translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

IntroduzioneParty leaders have become more powerful and autonomous actors in recent years by developing a direct and personal relationship with citizens. As anticipated in the United States (Lowi, 1985), the rise of the ‘personal leader’ seems to have occurred in many European democracies, both in old parties and in more recently formed parties, with a widespread tendency for them to be promoted and controlled by individual leaders. Nevertheless, party leadership remains quite a neglected theme in political science. Through a data set including ~500 party presidents in 13 democracies, this article focusses on the personalization of party leadership by comparing Italy with other Western countries. More particularly, new procedures for the selection of party chairs, the centralization of power in political parties, and the new role of party leaders in the legislative/governmental arena are analysed, given their importance to such a process. The article summarizes new data on the party leaders’ characteristics, with regards to their political backgrounds, how they are elected, how long they stay in office, and whether they become prime minister or enter the executive. In this way, we are able to see how some new parties are created from the outset as highly personalized and centralized parties (Forza Italia being the paradigmatic case), whereas other older parties have also evolved in a personalized direction.

No abstract

The rise of personal parties is one of the most relevant and innovative political phenomena to emerge from the Italian Second Republic. During the 1990s, Forza Italia presented a new type of party political organisation where personalisation, professionalisation and centralisation represented the keys to success that led Silvio Berlusconi to three general election victories, and that were soon variously taken up by both the centre-right and centre-left coalitions. Yet, two decades after Berlusconi entered politics, the personalisation of politics is showing another face, being no longer confined to party leadership, but affecting the party at all levels. Italian political parties seem to be split into a large number of components headed by sub-leaders. With the complicity of the new electoral system, a process of personalistic atomisation has threatened the cohesiveness -and sometimes the very survival -of Italy's most consolidated political organisations. In this article, after an analysis of the evolution of personal parties in the Italian context, attention will be paid to some indicators of intra-party individualism, such as the proliferation of parliamentary groups, frequent party switching and indiscipline in carrying out legislative activities. The analysis of leadership-driven transformations occurring in party structures (the so-called party in central office) will be combined with an investigation of what is happening in representative institutions (the party in public office).

Deep changes regard the political careers of democratic leaders. Until recently, becoming president or prime minister was the last step before retirement or withdrawal to an undemanding seat on the back benches. On the contrary recent heads of government are enthusiastically seeking alternative ways to capitalize on their prestige and contacts portfolio, often ending up in the world of business or international finance. There are many examples of such a trend, from Blair to Mulroney, from Schröder to Barak. This article provides an empirical analysis of the phenomenon, by examining a dataset of 441 leaders in 78 different democratic countries over a period dating from 1989 to 2012. Attention will be focused on the political background of the prime ministers and presidents, how long they stay in power, the average age of heads of government, what professional pursuits they are involved in after their term in office and what career model they follow. The article concludes by proposing a post-presidential model which indicates some of the current trends and illustrates how former leaders are gaining decision-making power and visibility.