The Rebirth of Charisma

Roger Eatwell - The Rebirth of Charisma?
Concepts and Theories July 2002

http://www.ceri-sciences-po.org
1
Colloque CERI - July 1
th
2002 :
Russia Ukraine, and Belarus : Political Leadership, International Security and Public Opinion
The Rebirth of Charisma?
Concepts and Theories and the Problem of Operationalisation
Roger Eatwell
University of Bath
Introduction
1
During the last twenty or so years, there has been much discussion about the rise (and the
sometimes spectacular fall) of allegedly 'charismatic' political leaders.
2
Although the term
'charismatic' is often used indiscriminately (for example, in relation to personalities such as
film and football stars), politics in democratic systems has certainly more personalised than it
was a generation or more ago.
In the USA and Britain, two leaders have even given their name to new 'isms': Reagan(ism)
and Thatcher(ism). In Western Europe, a variety of other allegedly-charismatic political
leaders have emerged, including Prime Ministers Silvio Berlusconi and Tony Blair in Italy and
Britain, and anti-Establishment politicians such as Jrg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le
Pen in France. Post-communist Eastern Europe too has witnessed the rise of allegedly-
charismatic leaders. In Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenka rose from obscurity to become
President within a space of months in the mid-1990s, and maintained his popularity to win re-
election in 2001.
3
In Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky has failed to gain a major office, but his
sudden electoral breakthrough in the mid-1990s (and subsequent decline) appears to serve
as an excellent example of the turbulent trajectory of charismatic leaders. Other leaders in
former communist states who have often been portrayed as charismatic include Lech Walesa
in Poland, Slobadan Milosevic in Serbia, and most recently Viktor Yuschenko in the Ukraine.
These opening remarks point to the two major problems. First, what exactly is 'charismatic'
leadership? It is surely much more than a synonym for 'popular'? In the Czech Republic,
President Vclav Havel has been popular, but he has not been considered charismatic. On
the other hand, the former technocrat-turned Prime Minister, Vclav Klaus, may have fallen
from grace, but for a time during the 1990s he was widely described as 'charismatic'. Klaus's
gray personality raises another crucial definitional issue. What set of personal characteristics
Roger Eatwell - The Rebirth of Charisma? Concepts and Theories July 2002
2
make a leader charismatic? The term is commonly associated with leaders who have
physical presence, such as Haider, and especially with confident speakers, such as
Zhirinovsky. So what is the link with those who lack presence and/or who are not highly
articulate, such as Klaus or Walesa?
Secondly, why do 'charismatic' leaders exert an appeal? Is there a specific set of conditions
which favour the emergence of such leadership? In Eastern Europe, the emergence of
recent 'charismatic' leadership has frequently been explained in terms of rapid social change
and dislocation, which has triggered a historic cultural disposition towards strong leadership.
But Western Europe and the USA have clearly not experienced such dramatic change, and
some Western states do not have a tradition of respect for great leaders.
In this article, I seek to set out a typology of different forms of 'personalist' leader,
distinguishing between charismatic and iconic leadership. I then examine various theories
which have been put forward to explain the rise of charisma, and point to some ways in
which these could be adapted for social science investigation. There has been a tendency in
recent writing on political charisma to stress the motivations of supporters over the nature of
leadership per se. Allegedly charismatic leaders exhibit notably different traits, which appear
to make it difficult if not impossible to distil an essence. But the conditions which can spawn
charismatic leadership arguably differ even more dramatically. Moreover, an under-
researched phenomenon is the way in which the discourse of the leader might create a
sense of crisis or existential turning point, which in turns feeds charisma. Thus the normal
social science priority of structure over agency is reversed. This article argues, therefore, that
whilst it is vital to hypothesise and study demand side factors, it is important not to ignore the
supply side too namely the art of leadership.
This article was initially prepared as a brief background paper for a European Union-INTAS
4
sponsored pioneering empirical study, conducted during 2000-2002, on the nature and
potential of charismatic leadership in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus.
5
Whilst much has
been written about charisma, there have been very few studies of allegedly 'charismatic'
political leaders which seek to employ empirical social science techniques in a systematic
way. The main previous piece of such social science work specifically on political charisma
covered Peronism in 1960s' Argentina. But this work covered just one movement, at one
specific time (when its leader was well-past his charismatic prime), in just one country, and
the primary investigative technique was simply opinion polling.
6
3
Some commentators hold that the dearth of empirical social scientific work stems from the
fact that the concept is inherently non-operationalisable. Thus Rejai and Phillips argue:
In general, while the concept of charisma has a certain intuitive appeal, in
principle it is not amenable to empirical or scientific discourse.
