Reflections on Charismatic Leadership

"The term 'charismatic leader' has recently attained widespread and almost debased currency. In the past, it was occasionally applied to Gandhi, Lenin, Hitler, and Roosevelt. Now nearly every leader with marked popular appeal, especially those of new states, is indiscriminately tagged as charismatic."' Difficulties in the use of this term arise not only from indiscriminate labelling, but also from conflicting theories of societies. Two recent discussions are especially instructive in this respect. In an assessment of Max Weber's political writings Karl Loewenstein has raised the question whether the term "charisma" can properly be applied in contemporary politics. Charismatic leadership depends upon a widespread belief in the existence of extraordinary or supernatural capacities, but such beliefs are at a discount in secular contexts. Though democratization has increased the plebiscitarian component of modern politics, the qualities of personality which attract voters indicate the popularity, but not necessarily the charisma of a successful political leader. Accordingly, Loewenstein feels that today "charisma" in the proper sense is likely to be found in those areas of the world, in which a popular belief in supernatural powers is still widespread, as in some parts of Africa and Asia.2 Quite the opposite position has been formulated by E. A. Shils, who sees a charismatic element in all societies. Shils notes Weber's distinction between the disruptive or innovative effects of charisma and the continuous and routine character of tradition or the legal order; this parallels Loewenstein's distinction between the magico-religious contexts that encourage and the secular contexts that discourage charisma. As Shils points out, Weber himself did not confine his use of the term to magical or religious beliefs, and he analyzed the institutionalization of charisma through kinship, heredity and office. But he also believed that the opportunities for genuine charisma had diminished in the course of an increasing rationalization and bureaucratization of Western society. Shils takes issue with this last point.