Politicians
Individual Politicians are important
1. Substantively
• Political decision-making = most important dependent variable in political science
• Elites are key decision-makers: what they think and how they behave is
consequential
• In comparison, public opinion is (much more) irrelevant for political decision-making than
politicians are
2. Epistemologically
• Institutions do not ‘act’, only individuals do; only individuals ‘think’ and ‘perceive’
• Studying individuals shifts focus to agency = best level of analysis
3. Empirically
• A lot of heterogeneity among elites (institutions do not fully determine behavior)
• Looking at individual elites, we can understand (mechanisms) why we find meso and macro-effects
(of institutions)
• The behavior of people is affected to the expectations of others based on their position, role
etc but if two persons have the same position and so one they will not act the same way because
people always act differently because based on norms, habitats, class and so on. So institutions and
positions will not always determine their behavior
4. Methodologically
• Apply dominant behavioral approach to elites (better connection with mainstream)
• Solves analytic small N-problem (few institutions)
All the methods we use in the rest of social science can we apply to politics
5. Normatively
• Citizens are the problem in representation (uninformed, incorrect voting)
• If representation works somehow, it is due to elites who ‘read’ society and public
opinion and act accordingly
•Many citizens vote not for the party that is the closest to their policy preferences
→ That is why a course on individual Politicians is relevant, but they are understudied
• Example: field of political communication
• Journal ‘Political Communication’
• Was number 1 journal in political science
• Journal covering the full domain of political communication
,Why Understudied?
1.Democratic idealism
• Overemphasis on citizens out of an unrealistic conception of democracy (‘citizens and what
they think matters’)
2.Institutionalism
• Belief that institutions are fully determining elite behavior (focus on macro or meso; output
of institutions)
3.Ideology
• Negative legacy of old ‘ideological’ work (e.g. Mills’ The Power Elite)
4.Access
• Our pet (quantitative) methods are hard to apply to politicians
• Surveys (-)
• Experiments (--) will it be ethical to make experiments with politicians? They are practical
reasons for the fact that there is no much work about politicians for example not the same
attention like to parties, actors, public opinion
Politicians practically
•Maximum presence in live lectures
•Lectures are NOT livestreamed
•Lectures are NOT recorded
•Check Blackboard regularly! (PPTs, papers, announcements…)
Structure sessions
1.Lecture (‘65)
•PPT on Blackboard (on monday)
•Ask questions and interrupt
SHORT BREAK
2.Politician (‘65)
•Attends the lecture
,•Reacts on the lecture
•Q&A
SHORT BREAK
3.Discussion + reading (‘30)
•Reflecting on what the politician said (comparative)
•Apply to your country (to counter Eurocentric bias in the lecture)
•One research paper on topic discussed in class (close reading) – prepare!
Evaluation
1.Activity in classroom: questions, reflection, reading (only ‘bonus’ or ‘malus’ of max 2 points)
2.Written exam (20/20)
•3 hours
•Open book (material includes talks of politicians)
•On computer
•Five essay questions
•Example questions per lecture on PPT
Lecture 1
Who are the politicians?
•Are politicians representative for the population they represent?
→ NO!
•Politicians are a specific subsection/come from a specific class
o Male
o Highly educated
o High income
o Professionals, they previous occupation were maybe lawyers etc
o Typical personality (etc.)
•Same skew/bias in political participation more generally. It’s the same in public participation,
political groups, writing mails/statements so you see skews in all political participation in general. So
the signals politicians get in (when they meet other people) are skewed as well. For example, a
politician may be in a restaurant where other ‘high income people’ are so all the signals they get are
skewed.
o But even more extreme skew for ‘difficult’ and ‘intense’ forms as being a candidate and
being a politician
•The higher up the political ladder, the more skewed the composition of the
political class (voters-members-candidates-MPs-ministers)
Why are they different?
Willing + being able + being asked
The most important theory of pol participation: they will, are able and are being asked to
•Willing (self-selection) politicians select themselves in the job, they want to become a politician, it’s
a deliberative choice
o Idealism: politicians are driven by an ideology, a coherent concept of ideas and believes, you
think a good society needs to follows these rules and values. Politicians want to change the
world a better place according to their ideology, so they want to impose their ideology upon
society
o Ambition (desire for power, fame…). As a politician you are powerful. The fact that people
know you on tv, creates a notion of being important
, o Socialization in idealism and ambition (e.g. through high social class). For example a high
income family will talk about politicians, so they become socialized with politics and to carry
about the society. So you get socialized into politics
•Being able
o Politics requires skills (e.g. perseverance, communication, resilience…). Some people don’t
have the skills or talent to become a politician. Fe if you father is a professor, then the
chance for you is bigger to also become a professor.
o Biographically ‘available’ (e.g. higher income or not having kids or not need to care for their
kids)
•Being asked
o Recruitment and selection (self-sustaining skew; e.g. old boys networks)
o Networks are crucial (e.g. work leads to contacts in politics)
o If you are very very willing and very very able then you can also become a politician without
being asked, but most politicians are always asked, so you need to have the combinations of
the three characteristics
o “Eton” is an elite school in the UK where they ‘produce’ politicians -> they have produced 20
British Prime Ministers. Its secondary schools, before 18, it’s a machine which produces
politicians. Its highly elite. Fe: Boris Johnson came from here
Illustration: the skills a (good) politician needs
•Survey of 410 politicians (MPs, ministers, party leaders) in Belgium, Canada and Israel (INFOPOL
project, 2015)
•What are according to you the most important skills or qualities a good MP should have? Can you
pick and rank-order the three most important ones in decreasing order of applicability?
•We would like to know which behavior and activities you consider to be typical for a good MP. Can
you pick and rank-order the three most important activities and behavior of a good MP in decreasing
order of applicability?
In Belgium and Canada, politicians have to be highly informed and Israel doesn’t matters at all.
Hardworking is important, meaning you have the time to work hard (if you care for your sick mother
you don’t have the time so it means you are not hardworking). Expertise means your profession is
not important for Canada. Ideology is very high for Israel because ‘if you have a very strong ideology
you don’t need to be informed on other topics/ideas’. Influencing policy is the most important
activity for politicians according to these three countries.
Politicians = male
• Long tradition of gender studies in political science
