"Personalization and Concentration of Power: Are They Consistent with Democracy?" (carbon), 1963

Pergonaligation and Concentration of Power,
Are they Consistent with Democracy?

Under the olrcumstances of masa soclety a certain degree
of personalization of power is inevitable. The need to appeal to
a large bedy of cltigenry, many ef them -- possibly the majority -~
only tangentially Interested in political affairs and scarcely
conversant with governmental problems, pute a premium on the
public's identifying politics with the choice of personalities,

whether such personalization leads to a degree of con~-
centration of power endangering the working of democratic inati-
tutions is another question, ‘The analysis of the more successful
experiences with popular leaders of our time »- to mention only
FOR dn the USA, Churehil1 dn Great Britain and Adenauer in The
Federal Republic of Germany -« would lead to a more differentiated
anewer, In either case the popular figure was able to translate
his tremendous popularity into considerable influence in party
organization and state apparatus. Personalization may alag have
helped two of these leaders to gat a grateful electorate to extend
their terms of office again and again, But in nelther case did
the person in question attempt to exploit his degree ef popular
leverage towards attempting ways of political change incompatible
with constitutional democracy, In each case important foreign
policy or domestic objectives were pursued within the framework
of the existing inatitutions, The network of pluralistic instd+
tutions on which the fabric of the modern democratia state reate
preserved its full scope and effectiveness; net even the party

2
organigation of the reigning party, naturally most affeated by
the impact of such dominant personalities, became atrophied to
the extent that ite functioning would be endangered by the dis~
appearance of the father figure.

Bome South American, and especially the recent French,
experiences indicate different development trends. The indepen-
dent variable seems to be the absence or destruction of universally
recognised political patterns allowing attempts to model ineti~
tutions after the image of the momentary holder of paliticad
power, ‘The referendum formula establishing a direct ocircult bet-
ween the momentary holder of political power and the masses 1s
ublliged to threaten, cajele, and pulveriae what remaina of
existing political structures of a previous period and to force
them into submission er oblivion. Suoh a device, as it 1s now
constantly used in France, might be an expedient to solve specific
problems (Algeria), or more broadly, to replace eutworn political
dnetitutions as speedily as the engineering of consensus might
allow by & more adequate demooratio framework, But 1b seems
more likely that the device of personalization ia used towards
full-fledged concentration of political power and degrading the
remainder of the political establishment into a legitimiging and
supporting machinery on the basis of the pseude-democratle referen~
dum formula.

I would, therefore, conclude that a certain amount of
concentration of political power is a necessary concomitant of
our present stage of masa soclety. How the ensuing possibilities

3
of power concentration are utiliged depends on factors prevalent

in the individual society. The political framework may give way
and be replaced by a paeudo-legitimiging referendum apparatus
forming part of an authoritarian balancing structure, Buch an
authoritarian political super-structure might coexiat with a
plurality of social power centers (professional, trade union,
religious, ete.) with some staying power of their own, As long
an the latter manage to keep some degree of Independence, con~
centration of political power resting on the exploitation of the
personalization faster is not lable to lead to new permanent
political structures, However, the power holders! willingness,
doterest, and abliity to eit

eng-range changes in soolal
relations and expectations - make the personalization factor,
common to all political structures in mass soolety, a stepping
stone for the setting up of a regime where acclamation absorbs
other forms of partiedpation.

Otte Kivchheimer

Columbia University
April 23, 1963