Utilisateur:C as Charisma/Brouillon
De Wikipedia, l'encyclopédie encyclopedia
Charisma, from Greek “Kharis” or “Gift of Grace” is a concept that refers to compelling charm and attractiveness that induces enthusiasm and even devotion.[1] While applicable in all spheres of the social sciences, in politics Charisma refers to extraordinary leadership abilities inspiring emotional reactions through the use of symbols. The concept as a political occurrence was popularised by Max Weber and his exploration of the concept as a type of legitimacy.
Not to be mistaken for a personal trait, the legitimacy that results from such qualities also depends on the interaction between the leader and his subjects. The nuance lies in the perception of these abilities in the group of people led, without the favorable opinion of which the individual characteristics of a leader would not amount to much. Weber himself placed Charisma alongside Tradition and Reason as three “principles of obedience”[2], carried respectively by “prophets”, “elders” and “organisers” to ensure legitimacy. This classification is indicative of the importance of charisma in leadership in that it frames it as a pillar of political authority. However, recent examples of politicians galvanising the masses and pushing the limits of common sense, along with the traumatic collective memory of less recent ones, opposed to quieter successful figures characterised by bureaucratic efficiency rather than personal attractiveness raise questions. What is the real importance of charisma if legitimacy can be achieved by other means? Is charisma enough? Is it necessary? A synthesis of the spirit behind these interrogations; “Is Charisma a Condition for Effective Political Leadership?” will guide this entry.
The first logical step to approach the topic would be to lay down the theoretical basis of the concept of charismatic leadership. Ranging from the Greek origins of the concept to the works of Weber, of Tucker, and others, the definition of Charisma will be established in detail. Critical elements will be implemented to underline some limitations of the concept, notably the overuse of the term in contemporary academic research, in order to establish the first parts of an answer.
The second step will be to take the factor of time into consideration as charisma, like all objects and concepts, is conditional to time, and is not fixed indefinitely. The relationship with time may take the form of charismatic legitimacy as the product of a certain time period and its context, the importance of crisis in the formation of this charismatic identity, without which it tends to falter, and finally the relationship with the inevitability of death which raises considerations of perpetuation, mythologising and succession.
The last part will nuance further by reconsidering the usage of charisma in contemporary politics and understand it through the prism of today’s democracy. Most importantly, it will examine the relationship between institutions, democracy, liberalism, rationality, legality and charismatic leadership to determine whether they are compatible, and how they would function alongside or even within one another, considering if a possible democratic charisma exist or not.
(Victor Wauters, Vasco Queiro, Salim Ouaritini)