Plebiscitary Leader Democracy Among „Post-Truth” Conditions: A Critique of and an Alternative to Jeffrey Green’s Theory of Plebiscitarianism

There is a bulk of literature in contemporary democratic theory that argues for a more realistic view of citizens’ capacities in actively shaping political processes: most citizens are neither well-informed nor active participants of political life, but rather passive spectators of the political process. The latter is shaped mainly by political leaders, whose public appearances and “spectacles” have a much greater influence on their followers than policy programmes or party manifestos. Among the most elaborate and innovative pieces of this literature is Jeffrey Green’s 2010 book The Eyes of the People, which aimed to revive and actualize the Weberian concept of plebiscitary leader democracy in an “age of spectatorship”, and to find new ways of popular control over political leaders. In his theory the performances of political leaders take place beyond their absolute control, before the “eyes of the people”, and this has a disciplinary effect on leaders that can function as an alternative to the notion of accountability. Beside his theoretical innovations, Green also claims that his theory has practical relevance, and analyzes empirical examples where the people’s ocular power can discipline political leaders (e.g. televised leadership debates, public inquiries and presidential press conferences). Since Green elaborated his version of plebiscitary leader democracy, we witnessed the Brexit referendum, the rise of Donald Trump, the emergence of new types of “echo chambers” in social media, the resultant growth in polarization, and evolving campaign techniques. All of these tendencies raise doubts about the ocular way of popular control Green imagined. These doubts can be yoked together in the question: Can the “eyes of the people” still discipline political leaders in the age of “post-truth politics”? Our aim is to challenge Green’s ocular vision of democracy by pointing out that it does not take empirical realities sufficiently into account, which leads to an overly optimistic picture about popular control over political leaders. First, he underestimates the extent to which leaders’ public appearances are controlled by themselves. Second, in contrast to his claim, „the People” is not a unified and homogeneous actor, but is composed of citizens with varying levels of political knowledge as well as diverging political preferences. Therefore, different groups of citizens may have radically different evaluations of the spectacles produced by leaders. Third, the recent trends in political communication (since the appearance of Green’s book) have also enhanced the opportunities for manipulation by political leaders. By critically interacting with Green’s theory, the paper aims to make some recommendations for a more realistic version of plebiscitary leader democracy that is more attuned to the circumstances of “post-truth politics”, but still retains some sense of popular control over leaders. Working at the intersections of democratic theory, leadership studies and political communication scholarship, we argue that despite Green’s warranted pessimism about citizen capacities, accountability is still a more realistic critical ideal of popular control than the “eyes of the people”.