One needs to examine Hermann’s six personality characteristics of leaders: nationalism, perception of control, need for power, and need for affiliation, conceptual complexity, and distrust of others, in order to see why some leaders act a certain way. Moreover, the personal characteristics and orientations of heads of government are likely to have more impact on a government’s foreign policy under some circumstances than under others (Hermann 13). With this Hermann categorized the personality traits of leaders into two orientations. On one hand, there are the aggressive leaders who are leaders with high levels of nationalism, a strong belief in their own ability to control events, a strong need for power, low levels of conceptual complexity, and high levels of distrust for others. Such leaders tend to develop an independent orientation to foreign affairs. On the other hand Hermann finds the conciliatory leader to be high in need for affiliation, conceptual complexity, trusting of others, low in nationalism and likely to exhibit little belief in their own ability to control the events in which they are involved (Hermann: 8).
Another type of personal characteristic is that of interpersonal style, which is the characteristic way in which a policy maker deals with other policy makers. There are two interpersonal style characteristics according to Hermann, they are: 1) Paranoia – excess suspiciousness, and 2) Machiavellianism – unscrupulous, manipulative behaviour. These traits can be found in a type of political leader with a warfare personality such as Stalin and Hitler.
Individual traits do influence foreign policy. There are cases where a countries foreign policy has taken a drastic change as leadership changes through death or elections. This was seen in the abandonment of President Jimmy Carter’s human rights focus in favour of a hawkish, cold war policy orientation of President Ronald Reagan when he succeeded Carter. It is clearly evident that the US foreign policy changed with a change in leadership. Further the revolutionary tendencies of Fidel Castro and the direction he has taken Cuba since its revolution is another demonstration of individual traits affecting foreign policy. Still another example of individual trait influencing foreign policy is when Seaga replaced Manley as leader of Jamaica in 1980. Seaga severed ties with Cuba leading Jamaica from social-democracy to a strong alliance with the West.
Another aspect of understanding individuals is by analyzing their worldviews such as their ideologies, (capitalism vs. communism), values, self-determination and beliefs and perceptions such as their gut feelings or unexamined assumptions. Neack states that, ‘the belief set which is a more of less integrated set of images held by an individual about a particular universe’ (Neack, 2003: 58).
Within international relations we see the traditional theories as being relevant even in the field of foreign policy. Realism considers the “proper, rational and inevitable goal of foreign policy as the acquisition of power,” (Evans, Newham, 1998: 465) as well as the state being the primary unit of analysis whilst in structuralism the economy matters. Together, they consider the decisions of the leaders to be the state’s decision as the leader represents the interests of the state. It must be noted that the realists do not consider individuals important, independent actors in the international system. They view the anarchic international system and the power-hungry state as constraining to individuals (Mingst, 2004: 155).
While the realist school of thought may negate the personal characteristics of a political leader, arguing that it is not the individual that is acting, it is the state and that if someone else was in the same position they might have done the same. One must be cognizant of the fact that major events in international history were brought about by individual actors. Notably, the Cold War ended because of the actions of Grobechav. The assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand was key in the immediate cause of World War I. More recently, if it were another president in office other than George Bush one doubts there would be a war with Iraq now. The actions of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in the 1970s flowed directly from his primary beliefs. His operational code and cognitive map of “Egypt First” illustrated the direction of course he set for Egypt (Neack, 2003: 64-65). The personal characteristics and orientations of foreign affairs of political leaders are important. Nonetheless, one needs to be cognizant of the fact that personal characteristics is only a first step in the process of trying to explain why governments do certain things in the foreign policy arena.
Bibliography
Beasley, Ryan, Kaarbo et al. Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective: Domestic and International Influences on State Behaviour. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc, 2001.
Evans, Graham and Jeffrey Newham. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Books 1998.
Hermann, Margaret. Explaining Foreign Policy Behaviour Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders, International Studies Quarterly 24 (1) March, 1980:7-46.
Mingst, Karen. Essentials of International Relations. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2004.
Neack, Laura. The New Foreign Policy: U.S. and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
