Party members and leadership styles in new European democracies
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148120939869 |
| Author | Sergiu Gherghina |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120939869
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2021, Vol. 23(1) 85 –103
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148120939869
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Party members and leadership
styles in new European
democracies
Sergiu Gherghina
Abstract
The external image of party leaders has often been analysed through their behaviour or reflection
in the media. However, we know little about how party leaders are seen internally. This article
addresses this gap in the literature and seeks to explain what determines the variation in party
members’ perceptions of leadership styles. It builds on the transactional–transformational
continuum and uses original survey data from a modified version of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. The analysis includes 12 political parties with parliamentary representation from
Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania between 2004 and 2018. The findings of the mixed-effects linear
regression illustrate that in general older and active party members are more likely to see their
leaders as transformational. The determinants of leadership style assessment differ greatly across
political parties.
Keywords
leadership style, new democracies, party leaders, transformational
Introduction
Party leaders are of great importance to politics and to their political parties. In general,
many transformations in contemporary democracies are triggered by party leaders. They
pursue a series of actions ranging from voter mobilisation or the use of political power in
their (or their party’s) best interest to policymaking for a higher quality of governance. In
particular, within their parties, leaders are actively involved in the recruitment of political
personnel; in adopting, setting and promoting the party policy agenda; in establishing
connections with the electorate; coordinating the party and shaping its organisation; or
becoming its public image (Cross and Pilet, 2016; Hazan and Rahat, 2010; Norris, 1997;
Scarrow et al., 2000; Webb et al., 2012). Political parties grow less reliant on their organi-
sational basis and more on the leadership figures. Whether it is the case of new parties,
fringe parties or mainstream parties, leaders rise to prominence (Blondel and Thiébault,
2010; Bolleyer and Bytzek, 2017; Poguntke and Webb, 2005; Rahat and Sheafer, 2007).
Department of Politics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Corresponding author:
Sergiu Gherghina, Department of Politics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RT, UK.
Email: sergiulor@yahoo.com
939869BPI0010.1177/1369148120939869The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsGherghina
research-article2020
Original Article
86 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 23(1)
As a consequence, the continuity and stability of leaders ensure the persistence of their
parties in the political arena (Deegan-Krause and Haughton, 2018).
These functions, abilities and orientations are collated under the broader concept of
leadership style (Harmel and Svåsand, 1993). Over time, several theories and the empiri-
cal research testing them sought to identify the traits of party leaders. For example, the
Leaders Motive Profile argued that leader effectiveness is associated with a high desire to
acquire status and have an impact on others, concern for the moral exercise of power and
power motivation greater than affiliative motivation (House et al., 1996; McClelland,
1975). The Charismatic Leadership Theory emphasises the existence of several traits
such as self-confidence, strong motivation for influence, strong conviction for moral cor-
rectness, flexibility and social adaptability; all of which are conducive to leader charisma
and effectiveness (House, 1991; Zaccaro et al., 1991). The Cognitive Resource Theory
focuses on leaders’ intelligence and experience, and stress faced by leaders and followers
to explain performance (Fiedler, 1995). Burns (1978) introduced the concepts of transac-
tional and transformational leadership and set the stage for a research agenda along those
analytic dimensions. The analysis of leadership styles continued either along the lines
drawn by this dichotomy (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987), or along broader interpretive frames
focusing on the multiple roles of leaders (Blondel, 1987; Hermann, 1986).
There is extensive literature about how these features of political leaders are translated
into behaviours; for a comprehensive review, see Passarelli (2015) and Gherghina (2020).
Another strand of literature focuses on leadership images in media coverage. Since media
sources are citizens’ principal source of political information, the ways in which leaders
are portrayed through these sources is very important. For a thorough review of this litera-
ture, see Aaldering and Vliegenthart (2016). These approaches reflect how the values and
the style of leadership are conveyed externally by the party. However, little is known
about how these traits are perceived internally by those who ensure the survival and con-
tinuity of the party, that is, members.
This article addresses this gap in the literature and focuses on members’ assessment of
party leadership styles. It seeks to explain what determines the variation in party mem-
bers’ perceptions about leadership styles by looking at 12 political parties with parliamen-
tary representation in three East European countries (Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania)
between 2004 and 2018. It builds on the transactional–transformational continuum
(Avolio and Bass, 1995; Bass, 1999; Burns, 1978) and uses original survey data from a
modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The survey was
conducted May–July 2018 on party members from different layers – ordinary members,
leaders of local branches and national-level officials or parliamentarians – to ensure a
broad coverage within each party.
The perceptions of party members about leaders matters for several reasons. Party
members remain important assets for the party organisation and its enduring electoral
survival. While it is true that party members are no longer a relevant source of income and
personnel in campaigns, they continue to be essential for the functioning of political par-
ties (Scarrow, 2015). As an indicator of this importance, many political parties in post-
communist Europe keep a relevant membership roll which does not necessarily decrease
over time (Gherghina et al., 2018). The way in which party members perceive leaders has
an important mobilising effect. This mobilisation refers both to engagement in the inter-
nal life of the party through activities for various party units or acting as candidates for
different offices, and for in the external life of the party during and outside election cam-
paigns in the communication with other voters. Furthermore, the members’ perception is
To continue reading
Request your trial