives, then operational leaders may be forced to alter such plans to ensure congruence with
the intent of the other partners in the coalition. For instance, NATO relies mainly on consensus
decision making, thus if some major European members oppose certain target set or operational
tempo due to escalation control or civilian cost concerns then the end result of compromise
would be perhaps the less number of targets destroyed or the slower speed of operation to satisfy
others. Likewise, counterinsurgency operations where one nation is in charge but deploys allies
to gain legitimacy and support, as well as troops, needs to consider the political concerns of each
contributing state when determining the balance between ‗kinetic‘ and ‗non-kinetic‘ actions, as
well as the communication strategies to be used. An excessively forceful raid or drone strike that
the leading country can turn a blind eye to could stir up a hornet‘s nest in the home country of
the third nation training and liaison units whose introduction is so critical to building local
capability. Also like in any other field of human activity, politics defines the decision-making
Page 16 of 25
context and risk propensity for war even among partners in a treaty alliance, much less when
there are multiple stakeholders with different interests, political demands, and organizational
cultures operating under the conditions of stress and fear on the battlefield. Coordinating action
implies skilled diplomacy and popular decision making entails sacrifices from all sides—there
are no ‗win-win‘ solutions on the battlefield for wartime coalitions that are multilateral in nature
due to the fact that every member possesses their own set of interests and constraints informed
by their respective values, needs, and the political environment at home.
Media Scrutiny and Leader Survival in Wartime
24-hour news cycle pressure on war justifications
The contemporary concentration on coverage of events as they unfold in real time puts
pressure on political leaders to justify going to war instantly without taking time essential for
proper assessment. Earlier, presidents and prime ministers used ample time and chances to
consult with advisors, cross check the information received by intelligence agencies, mobilize
political support at the national and international level and prepare speeches for the public on
why wars are necessary. However, with cable news networks and online media outlets expecting
constituents to stick to the details and waiting for a quick response, elected officials feel
pressured to move swiftly. Otherwise, they can find themselves ceding the conversational ground
to pundits and partisan activists who are eager to offer their views at the speed of the internet.
Such an environment fosters more of passion driven politically charged language to energize
base voters rather than persuasion aimed at making the fence sitting citizens change their mind.
Consequently, the rationale for war is frequently populist, devoid of historical context, and
involves some level of dishonesty about the situation in question, and potential gains and losses.
For instance, during the Iraq War period, the Bush administration had to deal with high pressure
Page 17 of 25
to produce evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction before the UN inspection
teams were able to carry out their investigations on the ground. The buzzwords regarding
smoking guns and mushroom clouds rendered well in the cable news tickers but did not convey
that intelligence assessments also contain many unrecognized factors, often with significant
qualifiers and mixed or ambiguous interpretations. This is actually a more restrained excuse for
military action that could have been developed if the administration had not always kept an eye
on the hours on the clock in the newsroom. In the current highly polarized political environment,
where personal ideologies define the choices made, such reckless ignorance is not
uncharacteristic. In the case where the leader‘s judgment is proved right, people have already
rushed to the war fever, and the social contract has already been affected. The 24 hour airtime it
provides does not then allow for time for conscientious thought, thoughtful disagreement, or
logical argument. Albeit on one hand technology has provided marvelous tools to reach a wider
audience and with much faster pace for news dissemination, our institutional structures
developed during tamer times. Changes to insulation from current media trends might be
necessary to avert hasty justification or even extreme positions concerning matters of war and
peace.
Social media's role in shaping war narratives
Social networking has become one of the primary sources of people to get informed
about the events and other news. This is perhaps seen clearly when analyzing how social media
platforms such as twitter, face book and YouTube contribute in the construction of stories about
wars and military confrontations. In recent conflicts and post-civilian uprisings, events could be
tracked live through social networks, thus leaving traditional media out of the picture, which has
expanded people‘s knowledge, but has also amplified the dissemination of fake content. Thus,
Page 18 of 25
when the events are happening in real-time, sharing of posts and photos and videos from the
scene by the eye-witnesses and participants create a lens with which events are viewed before the
journalists and analysts set in to do so. As seen during the Arab Spring, social platforms were the
leading tools used to mobilize people to protest. The Syrian civil war has found its expression
over the social media platforms through the conflicting narratives in the vicious war. Combat
photographs and videos are in real time posted on the Web, sharing the gruesome experience of
war with millions of viewers at once. This determines sentiments felt by observers and level of
possible anger. As well, fake or fake news about conflict also circulate massively on the social
networks and overwhelm real and genuine information. Some examples of how the social bots
and fake accounts were used include; state actors and other entities have used social bots and
fake accounts to advance their narrative agenda including the suppression of opposing narratives
and publishing of propaganda content. Due to the challenge of authenticating every single story
and account in citizen journalism and user-generated content through social media platforms,
there is confusion, and several versions of the same narrative are created in the heat of the war
before Journalists and fact-checkers agree on the truth. On balance, it can be noted that social
media has become a two-sided tool – providing a greater number of opportunities for ordinary
people, activists, and journalists to witness real events as they occur, while at the same time
allowing immediate introduction of fake news into the information space by the villains. More
people are observing conflict situations today than before because of social media, therefore a
very critical role lies on them to ensure that the gains that come with free flow of information
counter balance detriments such as propaganda and hate speech that fuels wars rather than solve
them.
