Contemporary “Prince”.

Influence, the Position and Authority of Party Leaders

Maciej HARTLIŃSKI

University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn

Abstract: Political leaders are people who successfully attract the attention of the media, citizens and researchers. Knowing the mechanisms determining their activity allows understanding the nature of politics. Paying attention to previous assertions coming from the studies on the leaders of the parties, allows drawing conclusions about the political processes taking place today. The example of political parties in Poland will illustrate the range of the authorities and competences of the leaders in political parties.

Keywords: political leadership, party leaders, political parties in Poland.

1. INTRODUCTION

We can say that the current situation is totally different from that which was during Nicollo Machiavelli’s times and that which he observed and described so patiently. The passage of time did not cause losing the value of his work and his observations are still main literature for people interested in politics. They were presented in an interesting way a long time ago and, despite the passage of 500 years, they are still interesting for many generations of readers coming after him. It is true that there are no princes standing at the head of the state, and political processes involve democratic procedures, but we are still trying to understand the nature of authority.

            To find an analogy, it can be said that modern princes are mainly presidents, prime ministers and the leaders of the political parties. They are the greatest creators of the policy in their own countries, and in many cases at the international or global levels. The media and citizens focused attention on them. Rivalry for these posts arouses the most interest and is the most exciting. Drawing attention to contemporary political leaders can significantly approach to recognition of the mechanisms in contemporary politics.

The purpose of this paper is to present issues of party leaders in the context of the range of authority held by them. The main research problem is to emphasize the validity of the tests on the political leaders, the contemporary significance of party leaders in the political process, and the extent of their competence on the examples of the statutes of political parties in Poland. Mentioned issues define the structure of this paper and it points to the conclusions about the role of today's "princes", as we can name the leaders of the political parties nowadays.

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH ON POLITICAL

LEADERSHIP

Governance in modern countries is inextricably linked to the subject of political leaders as well as, generally speaking, to the political leadership. It is associated with emphasizing the role played today by heads of state, heads of government and political party chairmen. As Lester G. Seligman noted, the perception of the political processes through political leadership is typical for analysis in the twentieth century, which is a consequence of the role played by the leaders during this period[1]. His concept of "politics by leadership" was based on eight assumptions connected with changes in politics in democratic countries[2]. The proposed increase of the importance of political leaders seems to become indisputable today and strengthens the study of political leadership.

James MacGregor Burns says that exactly political leadership is one of the best observed but also the least understood phenomena[3]. This is due to the fact that more and more detailed analysis of the topic leads to broadening of research and the number of elements to be taken into account. As the author notes, the more we know about the political leaders the less we know about leadership[4]. But it is also hard to deny the legitimacy of efforts to more and more detailed researches on political leaders.

Jean Blondel notes that political leadership governing at the state is particularly important and has a unique position because it is the most visible[5]. It is placed in the centre of attention and it is the subject of permanent interest in the most important people in the country.

The issue of political leadership is important for policy research. This is confirmed by many assertions that are difficult to disagree. For example, Lewis J. Edinger states that the studies on political leadership are as old as the study of politics and they cannot be separated from each other[6]. This is because of their nature and seeking the answers to the question who governs or ought to govern.

Robert C. Tucker’s view that the essence of politics is based on the conduction of the political community also supports this[7]. Therefore, leadership is constantly associated with this activity area. And as a process it is regularly accompanied by solving the political problems in the communities.

Mentioned statements are the basis for a conclusion that the problem of political leadership is important in the analysis of politics and processes involved in it. Extremely helpful and suggestive are the conclusions formulated by Glenn D. Paige and relating to the scientific studies of political leadership. He gives many examples of the importance of this subject for the entire discipline of political science. Moreover, he stresses that this subject is the challenge for this discipline[8].

Already mentioned Edinger notes that the discovery of mechanisms in politics cannot be carried out without considering problems of political leaders, as it is an important issue for political science[9]. Attempts to explain the political processes through an individual's behaviour (leader) and his relationship with the environment are an important research approach[10].

It is worth recalling Jan Pakulski and András Körösényi who have researched contemporary political processes paid attention to the trend that they called "Leader Democracy"[11].The argument underpinning these reflections is a belief that political leaders play a crucial role in modern representative democracies. It is due to the fact that bonds between voters and political parties have abated, the mass media coverage of politics is more concerned with leaders than ideas, the executive power is being wielded by narrow groups of policy makers and last but not least political leaders have been carrying increasingly clout in the international arena. The authors shrewdly observe that approaching the issue from the angle of leader-centric trends is not a novel one.

