ABSTRACT
In the first part of this study, general reasons which militate for the existence of an impact of leaders’ personalisation have been presented, whether there is direct influence on the citizens or whether it takes place through the parties of these leaders. These reasons were given both in terms of what might be broadly described as ‘human nature in politics’ and in the specific context of the current evolution of societies, primarily in the West. Yet, while these reasons have been put forward, there is widespread scepticism about these forms of influence among the specialists of electoral behaviour: there may be consensus about the difficulties and even the decline of large parties, at any rate in Western Europe: but there is much less agreement, to say the least, about the impact of personalisation in propelling at the polls either the leaders themselves or the parties which these direct; indeed, as we saw in earlier chapters, that impact has been regarded globally as insignificant according to conventional electoral behaviour wisdom. Thus, either the apparent appeal of leader personalisation on the electorate directly or through the parties of these leaders is (at least in large part) an illusion entertained primarily by the media, or more ‘digging’ has to be done if the claim that the impact of leader personalisation does play an important part is to be regarded as convincing.
