As the EU referendum arrives, both campaigns are looking to buttress the credibility and persuasiveness of their respective causes by harnessing the power of celebrity. Open letters from allegedly prominent figures advocating one side or another are permeating the broadsheet newspapers, while the Eddie Izzards and Ian Bothams of the world continue to be inexhaustibly photographed at various campaign events.

Inevitably, this causes some – who inexplicably refuse to succumb to what should be an innate sense of curiosity as to which side celebrities support – to question whether Martin Freeman, Gary Barlow and J.K Rowling have (and should exercise) the right to play politics and actively attempt to exert their influence upon voters or politicians. Certainly, there is scope to suggest that celebrities – often in the economic 'one per cent' – lack the capacity to empathise and represent the worries and concerns of the common person; that it is concerning that celebrities cannot properly be held accountable for what they say or do; and that there is no obvious basis to accord the views of celebrities with any more weight than those of any other individual.

Yet such criticisms do not lament the actions of Stephen Hawking and Frankie Boyle; rather they represent attacks on a far larger issue: the ‘celebritisation’ of society as a whole. Furthermore, this is to both under-appreciate the potential for celebrities to become important political players while at the same time over-exaggerate the extent of the influence they can have. It is overly cynical to suggest that celebrities cannot convert their appeal into positive political action, yet overly naïve to believe that celebrities will have an impact on such a level that it becomes concerning – adding celebrities to politics is a recipe for awareness and engagement, not manipulation and control.

For one thing, a celebrity endorsement is not sought after by any campaign on account of its weight; instead, they offer communication strategists and PR directors valuable advertising potential to generate public awareness and interest on a particular issue. Indeed, it is highly doubtful that any attention or influence that any celebrity endorsement creates will endure unless the cause in question is one with which the celebrity has a long-standing affiliation. The existence of celebrity-driven events like Comic Relief or Live Aid demonstrates how a celebrity – through the use of the spotlight that accompanies their renown – can nurture public interest in political causes about which society is unaware, apathetic or (particularly in the case of humanitarian crises) increasingly immune.

Besides, in an age of voter apathy and societal mistrust of politicians, celebrities play a valuable role in both encouraging engagement with politics and raising awareness of issues often unpublicised by the mainstream media. Additionally – developing the obvious argument that celebrities have just as much right to free speech as any other individual – there is also no real basis for the supposition that a celebrity is incapable of expressing nuanced and valuable opinions on issues: nobody exists in a vacuum after all. Many celebrities championing political causes can possess knowledge that rival those of so-called ‘experts’, and it is illogical to suggest that their status as a celebrity undermines this. It is hard to deny that Jamie Oliver lacks any real understanding of the nutritional value of school meals or that Ben Affleck or Angelina Jolie’s knowledge of the Sudanese conflict is not credible; if they are good enough for the UN, they should be good enough for the rest of us. And, as Nicholas Kristof has brilliantly described:

“If a celebrity isn’t genuinely interested in poverty and is simply trying to get good press, there are better ways to do it. Traveling to Darfur or Congo is dangerous, expensive and uncomfortable, and the outhouses have bats, scorpions and camel spiders. But if a celebrity is willing to put up with such challenges, he or she can get public attention in a way that no one else can.”

Any worries regarding accountability too are irrelevant in this context. Politicians can and should be held accountable for their actions by Parliament on the grounds that their very existence is based on representation of the public. Similarly, when an organisation like NUS seems to misjudge the extent of its jurisdiction to represent its members by making resolutions and statements on irrelevant issues like prisons, its members have the opportunity to hold it accountable through disaffiliation referendums. In contrast however, celebrities are private individuals who have had conferred on them a certain status based on acts they have performed in pursuit of what (typically) amounts to a career in the private sector; they are under no duty to the public and thus cannot and should not held accountable for anything beyond the universally applicable criminal law.

So before dismissing the views of the Benedict Cumberbatches and Keira Knightleys of the world, it is worth remembering that this is an era of celebrity culture, and politicians have been forced to steal those clothes to become larger than life characters. Celebrity endorsement of the EU or any other issue simply holds a mirror back to a society which relies on endorsement for anything from clothing, to diets, all the way up to more fundamental issues. These celebrities should not be punished for genuinely thinking and caring about politics; rather it is the flip side of paparazzi and the way in which society demands intrusion into their private life that allows them to influence how people think. Indeed, it is noticeable that interesting politicians' private lives are increasingly seen as legitimately of interest to the public as part of that same exchange. Politics is moving towards the cult of the individual; the focus of today’s political debate is increasingly moving away from accepting professional politicians who lack any creativity, individuality or personality (and in some cases, talent) towards individuals like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage who possess characteristics readily comparable to many a celebrity.