These observations allow to identify the main causes of becoming interested in discussed topics: political leadership is an inherent and eternal element of the politics; understanding of the policy requires knowledge of the political leadership; understanding of political leadership requires knowledge about politics; knowledge of the political leadership allows us to understand the history and extrapolate the political processes, political leadership is a multidisciplinary category and it interests different researchers; political leadership is an interesting subject of studies; political leaders are in the centre of public opinion[12].

The importance of research on political leadership has been illustrated by many publications in this subject. Number of publications on political leadership is progressively increasing and allows us to understand the diversity of this issue. This subject is analyzed both from the point of view of theoretical and empirical researches. The rich literature on this topic is available in both English and other languages[13].

Among many approaches to political leadership it should be emphasized the theoretical attempts to recognize this phenomenon. Starting from defining it[14]. However, it should be said that there is no agreement on the general definitions and the term is variously described. Researchers combine it with authority, governing the public functions or defining what is and what is not political leadership.

One of the basic directions of the analysis is to attempt to identify the researches concepts. Trying to follow them it is worth noting their theoretical nature that became a start for other analysis. On the one hand, there are many monographs trying to present the ideas of political leadership[15]. Important factors to explore theoretical political leadership are also collective works that perfectly illustrate the diversity of analysis of this topic[16]. They show how many interesting research problems are associated with this issue and how differently the topic can be described in the context of govern in modern democratic countries[17].

It may be said that further studies confirm the impact of personality of political leaders[18]. Many interesting studies note the issue of personalization of politics[19] or presidentialization of politics[20]. That causes the possibility of a more comprehensive knowledge of the contemporary role of political leaders.

3. PARTY LEADERS AS A RESEARCH PROBLEM

Party leadership as a type of political leadership is one of the few and also proportionately less explored issues. While the theoretical basis and conduct empirical studies relating to political leadership creates the possibility of polemics and develop their own research ideas, the concept of party leadership would not have even wider interest among political scientists. This research area is beginning to be recognized and explored.

The role of party leaders is now indisputable and their recruitment and selection are the main task of modern political parties[21]. As candidates representing their groupings they are an important element in election campaigns[22] and as number of studies show the selection of candidates is one of the most important areas of activity in the party[23]. Knowledge about the mechanisms of candidates’ selection and party leaders is desirable.

Vernon Bogdanor notes that party leader should fulfill three basic requirements: increase the election attractiveness of his party, unite it and show its unanimity to the voters, represent political competences[24]. Those conditions clearly show the importance of these people and the need for studies of this issue.

Robert M. Punnett also discussed the significance of this issue. He pays attention to: party leaders who are very important because of their role of becoming presidents or prime ministers someday; method of selection affects the type and personal skills those who were chosen; the selection procedures of party leaders are dynamically changing and are diverse both in the country and individual parties; selection of the party leader is also important from many other points of view, for example, for those who are interested in political behaviour, political institutions or political organization[25].

Focusing on the party leadership also justifies Michel Marsch who pays attention to three important reasons of the selection process of party leaders: the selection process determines the style and behaviour of candidates for leadership or desires to maintain it; the selection of the party leader is one of the most important dilemmas that the party faces on; the selection process indicates the state of democracy in the party[26].

Analyzing selected publications related to the leadership of the party, one can  conclude that the main attention is focused on the diversity of the selection procedures and their consequences, the impact of these changes on the functioning of the party and its members, as well as for candidates themselves and also the winners. Starting from the rivalry for leadership of the party, it should be emphasized that this is one of the most important processes in functioning of each grouping. Rivalry for the top posts gives the dynamics of internal processes.

The leading issue is the question of who chooses the leader. As William Cross and Andre Blais state there is division into two groups of countries: those where there is an extension of the selection process (Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland) and those where the parties do not want it and leave the constant situation for many years (Australia, New Zealand)[27]. In 15 of 16 cases, political parties were willing to broaden the electoral body when they were in opposition. In addition, 7 of 9 examples confirmed the hypothesis that such changes occur after the election defeat and getting weaker electoral support. It is also important to note that new parties give their members a partial or full right to elect party leaders.

