Abstract:  Democracy is often equated with voting, an assumption shared by many defenders, reformers, and critics of liberal democracy. This article explores the origins of the idea of the centrality of voting in democracy, arguing that current thinking about liberal democracy is heavily influenced by a nearly forgotten tradition of plebiscitary democracy. Originally conceived with a reverence for personalist leadership, this tradition sought to tame democracy. The article outlines three key stages in the development of the plebiscitary theory of voting. In the 19th century, the Bonapartist regime in France embraced the expansion of suffrage as a means to solidify monarchical power through popular acclamations. In the interwar period, thinkers such as Max Weber and Carl Schmitt, reflecting on the American and French mass voting experiences, developed a plebiscitary interpretation of voting and suggested a normative justification for a synthesis of democracy and monarchy. Later, plebiscitary theory influenced political science and its techniques for measuring democracy, notably through Joseph Schumpeter’s minimalist view, which, as argued here, was shaped by plebiscitarian intuitions. The focus on elections and plebiscites is unlikely to revive democracy; instead, it may pave the way for powerful monarchical leaders who claim to rely on popular will.

Keywords:  Bonapartism; Carl Schmitt; elections; Joseph Schumpeter; Max Weber; plebiscitary democracy; voting

Published:   6 May 2025

Issue:   Vol 13 (2025): Debating Democracy: Concepts, Histories, and Controversies (In Progress)