The Personalization(s) of Politics: Israel, 1949–2003

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increase in interest in the personalization of politics. Unfortunately, the findings of studies carried out in different countries have led to inconsistent conclusions. This article argues that one of the reasons for this inconsistency is the lack of uniform conceptualization and operational definitions. The authors contend that it is helpful to make a distinction between institutional, media, and behavioral types of political personalization, and they provide specific measures of all three types. These clear distinctions should bring us closer to answering two questions: First, has there been a rise in the different types of political personalization? Second, what is the relationship between these various types of political personalization? This study shows, through a historical comparative analysis of the Israeli case (1949–2003), that political personalization can be better understood by employing Wolfsfeld's politics-media-politics (PMP) model: Institutional personalization leads to personalization in the media, which in turn leads to personalization in the behavior of politicians.

Keywords:

• candidate selection
• election coverage
• Israeli politics
• legislative behavior
• political parties

The names of the authors appear in an alphabetical order and are not intend to denote seniority in authorship.

The authors would like to thank Gadi Wolfsfeld for his help, comments, and advise, and Rami Shalheret and Keren Taman for their research assistance. This research was supported by a grant from the Eshkol Institute for Social, Economic, and Political Research in Israel.

Notes

1. The analysis of personalization in campaign strategies is not included in this study, in which we focus on the unpaid media. Yet, it is worth noting that studies of personalization in campaign strategies also present contradictory findings, although most do identify personalization in this realm (see Asp & Asaiasson, 1996; Boiney & Paletz, 1991; Caspi, 1996; Holtz-Bacha, 2004; Kahn & Kenney, 1999; Schoenbach, 1996; Swanson & Mancini, 1996; Wattenberg, 1995, 1998).

2. The analysis of personalization in the electoral behavior of voters is also not included in this study. Yet, it should be noted that studies of this phenomenon sometimes present contradictory findings. Some studies in Germany found no evidence for personalization in voters' behavior (Brettschneider & Gabriel, 2002; Kaase, 1994); in the U.S., some found no evidence for personalization in voters' behavior (Bartels, 2002; Miller & Shanks, 1996), while others did (Boiney & Paletz, 1991; Jacobson, 1989). Previous analyses by Shamir and Arian (1999) and by Arian and Shamir (2002) do recognize a small, but quite steady, increase in the impact of performance evaluations of the leading candidates on the vote in Israel in the period 1988–1999.

3. Since 1992, the large parties have added the name of their leader to the name of the party on the ballot paper. This is an additional sign of personalization, but it cannot be considered a significant institutional change.

4. We considered including democratization in leadership selection methods in our measure. But unlike candidate selection, leadership selection does not occur regularly before each election. In any case, overall trends in leadership selection in Israel are similar to those of candidate selection, so we are not missing much by concentrating on candidate selection.

5. For example, a rating of 1 meant that a small exclusive nominating committee determined the composition and rank of the candidate list, but an “en-block” approval of the candidate list by a wider, more inclusive party agency was nevertheless needed. This gave a party agency some influence in the process, because the members of the nominating committee had to consider the need for approval.

6. These two newspapers have existed since independence and always enjoyed a significant share of the Israeli readership. The first is a popular tabloid newspaper, while the second is a broadsheet.

7. The most important of these are, first, the focus of the news item on candidates compared with its focus on parties, measured as the percentage of news items that focus mainly on the party, the candidates, or both, and second, the focus of the news item on the candidates' personal traits compared with its focus on the candidates' political performance.