7
There are particular problems involved in using the classic social science means of studying
voting - the opinion poll - to study behaviour which may involve strong affective as well as
rational aspects, or sentiments which may be highly transitory. Moreover, opinion polls tend
to miss or play down potential group influences. On the last point, Van Dooren argues:
At the core of these [charismatic] communities there are what one may call
seekers, meaning those charismatically committed follower's whose dedication
stems from an inner need. If they converge to show their admiration for he
leader, their behavior may attract the attention of others in the environment who
may then either be carried away by the contagious display of enthusiasm or may
interpret leader-adoration as the proper conduct in the given circumstances.
These newcomers one may call joiners.
8
If charismatic movements are characterized by such dynamics, it is clearly necessary to use
different social science techniques such as in-depth interviewing, or focus groups.
In collaboration with social scientists from Moscow State University, Minsk State University,
and the Centre for Social and Electoral Research (SOCIS) in Kiev, a Bath University team
led by myself designed a pilot programme of research to probe charismatic potential in these
countries.
9
It was decided at the outset that it was important to study a range of leaders, not
only those who were considered as charismatic. If only charismatic leaders were studied,
then even if common and invariant attributes could be identified, there would remain no clear
causal connection with charisma. To demonstrate this, it would be necessary to show that
only charismatic figures have those features. Moreover, it is impossible to identify truly
charismatic leaders without a substantial body of empirical research about the nature of their
support and in the case of many target leaders, such information did not exist.
The actual empirical work took three main forms. First, opinion polls were used to probe the
nature of support for key leaders in the three target countries. These poll questionnaires
were in part adapted from earlier ones, to allow comparison of results. Moreover, it was
decided at the outset that as this was very much a pilot study - there were dangers in
imposing too theoretically-driven an approach for this part of the empirical work. Secondly,
semi-directed focus groups were used to probe small groups of supporters of particular
leaders in more depth. Again, it was felt important that for this pilot that the raw data should
speak for itself, rather than impose rigid theoretical frameworks. A final part of the empirical
4
work, in keeping with the theoretically-driven argument that the supply side should not be
neglected, concerned discourse analysis of a broad variety of leader statements. Again, the
local researchers were not required to follow exactly the ideas set out below, but were
encouraged to develop their own schema of analysis
The interim results of this empirical work are discussed in articles which follow in this journal.
However, I have not incorporated these results into the remainder of this article which seeks
to set out a basic conceptual and theoretical model rather than to discuss the empirical
results of the INTAS study, or to refine the issue of operationalisation for future studies. In
particular, I seek to argue that charisma is an important concept in the social scientists
armoury of analytical tools. This is not necessarily to claim that we are witnessing a
widespread rebirth of charismatic leaders. Nevertheless, the potential for the rise of
personalist leadership should not be understated either.
Conceptualising Charisma
The term charisma derives from a reference in the New Testaments Corinthians II, which
describes the forms in which the gifts of divine grace appear. The term was introduced into
the social science vocabulary by the pre-eminent German sociologist, Max Weber, in the
early twentieth century.
10
Weber did not present a precise definition. Nor did he offer a
systematically tested theory (opinion polling was first used for political purposes in the 1930s.
and focus groups were developed much later). Rather, Weber relied on his dictum that
sociology must use historical materials as its basic data.
Weber was concerned that a charismatic style of leadership might emerge to challenge what
he saw as the other two main forms of existing political legitimacy - the traditional and the
legal-rational. Weber depicted charisma as having three main dimensions:
1) The charismatic leader, who is someone with a sense of great mission (although not
necessarily religious), characterised by self-confidence, and great rhetorical skills.
2) The mass following, which is likely to emerge at times of crisis, and to be
characterised by features such a sense of great trust in the leader, and to be largely
unconcerned with economic issues.
3) The routinisation of charisma (through party organisation, etc.), for it is difficult to
maintain radical charismatic revolutionary movements.
5
Most disciples of Weber have concentrated on the first two aspects of charisma. For
example, Ann Ruth Wilner, a social scientist who has written an important study of charisma,
holds that a charismatic relationship exists when four conditions are met:
1) The leader is perceived by followers to be somehow superhuman.
2) The followers blindly believe the leaders statements.
3) The followers unconditionally comply with the leader's directives for action.
4) The followers give the leader unqualified emotional commitment.
11
Focusing on a series of case studies of leader discourse, Wilner develops a hermeneutically
fertile account of the quasi-religious dimension of mythical narratives, particularly in
developing countries (her work began as a comparative study of Sukarno in Indonesia,
Nasser in Egypt and Nkrumah in Ghana).
However, there is a problem in closely following Weber's original formulation. Namely,
charisma largely becomes a phenomenon related to the past, or to developing countries.
Thus Gandhi may have exerted a God-like authority over large numbers of Indians in the
1940s.
12
But some other paradigmatic historic examples of 'charisma' become problematic
on a narrowly-Weberian approach. It is true that Hitler's most notable biographer stresses the
charismatic side of his appeal, and there seems little doubt that the Fhrer was seen as a
God by many Germans (especially after the great military victories of 1939-41).
