Personalization of Politics

Personalization of politics refers to a shift from collective to individual actors and institutions. Its scope and degree can vary according to regime type, national and cultural environments, and the time span under consideration. However, personalization is commonly considered as an emerging trait in a number of relevant arenas: from voting behavior to governmental steering and from electoral campaigning to party organization. Most studies emphasize the role of leadership and media as the key determinants of political personalization, though it certainly partakes of the more general trend toward an individualized society. This entry discusses recent trends and major implications for contemporary democracies.

The most visible aspect of political personalization concerns the transformation of electoral campaigning, with the rise of candidate-centered politics. This transformation affects the whole consent mobilization process. The media, in the first place, have become the main intermediary channel between candidates and their constituencies. With [Page 1858]traditional party structures losing their grip on the electorate, candidates tend to rely on old as well as new media to spell out their programs and contact potential voters, especially in large-scale elections—for governors, prime ministers, or presidents—where TV and the Internet offer invaluable shortcuts to reaching mass audiences. To best exploit the media, candidates use media language and logic, which put a premium on individual personality.

This has led to a thorough reorganization of campaign strategies and funding, with the main focus on the media image and performance of the candidates. In the wake of the famous TV debate in 1960 between U.S. presidential candidates Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, which was held responsible for the victory of Kennedy, the Democratic nominee, the media have become the key investment of all major electoral campaigns. Several empirical studies have questioned whether the actual impact of personalized politics fully matches the vision and aims of campaign managers and spin doctors. However, while issues have remained important and party identification still plays a role in voting behavior, it is a widespread opinion that voters, today, are more heavily influenced by the personality factor than they were 20 years ago.

Though less visible and less debated than the personalization of elections, a no less important area of political personalization is the strengthening of monocratic government. Whether in presidential, semipresidential, or parliamentary regimes, the chief executive has gained more power and authority with respect to three arenas: (1) the government as a whole, (2) the party, and (3) the wider public. Personalization in government has been described as a process of presidentialization. That is, prime ministers in old as well as new democracies are now stronger with respect to the collegial bodies they chair, performing several functions that were once the prerogative of the U.S. presidential model. Increase in prime ministerial power concerns the normative as well as the organizational sphere. With the expansion of delegated legislation and emergency regulation, a large share of legislative activity has shifted from parliament to the executive and, within the executive, to the prime ministerial office. This, in turn, has grown both in human resources and in the scope of intervention, a trend that in many ways resembles the transformation of the U.S. presidency following Franklin D. Roosevelt's reforms. Prime ministers have also gained better control over the governmental agenda and the overall decision-making process, thus taking more direct responsibility for their electoral mandate.

...