A political scandal involves misbehavior or abuse of power, which is exposed through investigations or media reporting. It can lead to the loss of trust in leaders or institutions and trigger consequences such as resignations, political reforms, or stricter oversight. While scandals can damage democracy, they also strengthen it by pushing institutions to act, inspiring reforms, and reminding citizens that no one is above accountability.
However, the functional theory of scandal suggests that turning private behaviors into public ones is a strategic choice weighed against the political benefits and costs for journalists and politicians. This is especially true for non-democracies with weak institutional checks and balances, where scandals can serve the function of promoting political competition and sustaining media business models. In this article, we argue that this logic of instrumentalization makes it questionable whether exposing the wrongdoing of politicians is good for democracy.
This special section draws on political communication research to explore how scandals affect individual and institutional behavior. A major finding is that a political scandal becomes a scandal only after being publicly reported, but the decision to report it rests on an assessment of its potential to influence voters’ attitudes and beliefs. This is a significant independent variable often overlooked by scholars. We review five central moderators of this effect: candidate characteristics and behaviors, prior attitudes, context, and scandal type.