Conflicts with a long and tortured history, such as that between Israel and Palestine, can often seem set in stone, but research from the University of Birmingham highlights how hawkish politicians can exacerbate matters.

The researchers explain that such politicians often propose tougher settlements than their citizens may want in order to appear tough and better able to “manage” potential conflict.  This process prompts even political “doves” to toughen their stance in the face of elections.

Favoring hawks

The authors suggest that when voters don’t really have a firm grasp on the ideology or policies of a politician, they tend to plump for those of a more hawkish nature.  They cite examples from both Australia and the UK of politicians toughening up their stances in the face of conflict, regardless of whether they were hawks or doves beforehand.

Such an approach has delivered electoral success for Narendra Modi in India and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel.  Similarly, Barack Obama toughened up his stance when faced with lower support.

“Conflict between nations is common and often lasts for a long time. The Israel-Palestine conflict, for example has led to enormous costs to both sides and continues to persist,” the authors say.  “Our findings shed fresh light on the persistence of the Middle East conflict and the rise of ideological hawks in the U.S. following the 9/11 terror attacks.”

The authors explain that during periods of conflict, hawkish policies tend to dominate, both among incumbent politicians and those seeking election.

Appearing tough

The researchers attempted to model conflict during a land dispute between two groups.  One of these groups had a leader with the ability to manage the conflict post-settlement that was unknown to voters.  The leader may have either hawkish or dovish ideologies, and the researchers examined various scenarios in which voters knew that and where they didn’t.

Each proposed settlement had a probability of conflict associated with it, with tougher settlements typically assigned a higher likelihood of conflict due to the leader ceding less ground to their opposition.

“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,” the researchers conclude.

“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.”