5XÉçÇø

Forms of severe political polarisation, often connected to the role of flamboyant, divisive, norm-breaking leaders, affect many political systems worldwide, undermining the quality of democratic life and, perhaps, the future of democracy itself. Although personalisation and polarisation are often linked in both public and academic debate, the relationship between the two phenomena remains under-conceptualised and under-studied, while existing research is complicated by a variety of definitions and operationalisations.
The literature has extensively documented the growing personalisation of politics in liberal democracies worldwide. More recently, comparative research has focused on affective polarisation (AP), namely, the tendency among citizens to increasingly view out-parties negatively based on distrust, dislike, and contempt. These strands of literature have so far remained largely separate, even if some pioneering studies have begun to bridge them.
To date, AP research has mainly focused on political parties, rather than their leaders, as the primary targets of polarised political attitudes. Patterns of political hostility can differ depending on whether evaluations are directed at parties as collective identity groups or at individual political figures.
The panel aims to bridge these traditions of research, exploring: (1) the way in which the personalisation of politics contributes to the emergence and intensification of leader-centred forms of political polarisation, shifting the focus from political parties and their underlying ideologies towards individual leaders; (2) the mechanisms through which personalised politics affects political polarisation, with particular reference to the logics of the hybrid media environment; (3) the interplay between traditional (ideological, issue- or party-centred) and leader-centred forms of political polarisation, and their consequences for the evolution of political systems, addressing the extent to which leader polarisation erodes democratic norms and drives democratic backsliding.
The panel invites paper proposals drawing on theoretical or empirical approaches. Papers grounded in political science as well as in fields such as media studies and political psychology are all welcome, and multidisciplinary designs that combine these perspectives are particularly encouraged. Contributions may adopt either a comparative or single-country design, and rely on qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research.