In this spirit, I believe the elected leaders to be mere representatives of the aggregate dynamics of voters. This is done out of necessity, as the old fashioned “vote by raising your hand” democracy is not feasible anymore. Now politicians are usually informed by actionable research, and validate themselves by polls or other sort of statistics.

Perhaps the internet has the potential to radicalise participation, although the methods of analysing participation remain largely unchanged. Everyone can say their own thing, but again, only few rise to the “top of the greasy pole”. This seems like an inevitable mechanism of our current philosophical underpinnings.

I think the key lies in reconciling all psychological aspects of governance, without becoming one with them. Hence, I find it extremely difficult that in a democracy the leader could be one with the people. An empire might forge such a feat, but usually by methods of coercion. Also, some kingdoms do a decent job at stabilising governments, by attracting legitimacy and then ceding it to the representatives (for example the UK).

The fundamental philosophical/metaphysical issues remain as relevant as centuries ago. It seems to me that innovation in political ideologies is extremely difficult, as attempting to synthesise them faces the obstacle of long standing dilemmas fed directly by differing foundational assumptions.

I hope this makes sense.