However, it is worth considering what the consequences in those cases are. It is important to find out if the more party members affect more competitive rivalry. An attempt to answer this question is an Ofer Kenig’s work about democratization of party leadership selection. 143 cases of rivalry for party leadership in 11 countries were analyzed. On the basis of research by this author it can be concluded that the opening of the parties to choose the party leader increases the number of candidates for the party leadership, but competition in these elections is much lower[28].

Another example of party leadership research is focused on the integration of members of the party in the selection of party leaders and strengthening their participation[29]. R. K. Carty and Donald E. Blake suggest four types of making decision in the selection of party leaders (indirect party vote; direct party vote; structured primary, open primary). Canadian parties are the example for making conclusions that calling elections for the party leader stimulates the growth of the number of members and a type of decision-making used in it also increases this process[30].

In contrast, Dean McSweeney decided to analyse the impact that has had a change in the selection procedure of the leader of the Conservative Party in the UK[31]. This author showed that the changes in the procedures for selecting candidates cause other ways of selection; with an emphasis on admission to the competition of less experienced politicians. Among applicants for the first time in the party leadership we can distinguish into the "before" reform and the "after" it. They had a shorter practice in parliament, less experience as well as assuming the position they were younger[32].

Brenda O’Neill and David K. Stewart who analyzed the various aspects of the party leadership at the local and national level in terms of gender also studied differences in this problem[33]. The source bases for the authors became 135 cases of party leaders elected in Canada in 1980-2005, of which 21 are women (15.6%). In this case, there were noticeable differences between men and women standing at the head of the party. This allows for the thesis that the gender criterion is important in party leadership [34].

Another perspective of studies shows examples focusing on the consequences of the changes of the party leaders. An example is a Wolfgang C. Müller’s work. He analyzed the organizational changes in the Socialist Party of Austria (since 1991 the Social Democratic Party of Austria), and as one of the determinants of the turning points he stresses the change of party leadership[35]. Focusing on the years 1945-1970, he created four potential conditions that affect the changes of a political party. In conclusion, he acquiesces toward the idea that there is dependence between these indicators and changes in the party. The greatest influence on it has a change of party leader and secretary-general. However, they were not electoral defeats or the fractions rivalry within the party. This clearly shows the importance of the various conditions for the activities of the party and insists on changes in the leadership of the party.

In a similar approach, but with other results, Lars Bille asked interesting research questions about the party leadership[36]. In his works, there are two important issues: why parties have changed their leaders[37] and how this change affected the party[38]. In the analyzed period 35 years, leader elections were held only three times – Anker Jørgensen (in 1973), Svend Auken (in 1987) and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (in 1992). As a result of the research only once the election defeat had an impact on that decision (other electoral defeats in 1966, 1968, 1973 and 1981 did not change the leader). Moreover, these changes do not affect the transformations in the party program, coalition behaviour or changes in internal party rules.

Mentioned examples show how various may be the studies about party leaders. They reveal a diversity of topics and useful results. It is worth paying attention to the  conclusions suggesting that the method of selecting leaders in the party is essential. The multiplicity of methods and their consequences cause changes in the members’ participation and personal leaders profile.

4. THE AUTHORITIES OF PARTY LEADERS IN THE

STRUCTURES OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN POLAND

Holding power by the party leaders in their own groupings seems to be a very important issue. Their authority is a consequence of their position and deeply influence in their parties. The statute of the political party is the main determinant for the legal conditions of the party leadership. What is written there allows for the characterisation of many significant issues connected with the organization of the party because they regulate the competence, relationships with other bodies, as well as the choice of procedures. Knowing the statute allows to understand the determinants of the inner dynamics of a political party. And the knowledge of those aspects that relate directly to the leaders of the party allows specifying basic information about them.

Further discussion will focus on the analysis of the statutes of political parties in Poland in terms of the position and competence of leaders[39]. The parties that as a result of the parliamentary elections in 2011 came to the Polish Parliament will be taken into consideration. These are: Platforma Obywatelska (PO) [Civic Platform], Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (PiS) [Law and Justice], Ruch Palikota (RP) [Palikot’s Movement], Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe (PSL) [Polish Peasant’s Party], Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (SLD) [Democratic Left Alliance].

4.1. Position the Leaders of the Party

The first issue is the formal name of the position of the leader of the party. Many political groupings have their own name for those posts. In Polish parties there are two terms: the chairman and the president, which may be supplemented by the name or abbreviation of the party. There are three parties with the chairman (Chairman of Platform, Chairman of Movement, Chairman of SLD) and the two parties use the term president (President of PiS, the President of PSL).

