Dispersed Democratic Leadership

Abstract

Political decision-making is not only the sole responsibility of constituted government but it is the concern of various individuals and organizations involved in its interests and influence. This chapter emphasizes these interests and influence when taking into account the ability of liberal democracies to foster political pluralism, as freedom of speech and association and the legitimacy of democratic dissent make such pluralism inevitable. An ancient and non-democratic form of leadership is curiously preserved by constitutional monarchies and although this is assumed to be harmlessly ceremonial the chapter asks if this is more significant than the role of the monarch. A variety of contemporary leadership avenues in liberal democracies have resulted in the creation of a complex and opaque political system. An inquiry is made in this chapter on the necessity of a dispersed leadership as it has become inevitable in a democracy.

Towards Robust Hybrid Democracy in Scandinavian Municipalities?

“…Hybrid democracy may help alleviate the fundamental tension in liberal democracy between the equal right to influence political decisions and the need for democratic political leadership. This inherent tension between the egalitarian ethos of democracy and the exercise of political leadership is the root of the persistent legitimacy problems (Kane & Patapan ). Whereas representative democracy has been preoccupied with ensuring democratic political leadership through electoral procedures, participatory and deliberative democracy has been preoccupied with fostering democratic interaction among citizens.…”

The democratizing impact of governance networks: From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership

“…However, the conditions for political leadership are far from favourable. Elected politicians struggle with the structural contradiction between the call for a powerful political leadership and the egalitarian ethos of Western democracies (Kane and Patapan ; Teles ). In addition, they face numerous obstacles to political leadership such as an increasing socio‐political polarization; a dwindling membership base of political parties; a widespread decline in the trust in government; and the dispersion of political power among different organizations, sectors and levels of governance (Teles ).…”

Evaluating public leadership: towards an assessment framework

“…The list of possibilities is long, but what is lacking is a common denominator that can meaningfully be applied to all forms of public leadership (political, administrative, civic-see 't Hart and Uhr, 2008). To develop such a generic model, I draw upon some of my prior work as well as that of others which assesses public leadership within a broader perspective on effective, democratic governance and public management (Moore, 1995;Hargrove, 1998;Bovens et al, 2001;Wren, 2007;Bovens et al, 2008;Kane et al, 2009). This work suggests that public leadership assessments need to take into account three families of core criteria:…”