Investigative journalism's impact on leader credibility
Page 19 of 25
Sensational journalism is very useful in democratic societies in respect of the fact that it
avails to the public information through which they may assess their leaders. However, if done in
the right manner, investigative journalism can bring to the fore embezzlement of funds by the
leaders or any other activity that may demoralize them and therefore lose the people‘s faith in
their leadership. To illustrate, the raw disclosure of the Watergate scandal in Washington Post in
the 1970s exposed unlawful behaviors from people in the Nixon administration. The intricate
operational method within concealed sources and other disclosed papers offered them sufficient
proof to categorise the sequence of illegitimate actions coming from the White House. People
got annoyed when the general information got leaked to the public and put enormous pressure on
the President when the details were published. This led to the shortage of confidence with the
American people and their diminishing of his popularity and thus he had to resign from
presidency. Such a correlation between revelations reporters bring and leadership‘s diminished
trustworthiness is not a creation of any reporter; Watergate is historical appreciation, yet not
singular. Other mundane ones include reporting and being aware of infringements of the
campaign finance laws, conflict of interest, and identity theft, patronage appointments for
loyalists, lobbying and being aware of undesirable staff behavior. Concerns in these areas can
easily turn a leader‘s public persona around in a short time because they are convenient evidence
points against the affectation that the leadership role brings. This drama is enacted locally with
mayors, governors, judges, DA, sheriffs, and school board presidents as well to name it at the
nationwide and global levels. The nature of today‘s media is highly prevalent and often network
velocity accelerates this process. In some occasions the effect has been more positive where
journalism has aided in enhancing accountability However not all investigative stories are as
distinct as this one. Nevertheless, when taken to the climax or when done in a rogue style, it may
Page 20 of 25
also pollute the leaders by spreading fake information. The part played by the journal in
increasing effectiveness for the sake of democracy is well justified; but as to effectiveness, it has
more ‗plus than minus‘ impact on credibility assessment of leaders handling political climates
where perception is as good as the real picture.
International Reputation and Domestic Leader Survival
Foreign policy successes boosting leader approval ratings
Foreign policy can be an important determinant of the level of approval that a leader
enjoys from the public, based on his or her decisions and achievements in that particular area of
governance, which means that when a leader implements aggressive or politically unpopular
foreign policy decisions which turn out to be successful, it can cause the nation to ‗rally‘ around
the leader – putting aside domestic policies and criticisms. For instance, when president George
H.W. Bush, led US and a coalition of countries to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait in the Gulf War
of 1991, his popularity in the country reached almost 90% even though there were problems
ailing the economy at the same time. Thus, the public observed his firm leadership against the
Iraqi aggression as re-establishing the America‘s raw power and influence in the world.
Likewise, when President Obama decided on the use of force, specifically the raid by Navy Seals
that eliminated Bin Laden in 2011, approval rating rose further although congressional partisans
fought over domestic policies. The public supported his decision to fight for justice and
prosecute the mastermind behind the 9/11 tragedy. The approval ratings and global admiration
for the Ukrainian President VolodyMyr Zelenskyy have skyrocketed after he led the Ukrainians‘
stand against the Russian invasion. Tymoshenko's bravery during battle, as well as his capacity
to rally the Ukrainian spirit, has made him an internationally renowned figure. But this is not
necessarily an unchanging rule because foreign policy successes are not always supported by
Page 21 of 25
continuous domestic political gains. The ‗rally round the flag‘ situation lasts for a short time,
domestic issues such as a poor economy, social cleavages, scandal, or policy indiscretions
diminish support for the leader. Still, there are times where the leaders can get a periodic shot in
the arm when the public perceives them to be effectively managing foreign affairs for the
country‘s benefit, even when there remain domestic woes. Thus, while overseas successes may
not necessarily be the panacea for winning the domestic audience, they can leading to increases
in the leaders‘ public approval ratings when their actions are perceived as asserting firm, moral
leadership on the world stage.
International criticism's impact on domestic political standing
In particular, spiteful criticism affects the internal political situation greatly, extending
changes and even threatening the leadership. It imposes pressure on the leaders of a certain
country whenever other nations or international organizations comment or scold whichever
country for something that had been done or for having set whichever policy that the country
wants to implement. But at the same time, the impact is somewhat dependent on credibility of
the source. As for criticisms from various countries, countries which are friends or those with
much international influence are more sensitive than criticisms from rival countries or those who
have little influence in the world community. It also makes a difference whether for the given
topic it is more important whether it is local or global. For example, where bodies like the United
Nations or the major EU countries distaste the human rights record showcased by a country, it
may affect the impression of the population of the backward country towards the leadership as
being incapable or as not respecting the national values especially as relates to the global arena.
