the rebirth of charisma

7/27/2019 The Rebirth of Charisma

1/18

Roger Eatwell - The Rebirth of Charisma? Concepts and Theories July 2002http://www.ceri-sciences-po.org

1

Colloque CERI - July 1th

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

Introduction1

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 ViktorYuschenko 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


2/18


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 demandside factors, it is important not to ignore the

supplyside too namely the art of leadership.

This article was initially prepared as a brief background paper for a European Union-INTAS4

sponsored pioneering empirical study, conducted during 2000-2002, on the nature andpotential 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


3/18


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 calljoiners.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


4/18


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 charismaticstyle of leadership might emerge to challenge what

he saw as the other two main forms of existing political legitimacy - the traditionaland 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 notnecessarily 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.


5/18


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 acontinuum. 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.


6/18


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:

charismaticand 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, andensuring 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


7/18


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 frontof 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.


8/18


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 academicliterature: 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


9/18


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 culturallegitimation. 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


10/18


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 arelikely 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


11/18


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


12/18


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 ofidentification 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).


13/18


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.


14/18


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 symbolisepolitical 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


15/18


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 ofidentity. 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 stressedthe 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


16/18


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', becauseotherwise 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.


17/18


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 alarge 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).3Though it is important to underline that these elections were hardly free and fair in the Western sense.

4INTAS 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 ofliaising with the various others teams. My prime responsibility was to refine the concept and theory of charisma. Inwriting 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 ofCharisma (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 IndianaPress, Bloomington, 1985-).; on the development of the Lenin cult see N.Tumarkin, Lenin Lives!: the Lenin Cult inSoviet 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).


18/18

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

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 charismaticor 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 amonga de-aligned electorate the media takes on a powerful role see also B. Manin, Principles of RepresentativeGovernment (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 thepersonalisation 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', inB.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 ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 106, No. 2, 1991, p.310. See also the daming of charisma as a 'sponge' concept in the appendix ofPeter Worsley's classic study of cargo cults, The Trumpet Shall Sound(Paladin, London, 1968).

the rebirth of charisma

Documents