Siyasetin Kişiselleşmesi ve Kolektif Temsiliyetin Krizi: Teorik ve Pratik Yaklaşımlar

Year 2025, Issue: 119, 175 - 198, 25.09.2025

Taylan Can Doğanay

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1599713

Abstract

Siyasetin kişiselleşmesi üzerine ilk araştırmalar, 20. yüzyılın ortalarına doğru, özellikle kitle iletişim araçlarının yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte, siyaset bilimciler tarafından yürütülmeye başlanmıştır. Daha geniş anlamda ise 20. yüzyılın sonlarına doğru, siyasetin kişiselleşmesi teorik bir çerçeveye oturtulmuş ve hem Batı demokrasilerindeki lider merkezli siyasetin yükselişi hem de bu eğilimin demokratik süreçler üzerindeki etkileri sistematik olarak incelenmeye alınmış; “aday merkezli siyaset” tarzı siyasetin kişiselleşmesi kavramıyla tanımlanmıştır. Günümüzde ise siyasetin kişiselleşmesi demokratik kurumlar bağlamında, liderlerin bireysel niteliklerinin ve popüler algılarının karar alma süreçlerini yönlendirdiği bir süreç olarak tanımlanmakta
ve demokratik sistemlerde kolektif temsilin zayıflaması, denetim ve denge mekanizmalarının işlevsizleşmesi, parti disiplininin veya ideolojisinin geri planda kalması üzerinden eleştirel bir perspektifte değerlendirilmektedir. Bu bağlamda araştırmanın konusu siyasetin kişiselleşmesi ve demokratik kurumlar ile arasındaki ilişkinin teorik olarak tanımlanması; amacı ise demokratik kurumlar için bir tehdit olup olmadığının ampirik ve pratik araştırmalar üzerinden tartışılması olarak belirlenmektedir.

Keywords

Siyasetin Kişiselleşmesi , Karizmatik Liderlik , Demokratik Siyasal Sistem

The Personalization of Politics and The Crisis of Collective Representation: Theoretical and Practical Approaches

Abstract

The first studies on the personalization of politics began around the mid-20th century, particularly with the widespread use of mass communication tools, and were conducted by political scientists. Today, the personalization of politics is described as a process in which the individual qualities and popular perceptions of leaders influence decision-making processes within the context of democratic institutions. This phenomenon is critically assessed for its potential to weaken collective representation, render checks and balances ineffective, and push party discipline or ideology into the background within democratic systems. In this context, the subject of this research is the personalization of politics and its relationship with democratic institutions, defined from a theoretical perspective. The aim is to explore, through empirical and practical studies, whether the personalization of politics constitutes a threat to democratic institutions.

Keywords

Personalization of Politics , Charismatic Leadership , Democratic Political System

References

• Adair-Toteff, C. (2005). Max Weber’s Charisma. Journal of Classical Sociology, 5(2), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X05053499
• Adair-Toteff, C. (2014). Max Weber and the Objectivity of the Social Sciences. Journal of Classical Sociology, 14(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X13494191
• Akkerman, T. (2011). Friend or foe? Right-wing populism and the popular press in Britain and the Netherlands. Journalism, 12(8), 931–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911415972
• Balmas, M., Rahat, G., Sheafer, T., ve Shenhav, S. R. (2014). Two routes to personalized politics: Centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics, 20(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811436037
• Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428
• Breuilly, J. (2011). Max Weber, Charisma and Nationalist Leadership. Nations and Nationalism, 17(3), 477–499.
• Destradi, S., ve Plagemann, J. (2019). Populism and International Relations: Unpredictability, personalisation, and the reinforcement of existing trends in world politics. Review of International Studies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210519000184
• Driessens, O., Raeymaeckers, K., Verstraeten, H., ve Vandenbussche, S. (2010). Personalization according to politicians: A practice theoretical analysis of mediatization. Communications, 35, 309-326.
• Fantuzzo, J. (2015). A course between bureaucracy and charisma: A pedagogical reading of Max Weber’s social theory. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 49(1), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12123
• Farkas, X., ve Bene, M. (2020). Images, politicians, and social media: Patterns and effects of politicians’ image-based political communication strategies on social media. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220959553
• Garzia, D. (2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.010
• Garzia, D. (2012). Party and leader effects in parliamentary elections: Towards a reassessment. Politics, 32(3), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2011.01443.x
• Grosby, S. (2013). Max Weber, Religion, and the Disenchantment of the World. Culture and Society, 50(3), 301–310.
• Holtz-Bacha, C., Langer, A. I., ve Merkle, S. (2014). The personalization of politics in comparative perspective: Campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication, 29(2), 153-170.
• Houghton, J. D. (2010). Does Max Weber’s Notion of Authority Still Hold in the Twenty-First Century? Journal of Management History, 16(4), 449–453.
• Joosse, P. (2014). Becoming a God: Max Weber and the Social Construction of Charisma. Journal of Classical Sociology, 14(3), 266–283.
• Kaase, M. (1994). Is There Personalization in Politics? Candidates and Voting Behavior in Germany. Electoral Studies, 15(3), 211–230.
• Klein, S. (2017). Between Charisma and Domination: On Max Weber’s Critique of Democracy. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 179-192.
• Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., ve de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112464837
• Langer, A. I. (2007). A Historical Exploration of the Personalisation of Politics in the Print Media: The British Prime Ministers (1945–1999). Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3), 371-387.
• Lai, B., ve Slater, D. (2006). Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00176.x
• Leoussi, A. S. (2013). Max Weber in the thought of Edward Shils (1910–1995) and Ernest Gellner (1925–1995): the paradox of two Weberian approaches to the understanding of nations and nationalism?. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(12), 1957-1976.
• Metz, M., Kruikemeier, S., ve Lecheler, S. (2019). Personalization of politics on Facebook: Examining the content and effects. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1581244
• Oliveros, V. (2020). Making it Personal: Clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 52(3), 374–377.
• Pfaff, S. (2002). Nationalism, Charisma, and Plebiscitary Leadership: The Problem of Democratization in Max Weber’s Political Sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 72(1), 81–107.
• Rahat, G., ve Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication, 24(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600601128739
• Riesebrodt, M. (1999). Charisma in Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion. Religion, 29(1), 1–14.
• Slater, D. (2003). Iron cage in an iron fist: Authoritarian institutions and the personalization of power in Malaysia. Comparative Politics, 36(1), 81–101.
• Smith, D. N. (2014). Charisma disenchanted: Max Weber and his critics. In Social Theories of History and Histories of Social Theory (Vol. 31, pp. 3-74). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Schmitt, H., Hobolt, S. B., ve Popa, S. A. (2015). Does personalization increase turnout? Spitzenkandidaten in the 2014 European Parliament elections. European Union Politics, 16(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116515584626