Summary

In the fields of political science and political communication, considerable research attention has been devoted to political personalization, a phenomenon whereby politicians become the main anchor in interpreting and evaluating the political process. While the personalization of politics has indeed become a hallmark of contemporary democracies, the phenomenon itself is by no means new. Historically, political power has long been identified with individuals, as is elaborated in the 1957 classic work The King’s Two Bodies by Ernst Kantorowicz. In his studies of the historical development of social and political orders, Max Weber identifies, as one of the three main forms of political legitimacy, what he termed “charismatic authority,” which is based on a leader’s personal charisma. Similarly, studies of the early phases of representative democracies have emphasized that, during that time, political representation largely centered on personal factors rather than on nationally identifiable collective interests and loyalties. This personalization process has gained momentum in Western liberal democracies as of the second half of the 20th century, and the 21st century is expected to see a continuation of that trend.

Three basic types of political personalization are institutional, media, and behavioral. The first pertains to the shifting focus from collective bodies, such as parties and other political entities, to individual politicians within governments. The second entails a growing concentration of media attention on individual politicians as opposed to parties, institutions, or policy issues, while the latter is anchored in politicians’ conduct and voters’ electoral behavior.

An important distinction that has been increasingly developed in the literature is between personalization and privatization; the latter, sometimes termed intimization, is considered a subcategory of the former. Personalization refers to focus on a public figure’s political activities, whereas privatization refers to focus on their personal life. In the context of political campaigns, privatization involves strategies that emphasize candidates’ personal attributes over their and their parties’ political suitability, achievements, and goals.

Personalization influences not only voters and politicians but also international perceptions, and they can enhance engagement and trust by humanizing politics. However, it also risks simplifying complex issues, fostering polarization and undermining trust in political institutions over time. Thus, the study of political personalization is essential for understanding its significant impact in various forms and spheres.