Power and Authority: Charismatic Authority

Charismatic authority is one of the three types of legitimate authority identified by Max Weber. Weber's theory of legitimate authority can be traced back to the dramatic political changes Germany underwent during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The charismatic leader gains power and authority solely on the basis of his or her "larger than life" personal appeal and charm. All three of Weber's forms of legitimate authority are theoretical or ideal concepts, meaning that, in reality, it is rare for an authority to be purely one type. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Fidel Castro offer good examples of charismatic authority.

Keywords Charismatic Authority; Legitimate Authority; Max Weber; Rational-Rational Legal; Traditional Rule

Power & Authority: Charismatic Authority

Overview

British television host Sir David Frost has the distinction of having interviewed some of the most powerful and influential individuals in the world, including six British prime ministers, seven United States presidents, and countless celebrities. However, when asked who was the most charismatic individual he had ever interviewed, Frost chose a man whose name can be literally interpreted as "troublemaker": Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. In particular, he commented on Mandela's 28 years of wrongful captivity on Robben Island and how he famously emerged with no signs of bitterness. When Frost asked Mandela about this unusual degree of patience, the future president of South Africa replied, "David, I would like to be bitter, but there is no time to be bitter. There is work to do" ("Human spirit," 2008).

Mandela's desire to reemerge into the public arena and lead South Africa beyond the shackles of the apartheid era is a testament to both his professional capabilities and his personal appeal as a unique, dynamic individual. His example leads to an important point about authority and leadership: political leadership relies on a myriad of personal and professional qualifications. Not the least among these qualifications is the ability to garner the support of the people. In order to do so, political leaders must be able to speak to the public in such a way as to indicate that they understand the issues and are capable of addressing them. In short, leaders need to have charisma.

[RT1]It is no surprise, therefore, that the eminent German sociologist Max Weber viewed charismatic leadership as one of his ideal forms of authority. To be sure, Weber did not view this form of leadership with a great esteem, having lived in the shadow of multiple charismatic leaders in his lifetime. Nevertheless, despite his personal attitudes concerning such concepts, Weber could not claim that charismatic authority was irrelevant or ineffectual.

Max Weber & Charisma

Max Weber was no stranger to charisma. Growing up in the Germany constructed by Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor," and headed by the outspoken emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II, Weber had firsthand experience of these leaders' impacts on German society. It was leaders like them who inspired Weber to develop a profile of the ideal forms of authority. His three types of legitimate authority provide not a set of guidelines for others to follow but rather a commentary on the aspects of effective leadership and the shortcomings of ineffectual rulers.

While a more in-depth breakdown of these three concepts will be provided later in this essay, it is important to first put Weber's views into their historical context. Weber's Germany was anything but a placid political environment. When Bismarck unified the country's war-torn regions in the middle of the nineteenth century, he did so by centralizing the German bureaucracy around him. When he and another powerful German ruler, the kaiser, began to clash over the question of rule, he left office out of respect for him. However, the nation's administrative system was ill-equipped to address the Germans' needs when its central authority, Bismarck, no longer operated it. Germany, in Weber's eyes, was well-positioned to prosper under the administrative hand of Bismarck's bureaucracy but, ironically, fell into disrepair under the charismatic authority of the very same man.

Unfortunately, the kaiser's move to push out Bismarck did little to strengthen his own regime. In fact, subsequent chancellors proved at best ineffectual, in part due to Wilhelm's desire to avoid another Iron Chancellor. The sparring continued among the German leadership until the early twentieth century, when the kaiser's disastrous militaristic campaign in the First World War prompted a revolution of sorts, forcing Wilhelm II to abdicate his throne. Socialists quickly filled the void, led by Kurt Eisner. Eisner, rather than asserting his group's dominance, reached out to potential rivals and peasants alike to form a "United States of Germany" (Rempel, 2008).

Like his predecessors, however, Eisner fell into a trap of his own design. His vanity and sense of moral superiority would alter his reputation and eventually undermine his brief stint as prime minister of Bavaria (Mitchell, 2003). Weber, who at one time spoke quite highly of Eisner, changed his opinion of the socialist "revolutionary" as he saw Eisner begin to embrace his eccentricities and personal appeal rather than build a long-lasting political infrastructure (Hopkins, 2007).

In light of his experiences, it comes as no surprise that Weber would seek to understand the forms of legitimate authority in the modern world. It is also understandable that part of these observations would center on the charismatic leader.