This is especially so for those countries that seek to become best‘ global players that respect
international law as well as standards on human rights and democracies. Criticism, on the other
Page 22 of 25
hand, by the adversary nation can at times be useful to appeal to the civilians and building
nationalism. People also ignore external criticism if seen as a way of humiliating internal issues
of their country. The criticism from the ‗democratic partners‘, however, accumulates over time,
and if they vocally express their concern about the undemocratic actions of the leadership, then
people may lose their patience and support for some of the domestic policies. For such issues
that are owned by society as climate change or economic agreements, scrutiny from the global
society that a country lacks the capacities or it is not delivering on its word may demoralize the
public and the authority in the political leadership of a country. That is why for those countries in
which the nationalist sentiments of a significant portion of the population are associated with
sovereignty and self-determination, the criticism of international organizations, including the
UN, can strengthen the activity of domestic actors and their ability to resist or ignore external
pressure or orders at least in the short term. However, in the long run, any consistent ill attitude
at the international level will undermine the image and credibility, including the most national
audience-oriented ones. The point of emphasis follows the proposition that the external climate
and political position can be shifted notably by outside voices, but only where an outside voice is
deemed sufficiently credible and where the matter is granted internal or external salience, and
people‘s perception of sovereignty or globalization/integration at the time.
Alliance obligations influencing leaders' conflict decision calculus
The obligations arising from an alliance leadership reveal the extent of formative
influences on the leaders‘ conflict decision processes. In any arrangement that countries make in
terms of an alliance they are bound to cover up for others in the alliance in the event of a
skirmish from the outside world. Such defense treaties restrict the liberty of leaders in making
world policies and force them to behave in a manner that is not in violation of their defense
Page 23 of 25
treaties. If an ally has been attacked, then the leader of the other country in the alliance must
decide if that country has to retaliate and if yes, then how it has to do that according to the treaty.
If a country does not fulfill obligations it has towards them, then it may harm the alliance,
decrease the actor‘s reputation and power globally, and build the enemy. Hence, leaders bear
treaty obligations in mind when making decisions concerning the Employment of Force,
provocation, and other actions that could invoke the subscribes into war in support of an ally.
Self-reported pro-alliance affect or the total appraisal of the potency of the ally can either
enhance or diminish the force of the treaty on decision making. It is evident that those leaders
would possibly seek for a war while others may look for a loophole or find legal ways out in case
they do not regard the ally so important or the treaty important enough. Other internal politics
pressures are: status; one is under pressure to do what is honorable or preferable; and once a
decision has been made, one needs to organize the stand to be taken, even if the result is the side
in support of allies. Therefore, the elements within the context of the leaders‘ conflict decision
making consist of ideological perception, political consideration, economic factor, and the
foreign policy relations and diplomacy of a nation that greatly shape the leaders‘ perception on
the appropriateness and the need to resort to military force, engage rivals in a heated conflict or
war and sanctions among other policies that will either exacerbate conflict or reduce it. In the
first case, a leader who has few friends can shift the policy as and when he/she wants but such a
leader is less linked to the international system than an ally who is all inked into the tangled web
of alliances and whose every major decision takes into account treaty commitments among other
things.
Page 24 of 25
Conclusion
The relationship between durability of leaders and beginning of a democratic war also
requires more research especially concerning the efforts of institutions in tempering aggressive
instincts of leaders. Free systems have traditionally been considered less warlike, though the
reasons for this trend are multifle. Although it is expected that electoral accountability can deter
war makers, studies have also revealed that many democratically elected leaders tend to start
wars when they feel that their political support at home is waning, perhaps to mobilize voters or
muzzle dissent. Such inclination towards ―gambling for resurrection‖ is quite ominous as it
gambles with lives and resources for political stakes. Evidently, therefore, there are important
moderating roles that are performed by institutional checks. Political systems with a potent
legislature, checks and balances, and unfettered and independent media also seem less likely to
use force in a reckless manner and also protect leaders from exploiting external aggression to
gain popularity. Yet democracies themselves are changing: their own nature is in the process of
transition. In the context of recent global trends such as the emergence of populist leaders and
the availability of new technologies that can allow politicians to bypass the established
structures, the role of these institutional brakes might be gradually declining. With the change in
leadership, there is a tendency for leaders to go directly to citizens with such emotions as anger
instead of going through parties or media. Given the rising polarization, inequality, and
dissatisfaction that foster populist attempts to seize power in democracies, it is important to
identify this aspect of the changing landscape of democratic war initiation. In what way
institutional erosion affects conflict behaviour of the newly elected leaders – be it fuelling
tendencies for military expansionism or imposing constraints on going to war due to public war
fatigue has particular policy ramifications. When it comes to the issues that are as important as
Page 25 of 25
lives, resources, regional stability and the very nature of democracy, or rather, its ability to
function without being hijacked for the purpose of war initiation, it seems that revealing the
intricate and dynamic relations between the democratic leaders and war initiation should be an
imperative if one wants to ensure the sustainability of peace. While democracies have
traditionally been a source of stability, it remains crucial to continue to promote the
understanding of how this record can be sustained in the face of institutional vulnerability to
manipulation that sacrifices lives in the process.
