Leadership
I’ve noticed a few of my friends are grappling with the issue of democracy, either extolling it or pointing out its flaws. I think the problem is that people associate different things to it, and people in the different camps will give opposing definitions. Yes, there’s not one kind of democracy.
In a representative democracy, the people elect officials who are supposed to translate the views of the public into government action. That’s oversimplifying, but the point is that those in office represent and have to act on the public’s interests. A problem is that the public is not informed on many matters or popular things aren’t always right. In such cases, many political scholars argue, politicians therefore have to become leaders rather than followers. Their job as leaders is to educate public opinion and lead the people towards what is right. According to my textbook, “democratic leadership occurs either when politicians move an existing distribution of opinion toward their stated position OR when they create a distribution of opinion following their stated opinion.”
Edmund Burke made two labels for this. In a “trustee” democracy, politicians use their own values and judgments when they make choices and hope they can lead the voters into agreeing or change (even expand) their minds. In a “delegate” democracy, politicians are required to obey the majority (regardless of whether the politician personally agrees) and translate the public’s wishes into government policy. In a “trustee” democracy, leadership is what people want, and in a “delegate” democracy, people want followership.
Both of these ideas aren’t that compatible, but most citizens want a balance; otherwise the entire system breaks down. This makes public opinion surveys important, as well as a population that’s informed through good media etc. Without it, you have a politician who thinks he knows what everyone thinks, and does something that proves to be either unpopular or very wrong-minded. That is known as “leadership by mistake” or if he miraculously comes out on top, “leadership by accident.”
If the public feels strongly about something and it’s obvious to the politician in polls etc. , he or she will have no choice but to follow the majority. If the people don’t care strongly either way, then a political leader can rally the people to their side. This is called “Wilsonian leadership” in reference to President Wilson traveling the country to rally America into joining the League of Nations. If the public feels strongly on an issue and the President tries to get the majority to change their mind and agree with him, it’s “Periclean leadership.” This was referring to the Greek hero Pericles who rallied the people to his side in an epic struggle against the Spartans.
So which definition prevails? Do politicians line their positions up with what the majority wants (are they followers) or do they try to shift public opinion towards what they campaign on (as leaders)? Howard Dean once remarked that he felt a President should follow what the people want, but in some cases he should lead the people when necessary. It’s an important balance that leaders will always be cursed by; either they are spineless and going with the popular whims, or mavericks who don’t care about majority opinion.
