Key Arguments

• Weber defines plebiscitary democracy as 'the most important type of “leader democracy,”' and asserts that it 'is in its real sense a form of charismatic rule concealed by the formality that legitimacy is derived from the will of the ruled', making its charismatic substance explicit.
• He explains that 'The leader (the demagogue) actually rules by virtue of the devotion and trust of his political following to his person as such.', so personal loyalty rather than impersonal legality is the true basis of rule.
• Initially this charisma is rooted in a core following but can expand: 'In the first instance, this extends to those recruited to his following, but if this gives him power, it can be extended throughout the organisation.', describing the diffusion of charismatic authority.
• He lists numerous historical examples of such plebiscitary leader rule: 'the dictators of ancient and modern revolutions: the Hellenic aisymnetes, tyrants, and demagogues; in Rome, Gracchus and his successors; in the Italian states, the capitani del popolo and mayors; in Germany, the Zürich democratic dictatorship; in the modern state, Cromwell’s dictatorship, the leaders of the French Revolution, and the French plebiscitary First and Second Empires.'
• Wherever this rule seeks legitimacy, 'it makes use of plebiscitary recognition by the sovereign people.', indicating that plebiscites are its characteristic legitimating ritual.
• He observes that 'Personal administrative staff was recruited on a charismatical basis from among talented plebeians', with specific selection criteria in different cases (religious qualifications for Cromwell, 'ethical' reliability for Robespierre, talent and utility for Napoleon), showing the non-traditional, non-bureaucratic basis of recruitment.
• At the height of such dictatorships, administration is conducted through 'revocable mandates': 'this took the form of administration purely through revocable mandates (as with the role of agents in the Committee of Public Safety).', which is a pure charismatic device incompatible with stable office.
• He stresses that 'Both traditional and formal legitimacy are equally ignored by revolutionary dictatorship.', highlighting its break with prior legal and traditional orders.
• He notes analogies in the functioning of revolutionary tribunals and radical democratic justice to patriarchal tendencies toward substantive justice and state interest, situating plebiscitary dictatorship within a broader pattern of anti-formal, substantive adjudication.
• Finally, he indicates that 'The routinisation of revolutionary charisma then brings about changes similar to those in the corresponding process—hence, in England the development of a professional army as a residue of the voluntary principle embraced during the civil war, and in France the prefectorial system as a residue of the charismatic administration of the revolutionary plebiscitary dictatorship.', showing how charismatic rule leaves behind rationalised institutional remnants.

Source Quotes

An administration formed on this basis is as a “precise instrument” technically far inferior to a bureaucratic administration composed of appointed officials. 1. “Plebiscitary democracy,” the most important type of “leader democracy,” is in its real sense a form of charismatic rule concealed by the formality that legitimacy is derived from the will of the ruled, and is only by virtue of this capable of being sustained. The leader (the demagogue) actually rules by virtue of the devotion and trust of his political following to his person as such.

“Plebiscitary democracy,” the most important type of “leader democracy,” is in its real sense a form of charismatic rule concealed by the formality that legitimacy is derived from the will of the ruled, and is only by virtue of this capable of being sustained. The leader (the demagogue) actually rules by virtue of the devotion and trust of his political following to his person as such. In the first instance, this extends to those recruited to his following, but if this gives him power, it can be extended throughout the organisation.

In the first instance, this extends to those recruited to his following, but if this gives him power, it can be extended throughout the organisation. The type is exemplified by the dictators of ancient and modern revolutions: the Hellenic aisymnetes, tyrants, and demagogues; in Rome, Gracchus and his successors; in the Italian states, the capitani del popolo and mayors; in Germany, the Zürich democratic dictatorship; in the modern state, Cromwell’s dictatorship, the leaders of the French Revolution, and the French plebiscitary First and Second Empires. Wherever legitimacy for this kind of rule is sought, it makes use of plebiscitary recognition by the sovereign people.