Besides the names of a lot more interest is the position which determined this post. It turns out that it is clearly distinguished in PO, PiS and RP. In PSL its president is not placed among the authorities, but among the two primates bodies and he is ahead of the Supreme Executive Committee. This post is not at all emphasized in SLD, as a single separate legal or executive authority. It can be concluded that in four cases, the position of party leader is aroused and one does not. The leader of the party, if it is already mentioned among the principal authorities and bodies, is in place: the second (PiS[40]), the third (PO[41]), fourth (RP[42]). In contrast, in PSL there is a separate division of primates’ authorities and the bodies that is not in other parties[43].

In consideration of the formal conditions defining the space for the party leader is his ability to participate in the other party bodies. It is possible in all parties, except participation in audit committees and the colleagues’ courts. Besides, according to the statute only in SLD, its president is not automatically delegated to Congress. In all other cases, leaders are ex officio members of the other local and central authorities.

4.2. The Competence Of Leaders In The Party

The biggest difference in the conditions of official leadership in political parties relates to the competence of their leaders. Their privileges are used to determine the extent to which the organization places emphasis on the leader and other bodies. This knowledge allows specifying how the statutes arouse and strengthen his position. Therefore, the selected competencies will also be presented there. At the beginning, we recall the general descriptions of the role of party leader according to the statutes.

In the Statutes of PO, there is a separate paragraph illustrating the role of Chairman of the party. It is written there that he leads the party and represents it in public, social and political life. It also has the authority to influence other party bodies. He convenes, proposes the agenda and directs the work of the National Board and the National Council. He convenes the Convention and requests a meeting of the parliamentary caucus.

The Statute of PiS also includes a separate paragraph which states that the President of PiS is the highest executive authority in the party. He represents the party outside; he fulfills the resolutions of the Congress and the Political Council, as well as manages current party work, the work of the Political Council and the Committee of Political and parliamentary caucus through the Chairman. He advises in matters such: rules supreme authorities, selection, appointment and dismissal of members of the government party, he chooses the competence of the Vice-Presidents, the Chairman of the Executive Committee, the Treasurer, he allows to represent PiS in organizations or structures coming from agreements concluded; he coordinates of activities related to socio-political actions taken by the grouping, submit for approval to the Committee of the Political party candidates in elections to the European Parliament and to the President of the Polish Republic; he also accepts all party papers, sets out rules for the gathering of personal documents in PiS, he appoints the liquidator of the party, President of PiS may delegate his powers to Vice-President or treasurer.

The Statute of RP has also a separate section about the Chairman. It states that he stands at the head of the National Board, he convenes its meetings and proposes the agenda, and he directs its work and represents it on the outside. He convenes and proposes the agenda for the National Committee and requests a meeting of the parliamentary caucus.

PSL as well as other parties has a paragraph about the President of the PSL in its Statute. It states that he represents the party outside, he leads the Supreme Executive Committee of PSL and directs its work and supervises the work of his office. He fulfills the resolutions of the Congress, the Supreme Council and the Supreme Executive Committee. In addition, he fulfills and is responsible for the current policy of PSL.

The other competencies contained in the statutes of political parties in Poland are: congress/convention, members of the party; structures of regional and local power, finances; electoral lists; positions in the party. First of all, these factors are mentioned in the statutes of the party, and refer to the party leaders.

The main body in which party is congress or convention, and the leaders of PO, PiS and RP convene its meetings. In PiS only President convenes the Congress at least once every four years. In PO, the National Board can also do it, while in RP it happens also at the request of the National Board, the National Audit Committee, at least ½ of the National Committee members.

Party leaders cannot directly influence the members of their parties (RP, PSL, SLD). In PO, the leader has the right to request a punishment of a member to the Regional Arbitration Board. In PiS there are much broader powers and they concern mainly the possibility to suspend in the member's rights.

Regarding the regional and local structures, at the request of the Chairman of PO, the National Board establishes and dissolves the structure at the local, county and regional levels. In PiS, at the request of the President the District Congress, the party appoints and dismisses its chairman. However, in RP the Chairman may appoint a district representative.

until an election in the district, as well as other justified cases.

Another factors are the property and financial affairs. Party leaders in PiS do not have those competences. The leaders of PO and RP act in this matter jointly with the Treasurer. However, in SLD the Chairman, the Secretary General and the Treasurer do it. In PSL there are two members of the Supreme Executive Committee, from which one has to be the President of PSL or vice president of the committee.

