Democratic theory is seldom entirely comfortable with either the idea or the fact of political leaders. The most participatory of groups sometimes endeavour to dispense with leaders altogether by such devices as rotation of office or consensual decision making (Mansbridge 1980; Held and Pollitt 1986). Such groups are usually very small and it does not require a very great increase in the size of the political unit before the presence, and the problem, of leaders become apparent. Certainly, every democratic form of government, including the classical direct democracy of Athens, has had its leaders. Nevertheless, for some democrats, leaders should play as passive a role as possible in a system of ‘government by the people’. They are the targets of action and exist to transform popular input into effective governmental output. Every effort should be made to limit their initiative and prevent the operation of the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ whereby, according to Michels, leaders escape the control of the mass of citizenry or of group members.

Others would, however, adopt a more positive attitude to the democratic role of political leaders. The job of rulers is not simply to mirror the preferences of the citizenry but to employ their experience and judgement in the promotion of some collective good. Elected leaders are granted the authority, as individuals or as representatives of a party, to weigh not only the demands of constituents but a variety of other national and local, political and administrative considerations in their selection of priorities and their policy-making (Sartori 1987).