Erica Frantz

Thanks for having me.

Thanks for having me.

Personalist politics is where we see leaders have disproportionate political influence vis-a-vis other key institutional actors. And we can see it manifest in both democracies and dictatorships. It looks slightly different in the latter.

Personalist politics is where we see leaders have disproportionate political influence vis-a-vis other key institutional actors. And we can see it manifest in both democracies and dictatorships. It looks slightly different in the latter.

But essentially, rather than seeing politics being part of this bargaining process through elites and the leader, we see that the leader is basically determining most outcomes.

But essentially, rather than seeing politics being part of this bargaining process through elites and the leader, we see that the leader is basically determining most outcomes.

Right. So it's all relative. In general, most political leaders are disproportionately influential over other political actors. But what matters here is the degree to which they have that sort of influence. So certainly we could say that Barack Obama was very influential in American politics, but not nearly to the degree of, say, Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Right. So it's all relative. In general, most political leaders are disproportionately influential over other political actors. But what matters here is the degree to which they have that sort of influence. So certainly we could say that Barack Obama was very influential in American politics, but not nearly to the degree of, say, Vladimir Putin in Russia.

where all political choices are at the whims of Putin and no other actors can challenge him. And even in authoritarian systems, some regimes are significantly more personal and leadership-centric than others. So we might think of Singapore under the People's Action Party as an authoritarian regime,

where all political choices are at the whims of Putin and no other actors can challenge him. And even in authoritarian systems, some regimes are significantly more personal and leadership-centric than others. So we might think of Singapore under the People's Action Party as an authoritarian regime,

But most ordinary people wouldn't even know the name of the leader of Singapore because the party is so central to that regime. And that's in stark contrast to places like Putin's Russia or Erdogan's Turkey and so forth. So it's really a matter of degree. And I can get into, if you'd like, the ways in which we can measure these sorts of things.

But most ordinary people wouldn't even know the name of the leader of Singapore because the party is so central to that regime. And that's in stark contrast to places like Putin's Russia or Erdogan's Turkey and so forth. So it's really a matter of degree. And I can get into, if you'd like, the ways in which we can measure these sorts of things.

But in general, we're looking at the type of bargaining that's happening between leaders and elites and the degree to which elites can serve as a constraint on the leader's choices.

But in general, we're looking at the type of bargaining that's happening between leaders and elites and the degree to which elites can serve as a constraint on the leader's choices.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, sure. So ideally, you want a political party to be based on a clear policy program. And in a traditional programmatic party, we would see elites really caring about the long-term reputation of the party. And in personalist parties, instead, we see elites really fearful of appearing to fall out of favor with the leader.

Yeah, sure. So ideally, you want a political party to be based on a clear policy program. And in a traditional programmatic party, we would see elites really caring about the long-term reputation of the party. And in personalist parties, instead, we see elites really fearful of appearing to fall out of favor with the leader.

So it's a very different institutional dynamic where parties are personalists than where they aren't. And you mentioned the Republican Party, which is a traditional American political party and has had for many years a very clear conservative policy platform. It's shifted somewhat, but... Today, we now see a Republican Party that's really centered on whatever Trump feels like promoting.

So it's a very different institutional dynamic where parties are personalists than where they aren't. And you mentioned the Republican Party, which is a traditional American political party and has had for many years a very clear conservative policy platform. It's shifted somewhat, but... Today, we now see a Republican Party that's really centered on whatever Trump feels like promoting.