13
But it is
important to note that some recent studies of Nazi voting up to 1933 have stressed more the
rational economic appeal of Nazi ideology.
14
Turning to contemporary democratic politics,
most commentators hold that issues of economics and the management-efficiency of
politicians have become central to understanding voting. It also seems unlikely that a
politician in a modern democracy could achieve widespread God-like status.
But there is no reason why the concept of charisma should remain irretrievably tied to
Weber's formulation. Indeed, Weber himself saw such concepts in terms of 'ideal types'.
Charismatic leaders should not be seen in terms of rigid categories, but more in terms of a
continuum. The conceptual task, therefore, becomes one of re-defining the concept in a way
which remains true to Weber's formulation of charisma as a very special kind of personal
appeal, but which is more applicable to contemporary politics. It is also necessary to
distinguish between different types of personalized leadership, as personal appeals can take
notably different forms. For example, whatever the exact balance between God-like
reference and economic rationality among Hitler's supporters, he clearly was viewed virtually
as an exceptional man of destiny. But the same could not be said of President Eisenhower in
the USA. He undoubtedly had a personal appeal, and came from a military rather than party
political background. Nevertheless, Eisenhower was hardly a man driven by a great mission.
6
Indeed, Eisenhower was arguably the first President to be extensively packaged by image
consultants.
This article suggests that it fruitful to conceive of two types of personalist leadership:
charismatic and iconic. Both terms have religious connotations, but are conceived here in a
secular way: there is no implication that leaders are driven by some form of religious
motivation, nor that supporters view them as deities.
The Charismatic Leader
A charismatic leader has a sense of mission to undertake radical political change and/or a
special destiny save the nation. The change sought may involve new policies, but it may also
involve a break with the status quo and quest to rediscover a golden age or some idealised
aspect of the past. Typically, the charismatic leader has considerable personal presence.
Supporters are characterized by particularly intense levels of adulation and recognition of the
leaders' special mission. Classic historical examples include Gandhi, Hitler and Mao Zedong
(especially during the Great Cultural revolution). Less 'pure' contemporary examples would
include Lukashenka and Zhirinovsky.
A useful refeinement to the concept is the distinction between charisma of the coterie and
charisma of the masses. The latter refers to the leader's ability to appeal to the masses; the
former refers more to the leader's ability to inspire devotion among an inner core of
supporters. Some leaders have clearly exhibited coterie charisma, but have not necessarily
achieved mass charisma. Lenin was widely revered by the Bolshevik inner core, but there
are debates about whether he was a forceful speaker and whether there was a widespread
awareness in Russia in the early 1920s that he was a man of destiny.
15
The primary meaning
of charisma relates to mass appeal. Nevertheless, the bond with the inner core can be
important in a variety of ways such as steering the party through the wilderness, and
ensuring compliance of leaders policies by party colleagues.
After leading the Soviet Revolution, Lenin benefited from the aura of being the head of a
state which was engaged in radical political change. Hitler benefitted in similar terms from
becoming the Chancellor and Fhrer of Germany. This phenomenon has been termed by
many writers as institutional charisma, which points to another important conceptual
dimension. However, not all holding of office bestows charisma. The US Presidency may
have given Eisenhower authority, gravitas and respect. But it did not make him charismatic. It
is important to remember the basic meaning of charisma namely, intense support for a
7
person who is seen as driven by a sense of mission or destiny. By analogy, an institution or
party which embodies such a sense can be thought of as charismatic. The term institutional
charisma should, therefore, only be used in this particular context and not simply to describe
the benefits of major office holding.
Some writers have suggested that it is worth adding the term 'quasi-charismatic' to the
conceptual repertoire.
16
Sometimes the point is to distinguish leaders like Gandhi, who
attracted mass devotion, from those like Thatcher who - whilst clearly driven by a clear
ideological goal - did not inspire widespread devotion. On other occasions, the point is more
to highlight leaders who, whilst personally self-confident, do not seek radical change.
However, as charisma is an ideal type conception, it does not seem necessary to add the
qualification 'quasi' for leaders like Thatcher. Leaders can be situated on different points
along the charismatic continuum, both in terms of personal characteristics and in terms of the
bond with supporters (thus a charismatic personality may not inspire a particularly
charismatic bond, and vice-versa). As far as non-radical or messianic leaders is concerned,
the epithet 'quasi' seems a misnomer: charisma is not a synonym simply for confidence or
presence.
It has also been argued that the term 'pseudo-charisma' is analytically helpful.
17
This term is
used to highlight the way in which modern marketing techniques can be used by politicians to
improve their image, even to give them a sense of mission which they might otherwise lack.
For instance, John Kennedy during the 1960 US Presidential campaign adopted positions on
civil rights which owed more to opinion pollsters' advice on the likely gains and losses in
terms of votes than to conviction. More recently, politicians like Tony Blair have surrounded
themselves with 'spin doctors'. If the focus of analysis is specifically on the leader, then the
term 'pseudo charisma' can be useful to help distinguish the true believers from the
manufactured leader (although even true believers can employ marketing techniques: an
early example is Hitler, who well before coming to power practised rhetorical gestures in front
of a mirror and for his personal photographer). But if the focus is more on audience
response, then the concept of 'pseudo-charisma' is of less obvious value unless it is linked to
a theoretical argument that support is in some way related to the nature of whether the
leader's charisma is genuine.
8
The Iconic Leader
In many cases, the terms institutional, 'quasi', and 'pseudo' charisma are used to refer to
people who should not be placed in the charismatic category. These people have a personal
political following, and have a high public profile, but they are iconic rather than charismatic.
The iconic leader is one who has special qualities of leadership, but who neither seeks
radical change nor adopts a messianic position. The iconic leader is not seen by supporters
as the embodiment of a great mission, nor is support particularly intense although it could
be widespread. The iconic leader may have personal presence, but the image can also be
one of technocrat, father, etc. The iconic leader becomes the key symbol of government
and/or party. Historic example would include Eisenhower. Recent examples encompass
Helmut Kohl in Germany, Klaus in the Czech Republic, Leonid Kuchma in the Ukraine,
Franois Mitterrand in France, and Vladimir Putin in Russia.
In the contemporary world, iconic leadership is more common than truly charismatic, as the
latter requires a more exceptional person and more special set of conditions to pave the way
for such a leader.
Theorising Charisma
Much of the early writing on charisma focused on what might be termed the charismatic
personality, namely specific traits associated with such leaders (which were sometimes
related to psychological explanations about the leaders background). More recently, the
focus has tended to be more on the nature and causes of the charismatic bond, namely the
particularly personal and intense nature of support.
Works on the rise of charismatic leaders typically do not seek to set out systematically a
series of clear theoretical propositions. However, three tend to predominate in the academic
literature: crisis, legitimation and facilitation (my terminology):
(Social) Crisis
Most studies of charisma, dating back to Weber, see some form of crisis as the necessary
starting point.
18
Given that most accounts of charisma see it in terms of its affective rather
than rational appeal, crisis tends to be seen in terms of its threat to identity more than to
economic interests. At times of rapid change, people tend to suffer anomie, a loss of values
and sense of social belonging. People may experience an identity vacuum, which opens
9
them to the appeal of leaders offering radical ideological alternatives. Complex events may
also predispose people to seek solace in the belief that the strong leader can control such
great forces, thus offering salvation.
Saul Friedlander, following E.H. Erikson, offers a rare example of an attempt to systematise
the impact of crisis. He argues that these crises can be reduced, on the psychological level,
to three principal forms: i) fear in the face of grave danger which poses a physical threat to
the community; ii) anxiety provoked by the disintegration of a group identity; iii) existential
anguish experienced by people for whom the usual rituals of existence have lost their
meaning.
19
Another important recent elaboration of theory comes from Madsen and Snow.
20
They argue that at a time of rapid change peoples social worlds change dramatically as they
become isolated from family, friends and the familiar. A person overwhelmed by change may
have low 'efficacy' and simply not vote. The charismatic leader helps give people a sense
that politics is not pointless - that the leader can change things, whilst at the same time
remaining responsive to the followers needs. Madsen and Snow call this 'proxy control'.
The emphasis on dramatic crisis and rapid change certainly seems to fit Weimar Germany
(1919-1933) or Russia preceding the 1917 revolutions. But do charismatic leaders
necessarily require crisis? Exactly what was the crisis which spawned Gandhis charisma?
Or to take a more recent example, Russia was undoubtedly undergoing major change in the
early 1990s, but was it in crisis when Zhirinovsky made his great electoral leap forward?
Was Belarus in crisis at the time of Lukashenkas first Presidential victory? Moreover, were
those who turned to Zhirinovsky and Lukashenka people who were experienced the three
forms of psychological shock set out above?
(Cultural) Legitimation
A second common assertion is that charismatic leaders require some form of cultural
legitimation. This argument has often been applied to Germany before 1945 and to the
former Soviet space even today. The German tradition is typically seen as one which
stresses strong leadership, for example Frederick the Great of Prussia or Bismarck..
21
Russia
too has a tradition of strong leadership, dating back to Tsars such as Peter the Great.
Sub-themes in national traditions too can help charismatic leadership. There seems little
doubt that Lukashenka has been able to maintain popularity, in spite of little or no concrete
achievements, because people believe that he lacks a good team around him. This
sentiment clearly harks back to the old belief in the benevolent Tsar, who was surrounded by
10
a court of fools and schemers. Umberto Bossi, the leader of the Italian Northern League,
presents another interesting case. Italian culture is often seen as encompassing a strong
machismo element, but Bossi is thin, ungainly and usually ill-dressed. However, this image
could appeal not simply as a reaction to Mussolinian male posturing. It also very much
corresponds with images in Catholic culture of the twisted, tortured body on the cross.
22
Nevertheless, charisma can emerge in societies without a tradition of strong leadership.
Churchill in Britain in late 1930s was considered a spent maverick, appealing only to a small
coterie. By late 1940, he was considered a great war leader, the very epitome of British
resistance to Nazism. Here the main factor appears to have been crisis more than culture.
(Political) Facilitation
Churchill was also helped by the way in which at time of war politics tends to rise above
parties. Although formally a Conservative, Churchill was in many ways an outsider able to
exert an appeal beyond party (especially a Conservative Party damaged by the
appeasement of Germany). More generally, charismatic leaders seem most likely to emerge
when parties are weak, or held in contempt (a growing trend in both Western and eastern
Europe?). Parties tend to encourage people to vote on programmatic or cleavage bases
rather than personality. Although some charismatics have been leaders of parties (Hitler,
Lenin), they have usually achieved this status in weak or one party systems
In democratic systems, charisma seems more likely to occur in Presidential than in
parliamentary systems. Hitler gained considerable publicity during the 1932 Presidential
elections. Lukashenka rose to prominence in Presidential elections. Presidential elections
necessarily focus on the individual, and highlight issues such as political presence. They also
encourage populist politics, in which leaders court short term popularity, and tend to
demonise all opponents (much less of a characteristic in parliamentary systems which are
likely to need some form of coalition government).
23
However, there is no necessary
connection as charismatic leaders such as Bossi and Haider have emerged in states which
have parliamentary rather than Presidential government.
A final factor worth noting in modern democratic political system is the media.
24
The media
have increasingly become the nexus of political campaigning. The popular media tend to like
to personalise issues, sometimes creating presidential contests even in parliamentary
systems (for example, the 2001 British general election, which the media portrayed in terms
of a conflict between confident Tony Blair and the hapless Conservative leader, William
11
Hague). Politicians in turn, exploit media paradigms (for instance, by supplying a regular
stream of sound-bites). In some newly democratising states, such as Russia, the media have
not been totally free which gives an added bonus to the government. However, it is
important not to believe that the media are necessarily manufacturing a new wave of
charismatic leaders. In the democracies, the media are pluralistic and ultimately tend to be
debunking, critical of government and leaders.
Hypothesising Charisma
The above arguments, could easily be expanded to include more points or examples, which
could provide rich historical material. However, if charisma is to be integrated into the realm
of empirical social science it is vital to set out a set of hypotheses which might be tested in
opinion polls, focus groups, in-depth interviewing or by other means.
In this section I very briefly sketch out a set of hypotheses, mainly derived from the theories
noted above. The hypotheses are meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, and I have
only supplied tentative opinion poll questions for some hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: the anomie thesis
This holds that charismatic leaders appeal in particular to those who have experienced
sudden change, and as a result are suffering from a loss of social rootedness. An opinion
poll question which might probe this aspect could run as follows: Do you strongly agree,
fairly strongly agree, tend to disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that: Events
have changed rapidly recently, and I feel far less secure than I used to.
Hypothesis 2: the proxy control thesis
This holds that charismatic leaders appeal because they give people suffering from low self-
efficacy a new sense of power to influence the leader and events.
Hypothesis 3: the historical legitimation thesis
This holds that charismatic leaders appeal to the extent that they can present themselves as
part of a legitimate national tradition.
Hypothesis 4: the authoritarian thesis
This holds that charismatic leaders appeal to those who have a predisposition to strong
leadership. The type of opinion poll question which might probe this aspect could run as
follows: Do you strongly agree, fairly strongly agree, tend to disagree and strongly disagree
12
with the following statement: A few strong leaders would do more for the country than all the
laws and talk.
Hypothesis 5: the low trust in parties thesis
This holds that charismatic politicians appeal when the mainstream parties are not trusted.
Hypothesis 6: the institutional charisma thesis
This holds that the possession of specific offices, especially the elected Presidency in the
political system, may confer additional charisma on the office holder. The type of opinion poll
question which might probe this aspects could run: Do you strongly agree, fairly strongly
agree, tend to disagree or strongly disagree that the President of the Russian Federation is
the embodiment of national destiny and pride and should be supported at all times?
Comparing questions #1 and #6 highlights the crucial issue of timing. Question 1 is mainly
relevant to the take off phase in a charismatic leaders support. Question 6 is clearly of
relevance only to incumbent leaders. Timing is critical in other ways. A poll conducted at a
time when a charismatic leader is just beginning to emerge may not include sufficient
supporters of the new leader for valid analysis. On the other hand, a poll carried out after a
leader has attracted widespread support may contain people attracted by a bandwagon
effect rather than charisma (an important feature of any large charismatic movement is likely
to be the way in which true believers bring in others attracted for other motives, such as peer
pressure).
It is also important to consider further questions, which seek to probe more directly whether
the bond between supporter and follower is charismatic rather than iconic.
Hypothesis 7: the charismatic leader inspires particularly intense identification
This holds that charisma is more than just popularity, or respect: it involves a strong sense of
identification with the charismatics mission. An opinion poll question which might probe this
dimension could ruin as follows: 'Would you say you identify extremely closely, fairly closely,
not very closely, or not at all with President Lukashenkas vision of the Belaruss future?
Hypothesis 8: the iconic leaders support is based on rational factors, such as past career
success
This holds that iconic leaders typically have demonstrated some past success or talent, such
as managing a factory (Kuchma in the Ukraine), or have close links with important groups
(for instance the military generally in Eastern Europe).
13
A charismatic leader need not necessarily have demonstrated any great success. Indeed,
the ability to handle failure can be considered part of the test of charisma. For instance, ten
years after joining the Nazi Party, Hitler led little more than a fringe sect. However,
charismatic leaders can stress past successes. Yuschenko in the Ukraine would be a case in
point. The crucial issue is more the nature of support. Thus Kuchma is supported for rational
reasons, such as agreement with policy. Yuschenkos supporters know far less about his
policy, and identify more intensely with him as a leader likely to produce a radical
transformation.
Charismatic Discourse
Refining and adding to the above hypotheses and questions is an important task for the
future. However, it is important not to over-focus on the demand side of the charismatic
equation in research design. It is also vital to pay attention to the supply side, to the nature
and discourse of leadership.
Social science in general has placed far too much emphasis on structure over agency. The
point can be seen simply by returning to the relationship between charisma and crisis. Crisis
is normally portrayed as an objective reality. But charismatic leaders can heighten, even
create, a sense of crisis. In the French Revolution, was it Robespierre who was created by
crisis - or the reverse? Hitlers belief in his own destiny meant that he refused the office of
Vice-Chancellor in 1932, thus pushing Germany further into crisis: had he accepted, he
would probably be little more than a bit-part player in world history. Lenins belief in his
particular reading of Marxism allowed him to believe that a revolutionary situation existed in
1917: a more cautious, conciliatory or conventional Marxist leader might well have lived out
the rest of his life in obscure exile.
Constraints on length mean that I will again largely present arguments about leader style and
discourse in list-form, rather than as an elaborated discussion. Moreover, as with the list of
support hypotheses above, what follows is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
It is important to stress that not all the traits in the list below are necessary for a leader to be
classed as charismatic. Only the first can be considered as a necessary core trait. However,
the other traits noted here have been common in the discourse of leaders who are typically
seen as charismatic.
14
Charismatic leader are typically characterised by (inter alia):
1. A special mission to undertake radical change and/or save the nation.
Charismatic leaders may at times choose to hold their counsel, or make compromises (Lenin
and the New Economic Policy), but they are driven by some form of (typically secularised)
messianic mission. They are saviours, not fixers. Hitler did simply offer to make
parliamentary government more stable, or to provide extended public works schemes to help
the unemployed. He promised the rebirth of Germany - a suitably convenient metaphor, as it
could encompass both radical change or a restoration of the old. The last point highlights the
fact that the radical change does not have to be set out clearly. Indeed, there are dangers in
excessive policy detail (this risks challenges about practicalities, fears about winners and
losers, and so on). The point is more that the charismatic leader envisions a new future
which has a wide resonance. Mikhail Gorbachev's efforts to reform Russia (Glasnost and
Perestroika) and to create a broader European understanding is a good recent eastern
European example of such generalized envisioning. Zhirinovsky's more recent calls for the
revival of a greater Russia offers another example.
2. Great personal presence.
Charismatic leaders typically have great personal presence. In the early literature on
charisma, the main emphasis was on the leader's oratorical abilities. More recent studies
have tended to stress then leader's ability to create the right image on television. Television
is not a 'hot' medium, like the mass rally. It also places great emphasis on visualization,
although this does not necessarily mean that personalist leaders have to be physically
attractive. It is unlikely that Putin attracts votes on the basis of looks, but images of him as a
sportsman may well exert a powerful appeal, not least to women.
3. Machismo.
Charisma is usually a male form of narrative/symbolism. Whilst women can symbolise
political ideas (like Marianne and the French nation), charisma tends to be more associated
with action, heroics etc. (often related to crisis or war). Mussolini offers a classic example,
although Hitler's more God-like image illustrates that fascist leaders did not necessarily adopt
a machismo image.
3. Narratives about sacrifice and struggle
Charismatic leaders typically tell a tale in which they have had to overcome problems and/or
make great sacrifices. This can offer an opportunity for the non-machismo male (such as
15
Bossi) to construct an appealing discourse. Zhirinovsky offers an excellent example of the
general point, with his stories of a joyless childhood, and constant shortages and
humiliations. Overt use of Russian Orthodox themes also both heighten the sense of
messianic mission, and the sense of sacrifice.
4. Inclusionary goals/goals about identity.
Howard Gardner has written in an important study on leadership that:
Leaders and audiences traffic in many stories, but the most basic story has to do
with issues of identity. And so it is the leader who succeeds in conveying a new
version of a given group's story who is likely to be effective []
Most of the leaders in this study put forth stories that were inclusionary, that
encouraged individuals to think of themselves as part of a broader community.
25
Moreover, the leader typically in some ways encompasses the story which he tries to tell.
Hitler sought to create a greater Germany - and was an Austrian by birth. Zhirinovsky was
brought up in poverty on margins of society in Kazahkstan.
5. Friend-enemy (Manichaean) categorisations.
Although charismatic leaders typically seek to (re-)create a sense of community, an important
part of their armoury can be the targeting of enemies. In some cases these can be internal
enemies, who are not part of the true society. Hitler's demonisation of the Jews is an
example of internal targeting. Enemies can also be external. For Zhirinovsky, the enemy has
sometimes been Jews, though the USA has figured more prominently in his demonology.
6. Supporter Activism
Charismatic leaders also tend to expect more of their supporters than iconic leaders. This
does not necessarily mean through institutions such as the old communist or Nazi parties.
However, charismatic leaders tend to expect their supporters to take destiny into their own
hands to some extent. Zhirinovsky, for example, used a discourse which particularly stressed
the role of young people in shaping Russia's fate. Overtly or implicity, charismatic leaders
also encourage proselytising by true believers.
It is important to note that discourses and symbols can have different effects within a
particular audience. Hitler did not adopt a machismo image, but this did not stop thousands
of women regularly writing to him after he became Chancellor to offer themselves to him. It is
also not clear which discourses are most powerful. Did Zhirinovsky attract votes for his
machismo, for his more humble tales of struggle, for his vision of a new greater Russia - or
16
what? Nevertheless, it seems clear that a study of charismatic leadership which stressed
audience need rather than leader supply is at best one-sided.
Conclusion
J.M. Burns has written in a major study that leadership is one the most observed
phenomena on earth, but it is also one of the least understood.
26
Fiorina and Shepsle have
similarly written that leadership is widely studied, but:
there seems to be little cumulative advance in our understanding: the empirical
regularities are neither robust nor compelling; the theoretical formulations are
neither precise nor reliable. Perhaps leadership is epiphenomenal and derivative.
Perhaps it is so dependent on contextual circumstances as not to permit holistic
treatment.
27
There are clearly a vast number of problems involved in the study of leadership, both
conceptual and theoretical.
However, conceptually it is important to reject the arguments of those who have claimed that
the concept of charisma should be discarded from the social science vocabularly.
28
The
concept of charisma may have some fuzzy edges, theoretical explanations of the
phenomenon may be eclectic, and operationalisation is a serious problem. However, two
points are vital in this context. First, it is necessary to state once again that charisma is an
ideal type: it should be seen as something on a continuum rather than as an absolute. Thus
the question of whether Stalin was a charismatic leader cannot be answered by a simple yes
on no. In some ways Stalin was an uncharismatic figure: for instance, he failed to inspire
great loyalty among a coterie, and his basic persona was gray rather than inspiring. But
during the Second World War he came to personify Soviet resistance to the Nazi invader and
acquired heroic status. Secondly, the crucial question is would social science lose analytical
purchase by dropping the concept of charisma? The answer is surely 'yes', because
otherwise we would be left with a broad concept of personalist leader, which failed to
distinguish between leaders capable of creating a deeply intense following, and those whose
following - whilst personal - is more rational.
The important task is not to drop the concept of charisma, but to study it in a more
systematic, social science way. This does not simply mean using opinion polls. The
argument above has very much stressed the need for a leader-oriented approach which
considers factors such as discourse and symbolism. But understanding the demand side of
charisma through techniques such as opinion polls and focus groups is crucial.
17
This is not to claim that a new wave of Hitler or Lenin-like leaders are about to descend on
Europe. The more pluralistic and questioning (post-)modern world militates against the rise of
heroes and demigods. But major changes appear to be underway in contemporary politics,
such as declining legitimacy of parties, which can only help the rise of personalist politics
leadership (both charismatic and iconic).
The study financed by INTAS in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus during 2000-2 was
intended both the help refine methodology and to produce substantive results about the
nature of political leadership in the post-Soviet space. Preliminary results of the empirical
studies are discussed in articles below, written by the various national teams. I plan to return
to issues relating to concept, theory and operationalisation in a future article or perhaps
book, for much remains to be done at this level.

1
This article has been prepared for translation into Russian, to appear later in 2002.
2
This article does not discuss charismatic leadership in other fields, such as management or religion. There is a
large literature especially on the former, which has informed this article, but which is not specifically discussed.