 For political parties it is also important to prepare the electoral lists and the order of the candidates. In this matter, the Chairman of PO and RP can interact officially. This is possible due to the fact that at the request of the Chairman of PO, the National Board makes changes to the approved candidates or lists of candidates in the parliamentary elections to the European Parliament and local government. However, in RP it happens at the request of the Chairman or the National Committee if it concerns the parliamentary lists, and the European Parliament.

Differences in competences are also easy to recognize after the possibility of the influence of party leader on staffing positions in the party. It shows his position and at the same time the possibility of impact on the structure of the party. It also shows the extent of creating their colleagues.

This is the most evident in PiS where the leader requests the appointment of members in all important posts in the party, such as the Secretary of the Political Council, Chairman of the Executive Committee and its members, the Secretary of the Political Committee, the Disciplinary and his two deputies; Spokesman; Plenipotentiary (electoral, election fund, finance the election committee), Chairman of the Ethics Committee and to 5 of its members, and even at the local level – the President of the Regional Board.

To a lesser degree, but also significant, the powers are given to the Chairman of PO. At his request, the National Council elects to four Vice-Presidents, including the first Vice-President, Secretary General and Treasurer.

Smaller possibilities are attributed to the President of PSL, at his request the Chief of Executive Committee elects its Vice-Presidents, in the number specified by the Supreme Executive Committee, and two Secretaries and the Treasurer.

The Chairman of RP has less significant influence because at his request the National Committee appoints the Spokesman and the Disciplinary.

The scale can be seen and it can be stated that the President of PiS has a very significant impact on choosing the members to nearly all the most important posts in the party, less affected by the Chairman of the PO.The PSL and RP also have a small impact. However, the SLD statute does not tell about any competence in this area.

In conclusion, this paper shows that the scope of leadership in the party hierarchy is varied. Attributed powers are extremely different. And the parties diversify them on their own. Some parties have a strong influence of their leaders, while others do not emphasize this.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Prepared analysis showed that the problem of party leaders is present in the scientific discourse. Their importance in the political processes and the existence of the party justifies the stated title of the thesis about the analogy for "Prince", understood directly, as well as a metaphor. The applied narration allows to apply the mentioned work to the category of political leadership, party leaders and, consequently, to their authority in the Polish political parties.

Starting with the first of the discussed topics, the study of political leadership has an important place in analyses of political science. The importance of the leaders themselves, as well as researches on that issue seems to be unarguable. Cited arguments seem to confirm that this direction of research is important from the perspective of politics, the state, citizens, the media, and the science of politics.

Party leadership is one of the types of political leadership. Due to the growing importance of political parties in modern democracies this research problem is becoming more and more popular. Reflections of this trend are cited studies. To sum up the conclusions contained in them it can be said that there is still a rich area to conduct further researches. These that have already been made, show the variety of solutions and consequences for the political parties about party leaders.

Other attempt showing another level of research of this problem was to analyze the range of the authority of leaders in the Polish political parties. Based on the statutes of the parties it was possible to show the multiplicity of solutions regulating their activity. The results of this lead to the conclusion that political parties have developed original position and role of their leaders. This applies to both the name of the position, as well as to the greatest level of competence that they have.

Bibliography

ADAM, Silke, Michaela MAIER, “Personalization of Politics: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research”, in Charles SALMON (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Routlege, London, 2010.

AELST van, Peter, Tamir SHEAFER, James STANYER, “The Personalization of Mediated Political Communication. A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings”, Journalism, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2011, pp. 203-220.

AMMETER, Anthony P. et al., “Toward a Political Theory of Leadership”, The Leadership

Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2002, pp. 751-796.

BEAN, Clive, Anthony MUGHAN, “Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 4, 1989, pp. 1165-1179.

BEALEY, Frank W., The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science, The Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1999.

BICHTA, Tomasz, Struktura organizacyjna partii politycznych w Polsce po 1989 roku, Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin, 2010.

BILLE, Lars, “Leadership Change and Party Change. The Case of Danish Social Democratic Party 1960-1995”, Party Politics, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1997, pp. 379-390.

BLONDEL, Jean, Political Leadership. Towards a General Analysis, Sage Publiactions, London, 1987.

BOGDANOR, Vernon, “The Selection of the Party Leader”, in Anthony SELDON, Stuart BALL (eds.), Conservative Century: the Conservative Party since 1900, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.

