Performance is engraved in politics. From Ancient Greece to parliamentary chambers, leaders have used rhetoric and symbolism, carefully staging moments to persuade, reassure and inspire. However, something seems to have shifted in recent years. Performance has moved from being a means of communicating political purpose to becoming a substitute for it.
Donald Trump – the master of performative politics
The emergence of what might be called the performance politician raises an uncomfortable question: are we increasingly choosing spectacle over policy, presence over programme, and theatre over governance?
No contemporary figure illustrates this more starkly than Donald Trump. Trump doesn’t use performance as a political tool; he governs through it. Rallies function as theatrical events, insults as ritualised crowd-pleasers, and U-turns as emblematic of a capricious spirit. Attention, rather than policy coherence, became the currency of power. Under Donald Trump, leadership is now enacted not through institutions and policy but through the continual occupation of centre stage.
Trump’s much-publicised creation of a ‘Board of Peace’ is a prime example. Announced with great fanfare, it was not grounded in any recognised diplomatic or constitutional framework. It unfolded as political theatre: invitations issued, rescinded and reissued; allies publicly favoured; critics conspicuously excluded. The choreography of loyalty and dominance. Inclusion signalled proximity to power; exclusion served as punishment. Governance receded while performance took centre stage.
Performance politicians: pathways to power and what they reveal about the system
What matters here is not Trump alone, but what his success reveals about the political ecosystem and the societal values and dynamics in which he operates. Performance politicians do not arise in a vacuum. They are selected, rewarded and sustained by electorates who respond to emotional resonance more than to policy detail, as well as by media environments that privilege immediacy, conflict and recognisable characters over nuanced, considered and often complex arguments.
This phenomenon is not confined to the populist right. Across political traditions, figures with strong media instincts and moral fluency increasingly gain traction over those offering careful, qualified policy work. The rise of Zack Polanski, for example, illustrates how values-led, emotionally compelling performance can mobilise attention and loyalty more rapidly than the slower work of programme and party building. Whether this strengthens democratic engagement or risks thinning it remains an open question.
Manifestations of performative politics in modern administrations
Trump is not without historical or contemporary peers. Silvio Berlusconi blurred politics and entertainment through media saturation and personal scandal, while Benito Mussolini perfected the aesthetics of power through posture, spectacle, and mass choreography. Yet, in both cases, performance served an underlying ideological or administrative project, however dangerous or corrupting that project may have been.
More recent figures illustrate different variants. Boris Johnson cultivated a persona of comic disarray and rhetorical flourish that eclipsed policy seriousness, even when he nodded towards the conventions of parliamentary democracy. Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron deploys a carefully managed presidential drama, staging authority and gravitas with precision. Lastly, Volodymyr Zelenskyy demonstrates how performance skills can be more ethically mobilised, using media fluency to strengthen resolve in the face of very real danger, rather than for personal aggrandisement.
Electoral complicity in performance politics
The distinction lies not in whether politicians perform, but in what the performance is for. When performance communicates policy, values and responsibility, it can deepen democratic engagement. When it replaces them, politics is hollowed out from within.
This shift reshapes how electorates relate to power. Performative politics recasts citizens as spectators rather than participants. Complex trade-offs, institutional constraints and moral responsibility give way to narratives of certainty, identity and emotional alignment. Leaders are rewarded not for what they patiently build, but for how effectively they command attention. Policy becomes a liability, and consistency matters less than drama.
Audience’s decision: optics VS ethics
The ‘Board of Peace’ episode captures this dynamic clearly. Peace, one of the gravest responsibilities of political leadership, was reduced to a stage prop in a loyalty drama. Real conflicts and real human suffering disappeared behind the spectacle.
Our political culture increasingly rewards fluency over fidelity, confidence over care, and performance over responsibility. In a fragmented media environment, it is understandable to gravitate towards those who feel convincing, decisive or morally aligned. Yet democracy depends not only on how leaders appear, but on what they are willing to shoulder once the cameras move on: complexity, consequence and accountability. If we continue to choose performance alone, we should not be surprised when politics delivers spectacle before stewardship. The choice before us is not between charisma and competence, but between remaining spectators of power or becoming participants in a shared political life.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
