Linkage Politics In The Middle East

Syria Between Domestic And External Conflict, 1961-1970

Yaacov Bar-siman-tov

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429716973
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Traditional studies of linkage politics tend to assume that internal political instability leads a government to divert attention from internal problems by initiating an external conflict or stressing the pressures of international problems. In contrast, quantitative studies typically conclude that there is little or no relationship between interna

Part I
A Theoretical Framework

1
Linkage Politics and Conflict Linkage

Linkage Politics

The term “linkage politics” was coined by James N. Rosenau in 1969 in an effort to present a new approach to research on the political behavior of states.¹ Rosenau’s declared aims in developing this conception were twofold. First, he wished to connect the two spheres of research that dealt with the political behavior of states – research on national politics and on international politics – by establishing a new conceptual and methodological language that would be acceptable both in political science and in international relations. Second, he wanted to provide a research framework for the systematic testing of connections between national and international political behavior.

Rosenau did not set out to prove that there are reciprocal connections between national and international politics; the existence of such connections was so clear in his mind, that there was no need of a new methodology to ensure it scientific recognition.² Rather, the impetus to develop the linkage conception came about from Rosenau’s belief that scholars in political science and international relations generally ignored each other’s existence.³ Rosenau felt that the total conceptual separation of the two disciplines was not only unjustified but harmful, and was a central factor in the non-development of a general political theory that would be able to cross existing boundaries between national and international politics.⁴

In Rosenau’s words, linkage may be defined as “recurrent sequences of behavior that originate on one side of the boundary between the two types of systems and that become linked to phenomena on the other side in the process of unfolding,” or as “any recurrent sequence of behavior that originates in one system and is reacted to in another.”⁵ By this definition, he gives a twofold signification to the linkage concept.⁶ Primarily, it refers to interaction between the internal and external political environments of the actor in question in the course of shaping foreign or internal policy. The second signification refers to the ways in which interactions between actors in the internal political environment affect those between actors in the international system, and vice versa – that is, how interactions between the actors in the international system affect the internal political environment of any of the actors involved.

In order to distinguish between the beginning and end of a linkage, Rosenau defines the former as output and the latter as input. Outputs and inputs are defined according to whether they occur in the national or international political system.⁷ Connections between outputs and inputs create a reciprocal feedback network between national and international political systems, whereby outputs of the national are inputs for the international political system, and vice versa.⁸

What distinguishes linkage politics is the number of possible relationships it sets out to define. In Rosenau’s view, linkage is not limited to the interactions existing between governments in the international system, as described in most international relations studies. Nor is it confined to interactions between a government and other internal political actors within a given state, as described by most political science works. Linkage, according to Rosenau, can also exist between a government and the internal political actors of another government; in other words, an external government can interact with the parties, interest groups, pressure groups, etc. in a second national political system, without the mediation of the latter system’s government. Moreover, the internal political bodies of two national political systems can interact without the mediation of the governments themselves. In terms of international relations, the internal political bodies in these systems are then filling the roles of transnational actors.⁹

An important aim of linkage politics is to establish a synthesis between international relations and political science. Without saying so explicitly, Rosenau also seems to believe that the concept of linkage politics can be extended to the two research levels of international relations, that of the state and of the system. On the state level, Rosenau tries to identify formation of a state’s foreign policy as a function of the interactions between internal political actors who are not within the ruling elite of a given state and the government or other internal political actors of another state. On the system level, Rosenau tries to identify how interactions between actors within the internal political environment of a given state and either the government itself or non-governmental internal political actors within other states in the system affect interactions within the international system.

Conflict Linkage

“Conflict linkage” is an extension of linkage politics that focuses on the more limited aspect of the relationship between conflicts in the internal political environment of a given state and those of the international system. We can differentiate among three main approaches that deal with the relationship between internal and external conflict: the socio-psychological; the traditional; and the quantitative approach. These approaches are examined below in greater detail.

The Socio-Psychological Approach

Many researchers in sociology and psychology have dealt with the connections between internal and external conflicts. In fact, most of the accepted hypotheses of conflict linkage research are derived from socio-psychological studies dealing either with individuals or various social groups. The present study is particularly indebted to Georg Simmel’s work, Conflict, and to Lewis Coser’s reformulation of that work.¹⁰ The following contentions of Simmel, reformulated by Coser, are particularly relevant to the present research:

(1) “Conflict with another group leads to the mobilization of the energies of group members and hence to increased cohesion of the group. Whether increase in centralization accompanies this increase in cohesion depends upon both the character of the conflict and the type of group.”

