In the previous chapter we highlighted some trends that reinforce the central role of political leaders: the centralisation of executive power; the decline of mass parties and electoral dealignment; the expansion of the mass media and the accompanied revolution in political communication; and the globalisation-driven complexity of political decisions, increasing risk, and the high profile of ‘world leaders’. Together, we have argued, they result in a shift in contemporary democracies towards leader-centred, trust-based and highly mediated politics. It is time now to look more closely at the theoretical model of ‘leader democracy’ and compare it with its main rivals/competitors: the aggregative-pluralist and the deliberative-participatory models. This comparison is undertaken not so much to question the ideological attractiveness of these rival models as to assess their descriptive accuracy, consistency and adequacy in accounting for actual political developments. Moreover, we also highlight the normative underpinnings of ‘leader democracy’ – mainly in response to those critics who see the model as ‘insufficiently democratic’.

It is worth stressing again that this is more a juxtaposition than a comparison because the rival models of democracy we overview below are only partly commensurate. The model of ‘leader democracy’ is predominantly descriptive-explanatory, while the compared models are predominantly normative. The deliberative-participatory model, in particular, aims primarily at setting up criteria for the normative justification of democracy, and it addresses – above all – the question of desirability of democracy.