Political scandals are not simply instances of misconduct that attract attention. As Thompson (2000) argues, they emerge when alleged transgressions become publicly visible, provoke disapproval, and threaten the standing of those involved. Scandal is therefore a political process rather than a self-evident event: journalists, parties, public institutions, digital platforms, and citizens help define what happened, why it matters, and who should be held responsible (Lull and Hinerman, 1997; Allern and Pollack, 2012).
This panel examines scandals as moments when the authority of political actors and institutions is tested. They may strengthen accountability by exposing abuses, prompting investigation, or encouraging reform. Integrity scandals may also arise from alleged breaches of ethical or professional standards even when no illegality has been established (Huberts, Kaptein, and de Koning, 2022). Yet scandals can weaken trust in politicians and government, sometimes with lasting effects (Ares and Hernández, 2017; Solé-Ollé and Sorribas-Navarro, 2018). Repeated exposure and “scandal fatigue” do not necessarily produce stronger democratic control (Kumlin and Esaiasson, 2012), and may reflect the normalisation of shamelessness in political life (Arditi, 2021). Reactions are also uneven: partisan loyalties can generate selective judgements of similar misconduct (Anduiza, Gallego, and Muñoz, 2013), while scandal-centred elections may reduce scandals’ overall effect on satisfaction with democracy.
The panel invites empirical contributions on how scandals emerge, circulate, and acquire meaning across political and media settings. Why do some accusations become major crises while others quickly disappear? How do party competition, institutions, journalistic routines, cultural expectations, organisational norms, and platform dynamics shape their development? We welcome comparative work across countries, regimes, institutions, and historical periods, as well as theoretically relevant case studies. Contributions may examine electoral, institutional, reputational, and policy consequences, including effects on citizens’ democratic attitudes and behaviour.
Contributions may address how responsibility is allocated across the executive triangle; when ministers accept, share, or deflect blame for unelected officials; who brings scandals to public attention; which actors are exposed or protected; and whether scandals strengthen oversight, clarify responsibility, and restore trust, or instead produce blame-shifting, institutional conflict, reputational damage, and uncertainty over who governs.