Who's in the Spotlight? The Personalization of Politics in the European Parliament

• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Author: Lukáš Hamřík,Petr Kaniok
• Date: 01 May 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13281

Who’s in the Spotlight? The Personalization of Politics in the

European Parliament

LUKÁŠHAMŘÍK

1,2

and PETR KANIOK

1

1

Faculty of Social Studies, Department of International Relations and European Studies, Masaryk University, Brno

2

Faculty of Law,

Judicial Studies Institute, Masaryk University, Brno

Abstract

The personalization of politics represents a growing research f‌ield in European studies. Yet, despite

this, an institutional sphere of politics remained rather overlooked. This article aims to f‌ill this gap,

focusing on the only European Union (EU) institution with legitimacy derived directly from EU

citizens: the European Parliament (EP). This study brings new insights about political behaviour

within the EP and provides an original approach for studying (not only) EP politics. Based on

quantitative content analysis we conclude that politics in the EP has become to some extent more

personalized. However, despite the enhancement of (some) individuals’positions within the EP,

collective actors have not lost their dominant positions. The personalization can be observed pri-

marily in the f‌ield of parliamentary procedure. In agenda-setting and internal decision-making, per-

sonalization occurred as well. Any possibility of individual actors to affect the EP’s internal

organization remains very limited.

Keywords: European Parliament; Personalization of politics; Centralized personalization;

Decentralized personalization; Depersonalization

Introduction

Following the 2014 European Parliament (EP) elections, the EP President and a majority

of the parliamentary political groups’presidents outlined their decision against supporting

a candidate for the European Commission (EC) Presidency other than one of the

Spitzenkandidaten (EP, 2014). In light of this demonstration of a lack of support for a

non-Spitzenkandidat, the European Council was not given any other option but to propose

one of the ‘Parliament’s candidates’. This illustrates not only the EP’s growing role in the

nomination process for the EC Presidency in the post-Lisbon European Union (EU), but it

also demonstrates the importance of individual politicians in the EP. The EP is much more

than the Plenary, political groups, and the committees. It is also about individual

politicians.

In this study, we provide detailed insight into the EP’s internal functioning in terms of

changes in individual politicians’positions and shifts in the balance of power between

them and collective actors. In other words, we analyse the EP’s functioning through the

lens of political personalization,

1

referring to the growing role of individuals in politics.

The analysis presented here aims to broaden our knowledge in the f‌ield of political per-

sonalization research while focusing on its most neglected area –that is, the institutional

personalization of politics. In reaching this goal, we seek to answer the questions: (a) Is it

1

Both terms ‘political personalization’and the ‘personalization of politics’are used interchangeably.

JCMS 2022 Volume 60. Number 3.pp. 673–701DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13281

© 2021 University Association for Contemporary European Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

possible to observe any tendency towards adopting more personalized reforms in the EP?

(b) If so, how can be this process characterized in terms of its scope and content? (c) In

which spheres of Parliament’s activities can personalization be observed?

Based on qualitative content analysis (CA) of formal rules governing the EP’s func-

tioning, we conclude that: f‌irst, politics in the EP has become to some extent more person-

alized when compared to the early 1990s. Second, despite the enhancement of (some)

individuals’positions within the EP, collective actors have notlost their dominant posi-

tion. Third, personalization can be observed primarily in the f‌ield of parliamentary proce-

dure. In agenda-setting and internal decision-making, personalization occurred –

although to a lesser extent –as well. Any possibility of individual actors to affect the

EP’s internal organization remains very limited.

This article is structured as follows: Section I is devoted to the concept of personaliza-

tion and the ambiguity surrounding it. It also discusses the concept’s relevance and places

the personalization of politics into broader discussions on the EP and on democratic gov-

ernance in the EU. Section II focuses on the current state of the discipline, while the actors

under study, methodological choices and the data are presented in Section III. Section IV

provides an empirical analysis of institutional personalization of politics in the EP, and the

f‌inal section summarizes the main f‌indings and suggests directions for further research.

I.The Personalization of Politics and the EU

The concept of political personalization has become popular for studying transformations

in political systems. Its growing relevance can be explained by looking at numerous de-

velopments in and changes of politics and society in democratic regimes, such as the

changing role of political parties, decreases in partisan loyalty and the receding role of

ideology, lower electoral participation and growing electoral volatility (Blondel and

Thiélbault, 2010; Dalton et al., 2011; Garzia et al., 2020; McAllister, 2007;

Wattenberg, 1995). Hand in hand with these changing patterns of democratic politics, it

has become attractive to claim that while collective actors have been losing their promi-

nence, the importance of individual politicians has been on the rise.

Generally speaking, there are two standpoints from which we can approach political

personalization. The narrower one assumes that there are changes in positions of both in-

dividual and collective actors. From this perspective, the personalization of politics can be

characterized as a process during which ‘individual political actors are becoming more

prominent at the expense of parties and collective identities’(Karvonen, 2010, p. 4). Here,

we adopt a broader understating of political personalization stressing the growing impor-

tance of individual politicians (see for example Cross et al., 2018), not necessarily accom-

panied by decreasing role of collective actors. Putting this in different terms,

personalization can also occur without directly limiting the importance and the role of col-

lective actors by, for example, granting individual politicians new powers or

responsibilities.

No matter which understanding (namely broad or narrow) we opt for, when employing

the concept empirically, at least two issues should be addressed. First, researchers must

clarify which spheres of politics the concept refers to. Only once we narrow down our fo-

cus to a particular sphere will we f‌ind ourselves in a position to make reasonable claims

about how personalization may manifest itself. Second, it must be clear who the actors of

LukášHamřík and Petr Kaniok674

© 2021 University Association for Contemporary European Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd