When she said ‘you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose’, Senator Hillary Clinton was close enough to getting it right, but not quite. The comparison she should have drawn is not between campaigning and governing, since this is like comparing oranges and apples, but between two styles of campaigning. If Barack Obama’s campaign is evocative and inspiring, hers is efficient and effective. If his has magic, hers has dignity. If his has poetry, hers has prose.

By drawing attention to the greater power of poetry to win hearts and convert neutrals into followers, Hillary Clinton has drawn attention to an issue that needs more analysis by students of democracy: the power of the plebiscitary leader. We need to ask what is it that qualifies one for the label of a plebiscitary leader? What gives such a plebiscitary leader success? What is it that distinguishes him or her from another successful leader to whom such a title would not apply?

This is an interesting set of questions that merits further probing. The potential of the plebiscitary leader, one version of the charismatic leader first flagged by the German sociologist Max Weber, is an issue that is of significance for all polities. Was the late Benazir Bhutto, for instance, whose tragic assassination cut short a spirited campaign, a plebiscitary leader? Would Nicholas Sarkozy or Thaksin Shinawatra qualify for the title? Is Narendra Modi’s success, in the just concluded elections in Gujarat where he won a huge majority in spite of opposition from a faction of the BJP, VHP and RSS, because of his status as a plebiscitary leader? Is the comparison between poetry and prose valid in these cases?

... contd.