Threats and Force: Repression and Externalization of Domestic Pressure by Latin American Leaders, 1946-82

Do political leaders respond to domestic political and economic challenges with the use of force at home and abroad? The foreign policy and world politics literatures are replete with references to political leaders’ alleged use of external conflict when confronted with domestic challenges, but does not consider domestic responses to dissent. The comparative literature identifies a strong linkage between domestic challenges and political leaders' resort to repressive policies, but ignores the option of foreign conflict. We contend that foreign conflict and repression are complementary, rather than exclusive, strategies leaders may use in their efforts to maintain political power in the face of domestic pressure. In addition, we incorporate the notion that the level of domestic political constraints conditions the opportunity and likelihood of selecting either repression or foreign conflict in response to domestic challenges. To examine the relationships between domestic threats and the use of force domestically and in foreign policy, we conduct a quantitative analysis of 257 Latin American and Caribbean political leaders for the period 1946-82. Our analysis suggests a strong relationship between domestic conflict and a leader's use of repression, though our results indicate only weak support for the contention that domestic conflict and economic pressure increase the likelihood that leaders will resort to use of force abroad. Moreover, any evidence that the use of external force may be applied as an alternative to repression is modest at best. INTRODUCTION Longstanding propositions in the world politics and foreign policy literatures suggest that political leaders may seek to divert domestic discontent and bolster public support by involving the state in foreign conflict (see Levy 1989). In a related, yet distinct vein, the comparative literature consistently identifies linkages between domestic political conflict and the resort by leaders to repressive policies (see Davenport 1995). In the following paper, we seek to combine these two inquiries by considering the linkage between domestic threats and the use of force at home or abroad from the perspective of political leaders. We argue that considering repression and externalization as separate strategies for political survival undercuts our abil ity to comprehend the range of responses, or policy choices, leaders make in the face of varying domestic political threats. Indeed, we argue that pursuit of conflict abroad or at home through repression constitute complimentary strategies leaders may resort to when confronted by domestic threats to their power. Our inquiry into the relationship between domestic political and economic conditions, repression, and external conflict is organized in the following fashion. We briefly review the literature on the link between domestic political conflict and economic challenges, and leaders’ use of repression and force abroad in response to these pressures. We then explore how domestic political and economic challenges affect the incentives for political leaders to use force abroad or employ repression at home under varying levels of political constraints. We test the hypothesized linkages between domestic threats and leaders’ use of force at home and abroad on a sample of 257 Latin American and Caribbean Leaders for the period 1946-82.