Weber's Three Types of Legitimate Authority

Max Weber was first and foremost a sociologist. An unabashed adherent to the concept of natural justice and fairness, his firm grasp of the legal world would be called upon in other arenas of social study, including economics and, of course, political science. However, his views on the latter subject would reveal a sense of cynicism toward political leadership.

Based on this ingrained sense of concern regarding leadership, Weber offered his three types of legitimate authority. The first of these manifestations of leadership is the one that was preferred by Weber: rational-legal rule. Within this type, authority is legitimized via the rule of law in a system that features a strong bureaucracy. No single leader stands out, at least in the sense that he or she would be compelled to dominate the administrative activities of that bureaucracy.

The second of Weber's types is traditional authority. Within this type, ruling authority is legitimized on the basis of traditions such as religious rites or cultural histories. Leaders achieve their in power simply because "it has always been done this way." Monarchies and religious governments both demonstrate this form of leadership.

Before going into depth concerning the third of these types of authority, charisma, it is important to review the descriptive term applied to each of these concepts. Each of these forms of authority, as presented by Weber, is considered "legitimate"; in other words, they were not put in place through a violent coup or illegal activities. Rather, the society accepts these authorities and their regimes. In many cases, the leader is reelected, the leader's political party experiences growth and success, and the regime is endorsed by the body politic.

This argument is particularly interesting when one reviews the third of Weber's ideals of authority: charismatic rule.

Further Insights

Charismatic Authority

An expert on organized religion, Max Weber saw a bit of the divine in the charismatic ruler. In fact, charisma itself, Weber asserted, is a superhuman trait or a sign of extraordinary powers. Like the traditional ruler, who is legitimized on the basis of religious, cultural, or hereditary rites, the charismatic ruler is given legitimacy on the basis of his or her extraordinary personal characteristics, not qualification or legal precedent. His or her supporters offer their devotion to the individual, not his or her regime or administration, through volunteerism, honorary gifts, and donations (Joosse, 2006).

Charismatic leaders are, in Weber's construct, often received by their followers in a more heroic light than other rulers are. They might be called prophets, visionaries, or warriors rather than mere people. Rather than advocate, the charismatic leader "fights" for the people and his or her cause. Even the cause appears more spiritual than mundane: the charismatic leader might refer to his or her work as a "mission" or "spiritual duty" rather than a mere "policy response" or "initiative" (Boje, 2008).

As stated earlier, the charismatic leader's authority is not based on legal precedent. Society does not legitimize the authority of such a leader on the basis of a constitutional provision, administrative organ, or set of governmental or infrastructural rules. Rather, the charismatic leader gains power and authority solely on the basis of his or her larger-than-life personal appeal and charm. This view suggests that the charismatic figure does not usually embrace existing governmental or administrative institutions and systems; he or she is likely to be a radical or revolutionary. As such, the individual speaks out against the status quo. By defying the rational-legal form of government, the charismatic leader clearly distances himself or herself from the bureaucracy and the economy and instead embraces a radical shift that is based on little more than rhetoric (Boje, 2008).

The annals of human history do not lack examples of the Weberian charismatic ruler. Cleopatra, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong all qualify as individuals who did not achieve their power or authority as a result of the democratic process, bureaucratic institution, or traditional rites or beliefs. Rather, these individuals inspired their followers with calls for "new world order" through the upheaval of the cumbersome systems they felt were bringing down society. Weber, of course, was taking his views of charisma to an extreme. After all, all three of his forms of legitimate authority are described in theoretical or ideal terms that do not take into account how, in practice, they can blend be blended with one another.

Charismatic authority remains present even in the post-industrial international community. This paper will next turn to some examples of charismatic rule in the modern world.

Discourse

Iran & the Islamic Revolution

Between 1941 and 1979, Iran underwent a period of modernization the likes of which its people had never before seen. Unfortunately, the efforts at modernization made by the monarchist regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi did more to divide Iran than to bring the people into a collective economic boom. A relative few technocrats did reap the fruits of Iran's technological advances, but a much larger percentage of the population remained locked in poverty. Adding to the tumult was the fact that the new classes, while enjoying advances toward modernity, also had very little political autonomy in the shah's government. Meanwhile, the increasing power of the Islamic leadership, particularly of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, empowered both the lower classes and the modernized but isolated technocrat class.

