Warrior candidates: Do voters value combat experience in postwar elections?

• Author: Josip Glaurdić,Christophe Lesschaeve
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211040524
• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Date: 01 December 2022

Article

PoliticalResearchQuarterly

2022,Vol.75(4)950–965

©TheAuthor(s)2021

Articlereuseguidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI:10.1177/10659129211040524

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Warriorcandidates:Dovotersvalue

combatexperienceinpostwarelections?

JosipGlaurdi´

c

1

andChristopheLesschaeve

1

Abstract

Electoralcompetitioninpostwarsocietiesisoftendominatedbywarveterans.Thequestionwhethervotersactually

rewardcandidates’recordsofwarservice,however,remainsopen.Weansweritusingauniquedatasetwithdetailed

informationontherecordsofcombatserviceofnearlyfourthousandcandidatesintwocyclesofparliamentaryelections

heldunderproportionalrepresentationruleswithpreferentialvotinginCroatia.Ouranalysisshowswarveterans’

electoralperformancetobeconditionalonthevoters’communities’exposuretowarviolence:combatveteransreceivea

sizeableelectoralbonusinareaswhosepopulationsweremoreexposedtowarviolence,butarepenalizedinareaswhose

populationsavoideddestruction.Thisdivergenceisparticularlypronouncedforcandidatesofnationalistrightwingparties,

demonstratingtheimportanceoftheinteractionbetweenlivedwarexperiencesandpoliticalideologyinpostwarsocieties.

Keywords

postwarelections,voterchoice,warveterans,preferentialvoting,Croatia

Neverwassomuchowedbysomanytosofew.

WinstonChurchill,1940

Militarymenarejustdumb,stupidanimalstobeusedas

pawnsinforeignpolicy.

HenryKissinger,1974

WinstonChurchill’sfamouswordscapturedthepre-

vailingsentimentofgratitudeoftheBritishpublictothe

RoyalAirForcepilotswhowerefightingwithextraor-

dinarycourageagainsttheLuftwaffeintheBattleof

Britain.Kissinger,ontheotherhand,allegedlycoinedhis

maximtoannoyhisrival,theWhiteHouseChiefofStaff

GeneralAlexanderHaig,inthelastdaysoftheVietnam

WarandtheNixonPresidency.Thesetwoquoteswerenot

onlytheproductsoftwoverydifferentmenspeakingin

twoverydifferenthistoricalcontextssurroundingtwo

verydifferentwars.Theyalsocapturedtwocommon

stereotypesofmenandwomenwhoservedincombat:one

ofvalor,patriotism,andsacrifice,andtheotherof

mindlessserviceaslittlemorethancannonfodder.How

dothesestereotypestranslatetotheworldofelectoral

politicsoncetheviolenceends?Dowarveteranswho

choosetorunforofficecapitalizeonpresumablypositive

popularsentimentamongvoters,oraretheypenalizedat

leastamongsomevotersfortheirrecordsofservice?As

examplesrangingfromWeimarGermany(Ziemann2012)

throughpost-WorldWarIIUnitedStates(Teigen2018),to

contemporaryKosovo(Capussela2015)demonstrate,war

veteranshaveoutsizedpoliticalinfluenceinpostwar

societies.Butdovotersactuallyvaluewarveteranpoli-

ticians’recordsofserviceincombat?

Theshortanswertothatquestionisthatwedonot

know.TheevidencewehavefromtheUnitedStates,

wheretherelationshipbetweenpoliticalcandidates’

recordsofcombatserviceandtheirelectoralfortunes

hasarguablybeenresearchedthemost,isatbestmixed

andhighlydependentonthewarsinquestion.Both

WorldWarIIheroesandVietnamWardraftdodgershave

beenelectedtothePresidency.Tangibleevidenceonthis

issuefrompost-conflictsocietieswhosepopulationsex-

periencedviolencefirsthandisevenslimmer,arguably

1

InstituteofPoliticalScience,UniversityofLuxembourg,Esch-sur-

Alzette,Luxembourg

CorrespondingAuthor:

JosipGlaurdi´

c,InstituteofPoliticalScience,UniversityofLuxembourg,2,

avenuedel’Universit´

e,Esch-sur-AlzetteL-4365,Luxembourg.

Email:josip.glaurdic@uni.lu

non-existent.Obviously,collectingreliableelectoraldata

inpost-conflictsocieties,particularlyrelatedtocandi-

dates’warrecords,canbeexceptionallydifficult.Nev-

ertheless,theinabilityoftheliteraturetofullyaccountfor

thedriversofvoterchoiceinpost-conflictsocieties—

especiallydriversrelatedtotherecentwarpast,which

maybeprecludingthepoliticsinthesesocietiesfrom

movingforward—hasbeenregrettable.

Weprovideanswerstothesequestionsusingaunique

datasetonnearlyfourthousandcandidatesinthe2015and

2016parliamentaryelectionsinCroatia,organizedunder

proportionalrepresentationruleswithpreferentialvoting.

