Throughout Europe local political leadership is said to strengthen. Such authoritative, proactive leadership, however, is on rather bad terms with the laws, institutions, and culture of one type of democracy common in western Europe: the consensus democracy of for example Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Consequently, local political leaders in these countries are confronted with a multitude of demands that are hard to reconcile. This paper analyses how local political leaders in different consensus democracies deal with this tension. It explores whether ‘kaleidoscopic leadership’ (''t Hart & Ten Hooven, 2004) is a viable way of reconciling the traditional values of consensus democracy with forms of stronger leadership. <br /> <br /> The paper analyses the theoretical and empirical tensions between consensus democracy and strong political leadership and the ways in which they are dealt with by present-day local executive leaders. The paper begins with a political-theoretical section that discusses the affinity between particular types of political leadership and forms of democracy, with particular emphasis on consensus democracy. It finds a starting point in Keane’s (2009) three-stage model of democratic transformation (moving from classic ‘assembly democracy’, to modern ‘representative democracy’, to present-day ‘monitory democracy’) which is combined with Hendriks’ (2010) four models of democracy (pendulum, consensus, voter and participatory democracy). Then, two empirical sections separately discuss the two pathways along which local leadership is strengthened, that is through institutional change and through new ways of working, and their implications for the relationship between leadership and consensus democracy. With regard to institutional change it draws from empirical research on the changing position of European mayors. With regard to new ways of working it draws from international comparative case studies on authoritative decision making in consensus democracies (e.g. Karsten, forthcoming). <br /> <br /> The authors argue that local political leaders in consensus democracies increasingly operate in more hybrid forms of democracy and for that reason develop innovative political repertoires in which they try to reconcile the traditional values of consensus democracy and stronger forms of political leadership. The effectiveness thereof remains to be analysed in the paper. <br /> <br /> Hendriks, F. (2010). Vital democracy: a theory of democracy in action. Oxford: OUP <br /> <br /> ''t Hart, P. & Hooven, M. ten (2004). Op zoek naar leiderschap: regeren na de revolte. Amsterdam: De Balie. <br /> <br /> Karsten, N. (forthcoming). Explaining and justifying authoritative decisions: the case of controversial facilities for the homeless in Rotterdam. Local Government Studies. <br /> <br /> Keane, J. (2009). The life and death of democracy. London: Simon & Schuster.
