Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-pvr6d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-06T03:13:22.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Democratic Leadership Possible?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2015

ERIC BEERBOHM
ERIC BEERBOHM*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Eric Beerbohm is Professor, Harvard University, Department of Government, 1737 Cambridge St., Cambridge, MA 02138 (Beerbohm@fas.harvard.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leadership can baffle our ideal of democracy. If representatives track our preferences, actual or ideal, what room is left for them to pushback against a constituency? This has led some political theorists to conclude that the concept of democratic leadership is paradoxical. I challenge this view by constructing a theory that takes shared commitment as its principal ingredient. The Commitment Theory brings out what is morally distinctive about leadership in a representative democracy. In principle, democratic leadership recruits citizens as genuine partners in shared political activity. The account explains why leadership is taken to be a core property of a functioning democracy and, at the same time, a potential threat to the practice. It is then tested against cases of opinion formation, cue-taking, and frame manipulation. I conclude that the theory avoids dual objections: that it either overcounts or undercounts instances of democratic leadership.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 109 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 639 - 652
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, Dougas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian M. 2003. “Is Democracy Special?” In Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology, ed. Christiano, Thomas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Beerbohm, Eric. 2012. In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beitz, Charles. 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bentley, Arthur. 1908. The Process of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blondel, Jean. 1987. Political Leadership: Towards a General Analysis. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 2014. Shared Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Edmond. 1854 [1774]. Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, 1:446–48. London: Henry G. Bohn.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Cheshire. 2009. “What Good is Commitment?” Ethics 119: 613–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro, Robert. 2002. Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson. New York: Knopf Press.Google Scholar
Caro, Robert. 2009. The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate. New York: Knopf Doubleday.Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 1996. The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1995. “Incentives, Inequality and Community,” in Equal Freedom: Selected Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. Darwall, Stephen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (5): 808–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dan-Cohen, Meir. 1984. “Decisions Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law.” Harvard Law Review 97 (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation,” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 100–14, 625–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P., and Shepsle, Kenneth. 1989. “Formal Theories of Leadership: Agents, Agenda‑Setters, and Entrepreneurs.” In Leadership and Politics, ed. Jones, Bryon D.. Kansas University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Foner, Eric. 2010. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2006. Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls so Variable When Votes Are so Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science 23: 409–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 2006. A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2013. Affluence and Influence: Economy Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert. 1995. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 2004. “Representing Ignorance,” Social Philosophy and Policy 21 (1): 76–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, William, and Brent, David Milton. 2013. Thinking about the Presidency: The Primacy of Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Shapiro, Robert. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, John. 2007. “The Ethical Paradox of Democratic Leadership.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 3 (2): 33–52.Google Scholar
Kane, John, and Patapan, Haig. 2012. The Democratic Leader: How Democracy Defines, Empowers and Limits its Leaders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Nannerl. 2012. Thinking About Leadership. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kernel, Samuel. 2007. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. Washington, D.C. CQ Press.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1961. Public Opinino and American Democracy. New York: Knopf Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel. 2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis,” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 821–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel. 2012. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Abraham. 1991 [1858]. Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates, ed. Angle, Paul M.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, David W. 2008. The Opinion Makers. New York: Beacon Press Books.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1989. Philosophical Meditations. New York: Touchstone Book.Google Scholar
Perez, Evan, and Bravin, Jess. 2009. “‘Enemy Combatant’ Label Is Dropped for Detainees.” Wall Street Journal, 14 March.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1997. Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason, ed. Chang, Ruth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Read, James H., and Shaprio, Ian. 2014. “Transforming Power Relationships: Leadership, Risk, and Hope,” American Political Science Review 108 (1): 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy,” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Henry. 2002. Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning about the Ends of Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2002. Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Satkunanandan, Shalini. 2014. “Max Weber and the Ethos of Politics beyond Calculation,” American Political Science Review 108 (1): 169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaine, Lucas. 2013. “Moral Character for Political Leaders: A Normative Account,” Res Publica, 317–33. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11158-013-9227-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Dennis. 1976. John Stuart Mill and Representative Government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis. 2007. “Mill in Parliament: When Should a Philosopher Compromise?” In J.S. Mill's Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment, eds. Urbinati, Nadia and Zakaras, Alex. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. David. 1997. “How to Share and Intention.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LVII (1): 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, David Foster. 2000. Up, Simba! New York: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A., and Ellis, R.. 1989. Dilemmas of Presidential Leadership from Washington through Lincoln. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Wills, Gary. 1992. Lincoln at Gettysburg. New York: Simon & Shuster.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.