Do Celebrities Make Policy?

Do celebrities, who are unelected and unaccountable, influence public policy?

The media coverage of celebrities tends to assume so. In 2020, the British press reported that the Premier League footballer Marcus Rashford had forced a U-turn in government policy on free school dinners in school holidays. The Evening Standard claimed that ‘ministers were being pushed towards a U-turn on free school meals”. It was a claim echoed by the Daily Telegraph, Prospect magazine, the i newspaper and the New Statesman.

Rashford's influence over policy is different from the celebrities who have acquired that power through the ballot box, like Glenda Jackson and Sebastian Coe in the UK, or Donald Trump in the US. Rashford is like Jamie Oliver, who campaigned to improve the quality of school food, or Joanna Lumley in her fight for the citizenship rights of Gurkha soldiers.

But press reporting or self-reporting of such power does not constitute evidence of it. On Good Morning Britain, the Minister for Children claimed that she, not Rashford, was responsible for the change in policy.

If there is substance to the suggestion that celebrities exercise power over policy making, from where does this power derive, and does it pose a danger to the traditional forms of democratic accountability?

The rise of the celebrity politician

The rise of the celebrity campaigner is seen by some writers as a symptom of the failure of the traditional democratic process, what Colin Crouch has dubbed post-democracy. In such a world, a space is created for those skilled in performance, who also can make some claim to popular representation, based not on votes, but on fandom: the celebrity politician.

As traditional politicians ally themselves ever more closely to popular culture, so the figures within that culture become more involved in traditional forms of politics.

It might be thought that these developments refer only to how politics appears, not relations of power. There is, though, experimental evidence that celebrities can influence political choices and raise the profile causes.

So are celebrities able to change policy? What would be required for us to claim that celebrities exercise power over policy making?

Celebrity as charismatic power

There is some evidence of politicians being impressed by stars. Tony Blair would make time for Bono and Geldof that was denied to other—more traditional—political suitors. On the other hand, Madonna's involvement in Malawian politics was largely unsuccessful because the political elite there knew nothing about her. We need to be wary of granting too much importance to celebrities’ charismatic effects.

Celebrity claims to representation

There is another possible source of power: the claim to representation. What is true for political lobbying in general, is true for the celebrity politician.

Rashford has 9 million followers on Instagram, suggesting a potential form of representation. Bono himself has said: ‘I don't have any real power, but the people I represent do. The reason why politicians let me in the door… I represent quite a large constituency of people.’

Marcus Rashford's claim to speak about school meals is grounded in his childhood experience. In a letter to MPs, Rashford wrote: ‘My mum worked full-time, earning minimum wage to make sure we always had a good evening meal on the table … as a family, we relied on breakfast clubs, free school meals, and the kind actions of neighbours and coaches’.

Other claims to represent are based more on expertise and knowledge, rather than experience. Jamie Oliver's campaign rested upon his expertise as a chef. In advocating on behalf of those with HIV/AIDS, Bono claimed ‘a certain moral authority that's way beyond your own life and capabilities,’ derived from his organisation, DATA.

The power of persuasion

Persuading politicians and/or policy makers to act is very different from persuading fans to donate money or buy tickets.

Bob Geldof reports that, after Live Aid, Geldof persuaded President Mitterand to get French food supplies into Sudan. Joanna Lumley met Phil Woolas, a Minister from the Home Office, and demanded assurances for the Gurkhas.

However, generally Bono remains an exception. His engagement with the political actors and processes is not matched by that of Rashford and Lumley. This is because institutional factors play into the opportunity for celebrity influence.

Institutional organisation and ‘the talent’: empowering celebrities

Celebrity power over the policy elite, if it operates at all, depends on some form of access to the policy process, which, in turn, depends on the networks and agencies in which policy making is embedded. This applies to celebrities as it does to other would-be participants. Brockington argues that access was easier for Geldof and Bono because they were ‘part of the inner teams’. In his evidence to the UK's Covid inquiry, Lee Cain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's press secretary, argued that Marcus Rashford's campaign was initially resisted by the government because he—or rather the experience he represented—was not in the room.

Access and influence are dependent on resources. In Bono's case, DATA was a key resource. He also hired the former Labour MP Douglas Alexander to drive initiatives. In this respect, celebrity influence is not that different from traditional political lobbying. It is about insiders and outsiders. Fame is valued by the processes that manage the opportunities to exercise influence.

Due to the ‘mediatisation’ of politics, traditional politics has become a form of celebrity politics. Celebrities benefit because they are richly resourced in the currencies and skills valued by media and, increasingly, by politics.

Conclusion

There are, of course, many other examples where no such effect is discernible, let alone plausible. In the UK, celebrities were much in evidence in opposition to the Iraq War, without having any influence on key decision makers.

Some contend that celebrities are to be used to support agendas already established. For example, Rashford ‘succeeded’ only because of the political support he received from elected politicians. Set against these ‘power with’ interpretations are the ‘power over’ alternatives in which celebrities might be seen to cause a change of direction. After all, while a government might risk losing political capital in succumbing to celebrity pressure, there are potential benefits in joining forces with a star of popular culture.

A post-democratic polity may have served to elevate the entitlements—and powers—of the celebrity.

A version of this article was first presented at the European Consortium of Political Research Joint Sessions in Toulouse in April 2023. I owe a considerable debt to the organisers of and participants in the workshop on ‘Political Communication and Policymaking in the Age of Digital Media’.