Norm-based leadership and the challenge of democratically elected authoritarians

Abstract

Across the post-World War II western liberal order, antidemocratic leaders have ascended to power through the ballot box and then engaged in an assault on prodemocratic norms. Commentators have worried that counter-normative behaviors will bring into existence a “new normal,” constructing an antidemocratic regimen in which future leaders will be freed to operate beyond either long-standing or newly created democratic expectations. In this article, I explore the matter of how and when incumbent leaders establish norms for future leaders. Normative leadership is typically presented as the capacity of leaders to set norms for the social units they are heading. Less examined but vital to the understanding of how leadership is enacted is the question of how prevailing norms create opportunities and limitations on the exercise of leadership. Leaders set norms not only just for their followers but also for future leaders. With particular attention to the norm breaking of Donald Trump in the United States, I examine a pattern of norm setting, norm breaking, and norm resetting that has unfolded at the presidential level. Whatever norms Trump, or any authoritarian leaders, may break during their incumbency, the setting of new norms will rely on a network of actors: not only just future leaders but also representatives of institutions (the courts, military, press, congress, etc.) as well as voters.

Authoritarian Leaders Share Conspiracy Theories to Attack Opponents, Promote In-Group Unity, Shift Blame, and Undermine Democratic Institutions

“…The act of disseminating conspiracy theories merits special attention for one class of individuals in particular: leaders. When leaders disseminate conspiracy theories, they have greater influence than average conspiracy theorists because they reach a wider audience than most people (Barbera & Zeitzoff, 2018), their positions lend greater credibility to misleading claims (Umeogu, 2012), and they normalize the spread of misinformation (Spector, 2021).…”

Leadership legitimacy and the mobilization of capital(s): Disrupting politics and reproducing heteronormativity

“…Trump’s mobilization of dominant masculinity, visibly asserted, embodies a menacing and non-rational behaviour, serving to reinforce hyper-masculine preoccupations with conquest and control (Knights, 2021), and in so doing reaffirms stereotypes of men (Trump) as powerful and women (Clinton) as the weaker sex, a bodily display that associates dominance or lack of it with a normative gender binary. On the one hand Trump defies ‘prodemocratic norms’ (Spector, 2021: 231), but on the other Trump’s gender performativity, illustrated through his action, highlights his ‘cave man’ approach designed to appeal to the basest element of his political base. His action not only disrupts the decorum of presidential debates but is a reaffirmation of an insidious type of masculine bravado.…”