The Personalisation of Politics in the 21st Century - A Research Project on Electoral Democracy
The Personalisation of Politics in the 21st Century - A Research Project on Electoral Democracy
This project is situated in the comparative electoral behaviour field and seeks to incorporate into it several strands of comparative politics which have not been adequately modeled until now. Previous research I have conducted, namely on the relationship between party type and leader effects, party dealignment and the evaluation of leaders, as well as on political leadership forms the basis for the project (see publications document). Using a comparative and multilevel methodological approach the significance of leader effects for the quality of democracy will be analysed.
Studies of the relationship between leaders, their parties and political institutions have stated that democracies have become personalised, i.e. that irrespective of the formal constitutional position party leaders rather than political parties are now the decisive actors in the political system. (Poguntke and Webb, 2005; McAllister, 2007). Those who stress the personalization thesis see this phenomenon as a corollary of modernization and the individualization of society (Thomassen, 2005). In such a context, voting choices are based on short-term issues and leaders rather than relying on party as heuristics (Dalton et. al., 2000, Mair et. al., 2004). Focusing on the personalization of politics is important because leaders function as bellwethers for the quality of democracy: they are a key variable in understanding the nature of the relationship between electors, parties and political institutions.
Indeed, in hallmark studies the importance of leaders has been interpreted as a signal of a decrease in the political content of electoral choices (Campbell, 1966; Nie, et al., 1976). In this view, using leaders as a cue for voting symbolizes a decline in the accountability between voters and politicians: the former are wooed by appealing media images rather than through party political mobilisation. However, that is only true if empirically it is determined that leaders matter because of their personal characteristics, or if they matter especially for those without political knowledge. On the contrary, if we find that leaders matter because of the political positions they hold, their representation of a given party, or for the politically informed, then we must conclude that leader effects are a sign of a politicized, rational electorate. In this scenario, a personalization of politics would signify a relationship between the electorate and politicians whereby the latter are closely monitored.
Project The Personalisation of Politics in the 21st Century- A Research Project on Electoral Democracy - PTDC/CPJ-CPO/120295/2010 - Financed by FCT
Political Leaders;
Elections;
European Democracies;
Voting Contexts
This project is situated in the comparative electoral behaviour field and seeks to incorporate into it several strands of comparative politics which have not been adequately modeled until now. Previous research I have conducted, namely on the relationship between party type and leader effects, party dealignment and the evaluation of leaders, as well as on political leadership forms the basis for the project (see publications document). Using a comparative and multilevel methodological approach the significance of leader effects for the quality of democracy will be analysed.
Studies of the relationship between leaders, their parties and political institutions have stated that democracies have become personalised, i.e. that irrespective of the formal constitutional position party leaders rather than political parties are now the decisive actors in the political system. (Poguntke and Webb, 2005; McAllister, 2007). Those who stress the personalization thesis see this phenomenon as a corollary of modernization and the individualization of society (Thomassen, 2005). In such a context, voting choices are based on short-term issues and leaders rather than relying on party as heuristics (Dalton et. al., 2000, Mair et. al., 2004). Focusing on the personalization of politics is important because leaders function as bellwethers for the quality of democracy: they are a key variable in understanding the nature of the relationship between electors, parties and political institutions.
Indeed, in hallmark studies the importance of leaders has been interpreted as a signal of a decrease in the political content of electoral choices (Campbell, 1966; Nie, et al., 1976). In this view, using leaders as a cue for voting symbolizes a decline in the accountability between voters and politicians: the former are wooed by appealing media images rather than through party political mobilisation. However, that is only true if empirically it is determined that leaders matter because of their personal characteristics, or if they matter especially for those without political knowledge. On the contrary, if we find that leaders matter because of the political positions they hold, their representation of a given party, or for the politically informed, then we must conclude that leader effects are a sign of a politicized, rational electorate. In this scenario, a personalization of politics would signify a relationship between the electorate and politicians whereby the latter are closely monitored.
Project The Personalisation of Politics in the 21st Century- A Research Project on Electoral Democracy - PTDC/CPJ-CPO/120295/2010 - Financed by FCT
