How Many Professional Politicians? On the Limits of Professionalisation and the Limits of Challenging Alternatives

Western democracies have witnessed a massive political professionalization during past decades. This trend is discernible in rather different areas of politics – from electoral campaigning, party organization, and political communication to the recruitment and careers of political leaders. Sparked by the media and political parties alike, this process led to an increase of career politicians – usually well-educated, embedded in relevant networks and experienced in the management of political affairs. Yet, the type of professional politician is challenged both empirically and for normative reasons. Objections are raised, inter alia, by the electorate, populist challengers and proponents of participatory democracy. Recent empirical evidence shows some deprofessionalization among political elites, e.g. after the US presidential race or the last parliamentary elections in France and Italy. Against such backgrounds, the question arises whether there is any limit to the professionalization of political leaders. Does a point exist when the detrimental effects of professional politicians outweigh their positive implications? Are their viable alternatives? Limits of professionalization can be supply-based (e.g. lack of suitable candidates, more attractive career options outside politics), or they may be imposed by selectorates (e.g. nomination of younger candidates, recruitment of outsiders) and electorates (e.g. voting for new or challenging parties). I argue that a relevant proportion of professional political leaders is essential for democratic policies and polities. This holds true despite their obvious unpopularity and the notorious criticism they are confronted with. At the same time, an unrestrained and uncurbed professionalization of careers in politics would be dysfunctional and a jeopardy to democracy. It is further argued that many of the suggested alternatives – be it referendum democracy, democratic innovations or identity politics – do not provide remedies for the denounced malfunctions and have strong deficiencies themselves. The paper starts from a clarification of key terms and concepts. It then provides empirical evidence for (a) the emergence of career politicians and (b) more recent indications of deprofessionalization. Discussing the reasons of both phenomena leads to an analysis why the increase in professional politicians is not unlimited. The second main part of the paper is devoted to a critical assessment of concepts claiming that a less professionalized political leadership helps to improve democratic representation and participation. Such concepts are often, implicitly or explicitly, associated with an anti-elite bias.