Charisma was originally a theological notion, with the literal meaning of the ‘gift of grace’, an attribute in the Catholic theology of saints. Weber used it to describe one of his three principal types of political authority. To Weber charisma was a personal quality of attraction and psychological power capable of inspiring deep political loyalty in large numbers of people. Thus charismatic leaders win sway over their followers for entirely personal reasons rather than because of any specific policies they espouse, or because they are in some way a ‘legitimate’ ruler, perhaps by virtue of traditional inheritance.
It has become somewhat over-worked, with almost any political leader who can project a pleasing personality being credited with this actually very rare capacity to demand unswerving support simply because of their own character. Possible candidates of some plausibility are Gandhi, Nasser and Hitler, who do seem to have been able to command support in this way. The inclusion of the latter indicates how much we are talking of personal magnetism rather than moral force. Politically, the great problem with authority is what Weber indicated as the ‘routinization of charisma’; that is, one dynamic leader may build a state or party around their own qualities, but after them, who should command, and why should the inheritor be obeyed? It seems that charismatic institutions can only be long-lived if there are also pragmatic or traditional reasons for support, or if these can be developed.
This is the complete article, containing 241 words
(approx. 1 page at 300 words per page).