Nor does this article discuss the concept of leadership. For a somewhat dated review of the literature on these
topics, see B. Bass, Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (The Free Press, New York, 1990), especially
pp. 184-221. See also R.C. Tucker, Politics as Leadership (University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 1981).
3
Though it is important to underline that these elections were hardly free and fair in the Western sense.
4
INTAS is the International Association for the Promotion of Co-operation with Scientists from the New
Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
5
Length constraints imposed by this journal means that this article remains somewhat skeletal and terse.
6
J. Kirkpatrick, Leader and Vanguard in Mass Society: a Study of Peronist Argentina (MIT Press, Boston,(1971).
The empirical material of this study also forms an important part of the theoretically-notable D. Madsen and P.G.
Snow, The Charismatic Bond (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Ma., 1991).
7
M. Rejai and K. Phillips, Leaders and Leadership (Praeger, Westport, 1997), p.27.
8
H.M. van Dooren, Messengers from the Promised Land (DSWO Press, Leiden, 1994), p. 253,
99
The Bath University team also included Drs. Elena Korosteleva, Colin Lawson and Howard White. They had
responsibility for work on the three target countries, and Elena Korosteleva also fulfilled the important role of
liaising with the various others teams. My prime responsibility was to refine the concept and theory of charisma. In
writing this article, I am particularly grateful for advice on Eastern European politics from Howard White.
10
See especially S.N. Eisenstadt, Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building (University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1968).
11
A.R. Wilner, The Spellbinders. Charismatic Political Leadership (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1984), p.8.
Other notable works which seek to approach charisma on a broad front are C. Lindholm, Charisma (Blackwell,
Oxford, 1990), and A. Schweitzer, The Age of Charisma (Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1984).
12
E.H.Erikson, Gandhi's Truth (Norton, New York, 1969).
13
I. Kershaw, Hitler: Hubris, 1889-1936 (Allen Lane, London, 1998).
14
See especially W. Brustein, The Logic of Evil (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1996).
15
For the view that Lenin was a powerful speaker see R. Service, Lenin: a Political Life (University of Indiana
Press, Bloomington, 1985-).; on the development of the Lenin cult see N.Tumarkin, Lenin Lives!: the Lenin Cult in
Soviet Russia (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Ma., 1983).
16
For example, Bass, op. cit., p.241.
17
For example, J. Bensman and M. Givant, 'Charisma and Modernity', in R.M. Glassman and W.H. Swatos Jr.
(eds), Charisma, History and Social Structure (Greenwood Press, New York, 1986), p.55.
18
For example, Rejai and Phillips, op. cit., p.26.
19
S. Friedlander, History and Psychoanalysis (Holmes and Meier Publishers, New York, 1978). See also E.H.
Erikson, The Young Luther: a Study in Psychoanalysis and History (Faber, London, 1968).
18

20
Madsen and Snow, op. cit.
21
M.R. Lepsius, 'Charismatic Leadership: Max Weber's Model and Its Applicability to the Rule of Hitler', in C.F.
Graumann and S. Moscovici (eds), Changing Conceptions of Political Leadership (Springer-Verlag, New York,
1986).
22
R. Barraclough, 'Umberto Bossi: Charisma, Personality and Leadership', Modern Italy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1995.
23
Discussion of the impact of Presidentialism in Eastern Europe has rarely specifically discussed the charismatic
or populist issue. For an exception see G. Schpflin, Nations, Identity, Power: the New Politics of Europe (Hurst,
London, 2000).
24
Madsen and Snow, op. cit., stress the role of the media. For the argument that parties are in decline and among
a de-aligned electorate the media takes on a powerful role see also B. Manin, Principles of Representative
Government (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997). Again, this issue has been notably under-studied in
Eastern Europe, where focus on the media has tended to concern freedom rather than its impact on the
personalisation of politics.
25
H. Gardner, Leading Minds: an Anatomy of Leadership (Basic Books, New York, 1995), pp.14 and 291.
26
J.M. Burns, Leadership (Harper Row, New York, 1978), p.2.
27
M.P. Fiorina and K.A. Shepsle, 'Formal Theories of Leadership: Agents, Agenda Setters and Entrepreneurs', in
B.D. Jones (ed.), Leadership and Politics (university of Kansas Press, Kansas, 1989), p.17.
28
For example, W. Spinrad, 'Charisma: a Blighted Concept and an Alternative Formula', Political Science
Quarterly, Vol. 106, No. 2, 1991, p.310. See also the daming of charisma as a 'sponge' concept in the appendix of
Peter Worsley's classic study of cargo cults, The Trumpet Shall Sound (Paladin, London, 1968).

The Rebirth of Charisma

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Rebirth of Charisma

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Roger Eatwell - The Rebirth of Charisma?

Concepts and Theories July 2002

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi