Search

Objective: Under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud—Israel's most successful political party in the past 50 years—transformed from a highly institutionalized leader party into a personal party. This study explores the personalization of Likud and its various manifestations and analyses the causes of this process and its consequences. Methods: A case study. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Results: Although the Likud party leader's formal roles, powers, and authorities did not change significantly, many informal developments enhanced the firm grip Netanyahu held on the party. Netanyahu manipulated leadership contests, and they became uncompetitive; the party's internal institutions were almost nullified and became no more than a rubber stamp to Netanyahu's interests; and Likud's representatives in the Knesset were transformed into a group of submissive cheerleaders. Conclusions: We conclude that essential, routinized procedures within Likud were abandoned in favor of personalization of decision making; the "value" of the party organization was replaced with that of a single leader as perceived by important internal party actors and the electorate; and that other parties perceived Likud as personalized. On all fronts, the Likud underwent a personalization process. Moreover, the personalization of Likud, the ruling party, contributed to Israel's democratic backsliding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Democracies in general and political parties in particular have undergone political personalization in recent decades. The power balance between politicians (one or many) and the team (the party as a collegial entity) has changed, and existing party typologies are no longer suited to the analysis of today's democratic politics. Although some new personalized party types have been added, what is missing is a systematic attempt to contrast them with the collegial option. This article proposes a new classification of political parties to fill the lacuna. It includes five ideal types of parties: two personalized-decentralized types, referring to collections of separated autonomous activists or to separated autonomous individual politicians (plural); a collegial type, which is about the centrality of the team and is based mainly on collective authorities and collective decision making; and two personalized-centralized types, referring to the centrality of an individual politician in her capacity as the party leader or that of a specific individual who "owns" the party. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to open the debate on the question, “Which candidate selection method is more democratic?” It does this by suggesting guidelines for identifying the ramifications of central elements of candidate selection methods for various democratic dimensions – participation, competition, representation and responsiveness – and by analyzing their possible role in supplying checks and balances. It proposes employing a three-stage candidate selection method, in which, in the first stage, a small committee appoints candidates to a short list; in the second stage, a selected party agency may add or remove candidates using a special procedure (absolute majority vote, for example) and it would also ratify the re-adoption of incumbent candidates; and, finally, party members would select candidates for safe seats or safe list positions among the proposed candidates. The article also recommends using moderate requirements for candidacy; the use of a non-majoritarian voting method; and allowing the national center a say in candidate selection.