Ourdatasetincludesinformationonthelengthofcan-

didates’combatserviceinCroatia’sarmedandpolice

forcesduringthecountry’s1991–1995WarofIndepen-

dence.Thisinformationwaspubliclyavailable(andhotly

debated)inadedicatedonlineregistryofwarveteransat

thetimeofthetwoelectoralcampaigns,providinguswith

auniquetestofhowcandidates’warpastsarerelatedto

theirelectoralfortunes.Wepairourcandidate-leveldata

withastringofvariablesonthelevelofCroatia’s556

relativelysmallmunicipalities,includinginformationon

thelocalpopulation’sexposuretowarviolence.Theresults

ofouranalysisareclear.Croatianvoters,eventwodecades

afterthewar,generallyrewardveteransattheballotboxfor

theircombatservice.Votersdothat,however,conditional

ontheirowncommunities’exposuretowarviolence.In

areaswhosepopulationsweremoreexposedtowarvio-

lence,combatveteransreceiveasizeableelectoralbonus.

Inareaswhosepopulationsavoideddestruction,however,

combatveteransareactuallypenalized.Thisdivergenceis

particularlypronouncedforcandidatesandvotersofna-

tionalistrightwingpartiesthatweredecisivelyshapedby

the1991–1995war,demonstratingtheimportanceofthe

interactionbetweenlivedwarexperiencesandpolitical

ideologyinpostwarsocieties.AlthoughitsWarofInde-

pendenceremainspoliticallysalienttothisday,webelieve

Croatiaactuallypresentsaparticularlydifficultcaseforour

analysisduetothetemporaldistanceofthewarfromthe

twoelectoralcampaigns,thedecisivenatureofthewar’s

resolutioninCroatia’svictory,andthecountry’smove

towardEuropeanintegration.Thissuggeststhatthegeneral

thrustofourfindings,whichshowhowwarexperiences

affectthenatureofpostwarpoliticalcompetition,shouldbe

portabletootherpostwarsettings,thoughobviouslymore

researchinothercontextsisneededtotestourpropositions.

Combatveteransaselectoralcandidates:

Valence,experientialcloseness,

andideology

Researchontherelationshipbetweenpoliticians’military

orwarexperienceandtheirelectoralfortuneshasbeen

dominatedbycontributionsfocusedontheUScontext.

Eversincethe1948propositionby

1

thatmilitaryheroes

hadmuchhigherchancesofbeingelectedtothepresi-

dency,thevalueofveteranstatushasbeenvirtuallytaken

forgrantedbytheobserversofUSelectionsandthe

establishmentsofthetwoparties(Karsten2013).The

actualrecordofveterancandidatesinelectoralcontests,

however,hasbeenrathermixed.SomitandTanenhaus

(1957)foundveteranssubstantiallyoverrepresented

amongbothRepublicanandDemocratcandidatesin

congressionalelectionsoftheearly1950s,butfaringno

betterorworsethantheirnon-veterancounterpartsatthe

ballotbox.Lookingatcongressionalelectionsfivede-

cadeslater,Teigen(2008)foundveteranexperience

bringingaslightelectoraladvantageonlytoRepublican

nominees.Despitestrongsurveyevidenceofvoters’

positiveratingsofmilitaryleadersontheirintegrity,

knowledge,abilities,andleadershipincomparisonto

othertraditionalpoolsofpoliticalcandidates(McDermott

andPanagopoulos2015),morerecentexperimentalre-

searchhasfoundthattherewasnoacross-the-board

benefitforveterancandidatesamongAmericanvoters.

Veteransseemtobeconsideredmorecompetentonde-

fenseandsecurityissues(Teigen2013),aswellasmore

hawkish,butthistranslatesonlytoanadjustmentinthe

voterpreferencefunctionconcerningveteranDemocrat

candidatesamongsomesegmentsoftheelectorate

(McDermottandPanagopoulos2015).Inotherwords,

Americanvotersdoholdsomestereotypicalviewsof

veterancandidatesandusetheirmilitaryexperienceasa

heuristicforpolicyandtraitviews.Nevertheless,itis

unclearwhetherthistranslatesintotangibleelectoral

benefitsforveterancandidates.

MorecriticalthanthisambiguityregardingAmerican

voters’viewsofpoliticianswithrecordsofmilitaryser-

vice,however,isthefactthatweknowverylittleabout

voters’viewsofthecandidates’warpastsinsocietieswith

experiencesofconflictontheirownsoil.Anumberof

aggregate-levelfindingsfrompost-conflictpolities

demonstratesthatelectoralcompetitioncanbedecisively

determinedbythepatternsofviolenceandthepop-

ulation’sallegiancesintheendedconflict(e.g.,Costalli

andRuggeri2019;Hadzic,Carlson,andTavits2020).We

donotknow,however,whethervotersinpost-conflict

societiesactuallyvalueindividualcandidates’recordsof

militaryservice.Clearly,thishasbeenthecaseduetoa

numberofpracticalobstaclesinconductingelectoral

researchinpost-conflictcontexts.Post-conflictsocieties

oftenhavefarfromperfectdemocraticinstitutionsand

electoralcompetitions,nottomentionthatreliablesys-

tematicdataonpoliticians’warpastsisextremelyhardto

comebyforresearchers.Notwithstandingtheseevident

obstacles,however,thelimitationsoftheliteraturein

understandingthedriversofwar-relatedvoterchoicein

Glaurdi´

candLesschaeve951