In his last political writings, Max Weber developed his concept of leader democracy (Führerdemokratie) while observing the plebiscitarian and Caesarist trends in the context of early twentieth-century mass democracy. There is an extensive secondary literature on the topic, and a number of critics have emphasized a problematic overlap in Weber’s account of the two figures of President-elect and charismatic-plebiscitarian leader. This article argues that the tensions within Weber’s account of plebiscitary leadership must be reconsidered against the background of the evolution of mass democracy. Masses contribute to the legitimacy of government by voting, but they are exposed to many potential sources of emotional influence: as a consequence, the modern politician has to use the means of mass demagogy to gain their confidence. Max Weber investigates the conditions to maintain a some sort of dynamic equilibrium between the charismatic leaders (with their party machine), and the opposing forces of state bureaucracies and of a “strong” parliament composed of responsible parties. Whereas the domination of charismatic leaders rests on the confidence of the masses – that they evoke through the use of demagogy – a well-organized parliamentary democracy requires frames and mechanisms for the systematic selection, testing, and accountability of leaders under institutional constraints, in order to be able to implement continuous and consistent policies. The blind spot of Weber’s discourse on leadership remains the internal consistency of a politician who is called to be mass leader, party leader, and responsible statesman.