The type is exemplified by the dictators of ancient and modern revolutions: the Hellenic aisymnetes, tyrants, and demagogues; in Rome, Gracchus and his successors; in the Italian states, the capitani del popolo and mayors; in Germany, the Zürich democratic dictatorship; in the modern state, Cromwell’s dictatorship, the leaders of the French Revolution, and the French plebiscitary First and Second Empires. Wherever legitimacy for this kind of rule is sought, it makes use of plebiscitary recognition by the sovereign people. Personal administrative staff was recruited on a charismatical basis from among talented plebeians (in the case of Cromwell, due attention was given to religious qualifications; in the case of Robespierre, personal reliability combined with certain “ethical” qualities; and for Napoleon, the entire focus was on their personal talent and utility for the aims of the imperial “rule of genius”).

Wherever legitimacy for this kind of rule is sought, it makes use of plebiscitary recognition by the sovereign people. Personal administrative staff was recruited on a charismatical basis from among talented plebeians (in the case of Cromwell, due attention was given to religious qualifications; in the case of Robespierre, personal reliability combined with certain “ethical” qualities; and for Napoleon, the entire focus was on their personal talent and utility for the aims of the imperial “rule of genius”). At the heights of revolutionary dictatorship, this took the form of administration purely through revocable mandates (as with the role of agents in the Committee of Public Safety).

Personal administrative staff was recruited on a charismatical basis from among talented plebeians (in the case of Cromwell, due attention was given to religious qualifications; in the case of Robespierre, personal reliability combined with certain “ethical” qualities; and for Napoleon, the entire focus was on their personal talent and utility for the aims of the imperial “rule of genius”). At the heights of revolutionary dictatorship, this took the form of administration purely through revocable mandates (as with the role of agents in the Committee of Public Safety). When certain kinds of communal “dictators” have been swept into power by the reform movement in American cities, they have generally been allowed to appoint their own staff.

When certain kinds of communal “dictators” have been swept into power by the reform movement in American cities, they have generally been allowed to appoint their own staff. Both traditional and formal legitimacy are equally ignored by revolutionary dictatorship. The tendency under patriarchal rule has been to work according to principles of material justice, utilitarian aims, and state interests.

The tendency under patriarchal rule has been to work according to principles of material justice, utilitarian aims, and state interests. Parallel to this are the workings of revolutionary tribunals, together with the substantive postulates of justice espoused by radical democracies, whether in antiquity or in modern socialism (this will be dealt with in the sociology of law).45 The routinisation of revolutionary charisma then brings about changes similar to those in the corresponding process—hence, in England the development of a professional army as a residue of the voluntary principle embraced during the civil war, and in France the prefectorial system as a residue of the charismatic administration of the revolutionary plebiscitary dictatorship. 2.

Key Concepts

• 1. “Plebiscitary democracy,” the most important type of “leader democracy,” is in its real sense a form of charismatic rule concealed by the formality that legitimacy is derived from the will of the ruled, and is only by virtue of this capable of being sustained.
• The leader (the demagogue) actually rules by virtue of the devotion and trust of his political following to his person as such.
• The type is exemplified by the dictators of ancient and modern revolutions: the Hellenic aisymnetes, tyrants, and demagogues; in Rome, Gracchus and his successors; in the Italian states, the capitani del popolo and mayors; in Germany, the Zürich democratic dictatorship; in the modern state, Cromwell’s dictatorship, the leaders of the French Revolution, and the French plebiscitary First and Second Empires.
• Wherever legitimacy for this kind of rule is sought, it makes use of plebiscitary recognition by the sovereign people.
• Personal administrative staff was recruited on a charismatical basis from among talented plebeians
• At the heights of revolutionary dictatorship, this took the form of administration purely through revocable mandates (as with the role of agents in the Committee of Public Safety).
• Both traditional and formal legitimacy are equally ignored by revolutionary dictatorship.
• The routinisation of revolutionary charisma then brings about changes similar to those in the corresponding process—hence, in England the development of a professional army as a residue of the voluntary principle embraced during the civil war, and in France the prefectorial system as a residue of the charismatic administration of the revolutionary plebiscitary dictatorship.

Context

First numbered subsection under §14, where Weber analyses 'plebiscitary democracy' as the key modern form of leader democracy, illustrating its charismatic character, modes of staff recruitment, disregard for existing legal/traditional legitimacy, and its long-term institutional residues.