(2) “Social systems lacking social solidarity are likely to disintegrate in the face of outside conflict, although some unity may be despotically enforced.”¹¹

(3) “Rigidly organized struggle groups may actually search for enemies with the deliberate purpose or the unwitting result of maintaining unity and internal cohesion. Such groups may actually perceive an outside threat although no threat is present. Under conditions yet to be discovered, imaginary threats have the same group-integrating function as real threat. The evocation of an outer enemy or the invention of such an enemy strengthens social cohesion that is threatened from within.”¹²

These three basic contentions indicate the connections between internal and external conflicts, the directions they may take and the conditions that determine such directions. It is actually possible to reduce these three propositions to two: (a) an external conflict can intensify or limit an internal conflict in a group; (b) an internal conflict can heighten or reduce the tension of an external conflict. Simmel’s third contention is a “scapegoat” theory that posits the use of an outer “circle” in order to overcome an internal conflict. As such, it can be considered a subgroup of the second proposition. The scapegoat theory can also posit exploitation of an inner circle, such as an ethnic minority, in order to overcome some other domestic conflict. Such a case would, however, touch on the relationship between two internal conflicts – which is outside the scope of this study.¹³

Simmel’s basic contentions, as reformulated by Coser, are also accepted in psychology studies. Leonard Berkowitz, for instance, states that threatening situations create social harmony and that external aggression creates cohesion between different sectors of the population.¹⁴ Mark A. May argues that war is an important element in uniting any social group; under attack from outside, internal quarrels are pushed into the background. Complex psychological processes, May says, work to limit internal tension and intensify the internal sense of belonging. Outside attack heightens each individual’s sense of insecurity, and the group as a whole realizes that joint defense is the best way to face up to danger.¹⁵

Common to all these contentions is the belief that conflict between groups can be exploited to create internal solidarity within a given group, and that there is a tendency among certain groups to ultilize external conflict as a means of settling internal problems. A number of researchers have attempted to test these contentions by empirical means. Muzafer Sherif et al. tested a hypothesis similar to Coser’s by observing the behavior of small groups of children taking part in conflict games. The data they compiled tend to strengthen the following hypothesis: “The course of relations between two groups which are in a state of competition and frustration will tend to produce an increase in group solidarity.”¹⁶ In another piece of research, Sherif determined that increased hostility between groups promotes solidarity and cooperation within the groups, and that leaders or representatives of groups tend to restrain internal criticism by directing accusations at other groups.¹⁷

These socio-psychological contentions have also been applied to state and international behavior. The socio-psychological approach holds, in brief, that when a political elite or leadership is in domestic difficulty, it may focus upon a circle of external conflict in order to secure domestic calm. The decision to launch an act of international aggression, for example, may be made in order to increase national patriotic sentiment, in the hope that this will reduce the level of domestic conflict.

The Traditional Approach

The traditional school in international relations accepts intuitively assumptions that are similar to those of the socio-psychology researchers, to the effect that in special circumstances, there is a relationship between internal and external conflict. Traditionalists assume that in circumstances of internal political instability, the political leadership of a state tends to divert the attention of its population to the external political arena, either by initiating an external conflict or stressing the pressures of the external environment. Quincy Wright, for example, argues in his book, A Study of War, that it is common for states “to indulge in foreign war as a diversion from domestic ills.”¹⁸ In his Encyclopaedia Britannica article on war, Wright raises the question whether totalitarian or dictatorial regimes can survive at all without an external scapegoat.¹⁹

Democratic, constitutional leaders may also find it useful to stress international questions in order to divert attention from internal political problems, writes Barry Farrell.²⁰ Henry Kissinger agrees that such a tendency exists, adding: “If domestic structures are reasonably stable, temptations to use an adventurous foreign policy to achieve domestic cohesion are at a minimum.”²¹

Ernst Haas and Allen Whiting similarly assert that a domestic leadership bent on its own survival may find itself pursuing a foreign policy of conflict – or even actual war – in an effort to defend itself against domestic attack. At times of extreme internal tensions between rival elites, it is often seen as a useful policy to unite the state against a real or imaginary external threat.²²

Geoffrey Blainey studied the connections between civil and international strife in a group of nations during the period of 1815–1939. His finding was that in more than half the cases, a war between nations was preceded by civil strife in one of these nations.²³ Frank Denton, researching the still longer period of 1820–1949, put forward a similar proposition.²⁴ Richard Rosecrance, wh...