By offering them a sense of value and solidarity they failed to experience under the shah, Khomeini carried a strong appeal for these groups. While Khomeini did seem to espouse modernization, his true gift lay in proliferating the central tenets of Islamic fundamentalism among the increasingly disgruntled masses. Even if these tenets seemed contrary to modernization, Iranians welcomed Khomeini's ideals and ousted Pahlavi in 1979 in favor of creating an Islamic state (Amineh & Eisenstadt, 2007).

To be sure, Iran does have a parliamentary system as well as an executive. However, the heavy infiltration of Shi'a ideology into government, as well as the legitimacy bestowed upon the ayatollah over the years, has largely turned Iran's government, like most other parts of life in this Middle Eastern nation, into a theocracy with the ayatollah at the helm. The charisma of Ayatollah Ali Khameini, as the chief religious figure in the country and a representative of the system that ousted a stumbling shah's regime, continues to provide Iranians with little substance in terms of social, economic, or political policy. Then again, Khameini, like Khomeini in 1979, has succeeded in providing ideological sentiment and rhetoric to Iranians who continue to look to their faith for a political anchor.

The Castros & Cuba

In the case of Cuba, revolution was not a response to economic stagnation or even a class struggle. Rather, it was in response to a coup that led to the installation of a dictator. In 1933, Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar seized power over the country during a military officer uprising. Interestingly, he was elected president in 1940, only to be voted out of office in 1944. In 1952 he ran again for president, but three months before the election, he staged another coup and again took control as a dictator.

In 1953, a young Fidel Castro led an attack on a military barracks and was summarily arrested. Authorities sent him into exile, but he returned in 1956 to initiate a guerilla-style rebellion that would ultimately lead to the defeat and expulsion of the Batista regime in 1959.

Castro's revolution sent the nation's former leaders and countless others across the short spit of ocean that separated Cuba from the United States, and relations quickly deteriorated as a result. The United States imposed an embargo on Cuban imports and, in 1961, attempted to invade the country at the Bay of Pigs. Cuba then turned to the Soviet Union for protection and trade. Matters became still worse in 1962 when the Soviet Union attempted to install nuclear missiles in Cuba ("Recent Political Developments," 2008).

Over the course of his nearly 50-year rule of Cuba, Castro largely maintained his power through his personal appeal. He has described himself as a "spiritual influence, a mentor" to Cuba and led the country "by inspiring an almost cultish mix of love and fear" among the people ("A Hard Act to Follow," 1996). His polished oratorical skills and virulent anti-American rhetoric have also kept the country united against a national enemy. Castro retired in 2008 and his brother, Raul, assumed control.

Conclusions

This paper has provided some examples of charismatic leaders of varying legacies. Some charismatic leaders, like Hitler, used their authority to establish totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. Others, like Mandela, used their dynamic personalities to bring their countries together under the banners of peace, freedom, or equality.

Charisma is appealing, especially to societies in search of inspiration after many years of stagnation, war, or poverty. However, any social group that relies solely on a charismatic leader is likely to flounder unless the leader's rhetoric is supported by visible gains. Mao Zedong, for example, successfully overthrew the ineffectual and elitist Kuomintang of China and activated millions of rural and impoverished Chinese citizens to rebuild the country's infrastructure. Likewise, Fidel Castro also survived government repression to lead a revolution that overthrew an entrenched dictator.

Then again, Weber spoke of legitimized authority: the power that is given to the ruler by the people. A populace may endorse a charismatic figure, especially one who overthrew an oppressive regime, but it may also withdraw that support if the figure in question fails to move the nation forward. Mandela, for example, had great staying power because of his initiative to return South Africa to the international community via trade and cultural exchanges and his work to build an exceptional economy. Wilhelm, on the other hand, forced out Bismarck, his most effective chancellor, and, despite his attempts to connect with the German populace, was unable to maintain the essential German bureaucracy. As a result, he failed to stay in power very long after Bismarck's departure.

In the two examples of modern charismatic rulers provided above, Iran's ayatollahs and Cuba's Fidel Castro, their regimes have been legitimized by a deep-seeded national distrust of the United States and the West. That the United States has consistently sided against Iran and continues to maintain strict sanctions against Cuba has inadvertently galvanized the populaces of those nations to legitimize their charismatic leaders. Nevertheless, each of these two regimes has felt the need to appease the populace through substantive policy reforms

The typical charismatic ruler, under the Weber paradigm, is legitimized via what the populace sees as his or her apparently supernatural ability to connect with the people. However, unless external elements continue to foster legitimacy in singularly charismatic leaders, as is the case in Iran and Cuba, rhetoric and posturing can only take a nation so far. Similarly, bureaucracy and the rational-legal system of governance may keep a nation running smoothly, but they do not tend to excite or inspire a society the way a fiery campaign speech can. Additionally, an individual's charisma may inspire, but a royal family or a religious icon in the traditional sense can inspire sentiments of grace and faith.

It is important to reiterate that each form of authority within this context is an ideal, pure and uncontaminated by the other forms. In light of this fact, the definition of a charismatic leader is extreme and fails to take into account a leader's other personal and professional qualifications. Taking this point into consideration, it is likely that each pure ideal may not be able to stand on its own without incorporating at least some elements from the other ideals. In this light, charisma alone may not effectively rule a nation, though it can help inspire effective government.

Terms & Concepts

Charismatic Authority: One of Weber's three forms of legitimate authority, in which an individual's ruling power is legitimated on the basis of his or her personal appeal.

Legitimate Authority: Leadership that is accepted by the people.

Max Weber: A late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century German sociologist, economist, and political scientist. Author of "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule."

Rational-Legal: One of Weber's three forms of legitimate authority, in which leadership is legitimated by legal precedent and carried through a bureaucracy.

Traditional Rule: One of Weber's three forms of legitimate authority, in which leadership is legitimated by cultural or religious rites or beliefs.

Bibliography

"A hard act to follow." (1996). Macleans, 109 , 19. Retrieved May 9, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9601157660&site=ehost-live

Amineh, M.P. & Eisenstadt, S.N. (2007). The Iranian Revolution. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 6, 129-157. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26210547&site=ehost-live

Boje, D. M. (2008). Max Weber. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html.

Chryssides, G. D. (2012). Unrecognized charisma? A study and comparison of five charismatic leaders: Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard, Swami Prabhupada and Sun Myung Moon. Max Weber Studies, 12, 185–204. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83742455&site=ehost-live

Hathazy, P. (2012). Enchanting bureaucracy: Symbolic violence and the (re)production of charismatic authority in a police apparatus. International Sociology, 27, 745–767. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83002156&site=ehost-live

Hopkins, N. S. (2007). Charisma and responsibility. Max Weber Studies, 7 , 185-211. Retrieved April 22, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=29962771&site=ehost-live

"Human spirit." (2008). www.anecdotage.com. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=2638.

Joosse, P. (2006). Silence, charisma and power. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 21 , 355-371. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22455310&site=ehost-live

Mitchell, A. (2003). Kurt Eisner 1867-1919. Central European History, 36 . Retrieved April 22, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9732238&site=ehost-live

Recent political developments (2008). Country Profile: Cuba. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=31337688&site=ehost-live

Rempel, G. (2008). The German revolution of 1918. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/germany/lectures/18rev1918.html

Sommer, M. (2011). Empire of glory: Weberian paradigms and the complexities of authority in imperial Rome. Max Weber Studies, 11, 155–191. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=66338012&site=ehost-live

Whimster, S. (2004). Editorial. Max Weber Studies, 4. Retrieved April 22, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13052668&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Andreas, J. (2007). The structure of charismatic mobilization: A case study of the Chinese Cultural Revolution American Sociological Review, 72, 434-458. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database International Bibliography of the Social Sciences. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26643792&site=ehost-live

Breuilly, J. (2011). Max Weber, charisma and nationalist leadership. Nations & Nationalism, 17, 477–499. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=61301178&site=ehost-live

Kallis, A. A. (2006). Fascism, 'charisma' and 'charismatisation'. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 7 , 25-43. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19896422&site=ehost-live

Lepsius, M. R. (2006). The model of charismatic leadership and its applicability to the rule of Adolph Hitler. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 7, 175-190. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20855370&site=ehost-live

Mitchell, K. (2007). The extraordinary woman: Engendering Max Weber's theory of charisma. Conference Papers - Midwestern Political Science Association. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26957327&site=ehost-live

Pombeni, P. (2008). Charismatic leadership between ideal type and ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13, 37-54. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28768159&site=ehost-live [RT1]Start here