BURNS, James MacGregor, Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, 1978.

CARTHY, R.K., Donald E. BLAKE, “The Adoption of Membership Votes for Choosing Party Leaders. The Experience of Canadian Parties”, Party Politics, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1999, pp. 211-224.

CROSS, William P., “Party Leadership Selection and Intra-Party Democracy”, in William P. CROSS, Richard S. KATZ (eds.), Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.

CROSS, William, BLAIS, Andre, “Who Selects the Party Leader?”, Party Politics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2012, pp. 127-150.

DAVIS, James S., Leadership Selection in Six Western Democracies, Fitzroy Deaborn Publishers, London-Chicago, 1998.

EDINGER, Lewis J., “Editor’s Introduction”, in Lewis J. EDINGER (ed.), Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies. Studies in Comparative Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1967.

EDINGER, Lewis J., “Political Science and Political Bibliography. Reflections on the Study of Leadership. Part I”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1964, p. 423-439.

EDINGER, Lewis J., “Political Science and Political Bibliography. Reflections on the Study of Leadership. Part II”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1964, pp. 648-676.

EDINGER, Lewis J. (ed.), Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies. Studies in Comparative Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967.

ELCOCK, Howard, Political Leadership, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2001.

ELGIE, Robert, Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies, Macmillan Press, London, 1995.

EVANS, Geoffrey, Robert ANDERSEN, “The Impact of Party Leaders. How Blair Lost Labour Votes”, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2005, pp. 818-836.

GARZIA, Diego, “The Personalization of Politics in Western Democracies: Causes and Consequences on Leader–follower Relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2011, pp. 697-709.

HARRISON, Michael J., Michael MARSH, “What Can He Do for Us? Leader Effects on Party Fortunes in Ireland”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1994, pp. 289-312.

HARTLIŃSKI, Maciej, Przywództwo partyjne w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, Toruń, 2011.

HARTLIŃSKI Maciej, Przywództwo polityczne. Wprowadzenie, INP UWM Press, Olsztyn, 2012.

HAZAN, Reuven Y., Gideon RAHAT, Democracy within Parties. Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.

HELMS, Ludger (ed.), Comparative Political Leadership: Challenges and Prospects, Palgrave Macmillan, London & New York, 2012.

HELMS, Ludger (ed.), Poor Leadership and Bad Governance: Revisiting Presidents and Prime Ministers in Northern America, Europe and Japan, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,2012.

HELMS, Ludger, Presidents, Prime Ministers and Chancellors, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1995.

HELMS, Ludger, “The Presidentialisation of Political Leadership. British Notions and German Observations”, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2005, pp. 430-438.

JENSSEN, Anders T., Toril AALBERG, “Party Leaders Effects in Norway. A Multi-Methods Approach, Electoral Studies”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2006, pp. 248-269.

LOBO, Marina C., “Short-term Voting Determinants in a Young Democracy: Leader Effects in Portugal in the 2002 Legislative Elections”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2006, pp. 270-286.

KAASE, Max, „Is there Personalization in Politics? Candidates and Voting Behavior in Germany”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1994, pp. 211-230.

KANE, John, Haig PATAPAN, ‘t HART, Paul (eds.), Dispersed Democratic Leadership, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.

KARVONEN, Lauri, The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies, ECPR Press, Colchester, 2010.

KATZ, Daniel, “Patterns of Leadership”, in Jeanne N. KNUTSON (ed.), Handbook of Political Psychology, Jossey-Bass Publishers, London, 1973.

KATZ, Richard S., “The Problem of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy”, Party Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2001, pp. 277-296.

KENIG, Ofer, “Democratization of Party Leadership Selection. Do Wider Selectorates Produce More Competetive Contests”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2009, pp. 240-247.

KELLERMAN, Barbara (ed.), Leadership. Multidisciplinary Perspective, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1984.

KELLERMAN, Barbara (ed.), Political Leadership. A Source Book, University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, 1986.

KING, Anthony, Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.

KRAUSS, Ellis S., Benjamin NYBLYDE, “’Presidentialization’ in Japan? The Prime Minister, Media and Elections in Japan”, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2005, pp. 357-368.

KRIESI, Hanspeter, “Personalization of National Election Campaigns”, Party Politics, Vol. 18, No. 6, 2012, pp. 825-844.

LASSWELL, Harold D., Power and Personality, Viking Press, New York, 1966.

LeDUC, Lawrence, “Democratizing Party Leadership Selection”, Party Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2001, pp. 323-341.

MARSCH, Michael, “Introduction. Selecting the Party Leader”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1993, p. 229-231.

McALLISTER, Ian, “The Personalization of Politics”, in Russell J. DALTON, Hans D. KLINGEMANN (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.

McSWEENEY, Dean, “Changing the Rules Changed the Game. Selecting Conservative Leaders”, Party Politics, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1999, pp. 471-783.

MUGHAN, Anthony, Media and the Presidentialization of Parliamentary Elections, Palgrave, New York, 2000.

MUGHAN, Anthony, Samuel C. PATTERSON, Political Leadership in Democratic Societies, Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, 1992.

MÜLLER, Wolfgang C., “Inside the Black Box. A Confrontation of Party Executive Behaviour and Theories of Party Organization Change”, Party Politics, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1997, pp. 293-313.

NADEAU, Richard, MENDELSOHN, Matthew, “Short-Term, Popularity Boost Following Leadership Change in Great Britain”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1994, pp. 222-228.

O’NEILL, Brenda, David K. STEWART, “Gender and Political Party Leadership in Canada”, Party Politics, Vol. 15, No. 6, 2009, pp. 737-757.

PAIGE, Glenn D. (ed.), Political Leadership. Readings For an Emerging Field, The Free Press, New York, 1972.

PAIGE, Glenn D., The Scientific Study of Political Leadership, The Free Press, New York, 1977.

PAKULSKI, Jan, KÖRÖSÉNYI, András, Toward Leader Democracy, Anthem Press, London, 2012.

POGUNTKE, Thomas, Paul WEBB, The Presidentialisation of Politics. A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.

POST, Jerrold M., Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World. The Psychology of Political Behavior, Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London, 2004.

POST, Jerrold M. (ed.), The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2003.

PUNNETT, Robert M., Selecting the Party Leader. Britain in Comparative Perspective, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1992.

RAHAT, Gideon, Reuven Y. HAZAN, “Candidate Selection Methods”, Party Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2001, pp. 297-322.

RAHAT, Gideon, Reuven Y. HAZAN, “Which Candidate Selection Method Is the Most Democratic”, Government and Opposition, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2008, pp. 68-90.

RAHAT, Gideon, Tamir SHEAFER, “The Personalization(s) of Politics: Israel, 1949–2003”, Political Communication, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2007, pp. 65–80.

REJAI, Mostafa, Kay PHILLIPS, Concepts of Leadership in Western Political Thought, Praeger, Westport, 2002.

REJAI, Mostafa, Kay PHILLIPS, Leaders and Leadership. An Appraisal Theory and Research, Praeger, Westport, 1997.

ROBERTS, Geoffrey, Alistair EDWARDS, A New Dictionary of Political Analysis, Edward Arnold, London, 1991.

ROBERTSON, David, The Penguin Dictionary of Politics, Penguin Group, London, 1985.

RUDERMAN, Richard S., “Leadership”, in Seymour M. LIPSET (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Democracy. Volume III, Routledge, London, 1995.

SCRUTON, Roger, A Dictionary of Political Thought, Pan Books, London, 1996.

SELIGMAN, Lester G., “The Study of Political Leadership”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 44, No. 4, 1950, pp. 904-915.

SHOMER, Yael, “Candidate Selection Procedures, Seniority, and Vote-Seeking Behavior”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 42, No. 7, 2009, pp. 945-970.

SOBOLEWSKA-MYŚLIK, Katarzyna, Beata KOSOWSKA-GĄSTOŁ, Piotr BOROWIEC, Struktury organizacyjne polskich partii politycznych, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu

Jagiellońskiego i Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego w Krakowie, Kraków, 2010.

STEWART, Marianne C., Harold D. CLARKE, “The (Un)Importance of Party Leaders. Leaders Image and Party Choice in the 1987 British Election”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 54, No. 2, 1992, pp. 447-470.

TUCKER, Robert C., Politics as Leadership, University of Missouri Press, London, 1981.

VALENTY, Linda O., Ofer FELDMAN, Political Leadership for the New Century. Personality and Behavior Among American Leaders, Praeger, Westport, 2002.

WAGNER, Aiko, Bernhard WEßELS, “Parties and Their Leaders. Does It Matter How They Match? The German General Elections 2009 in Comparison”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2012, pp. 72-82.