The Hindu (Delhi)

The idea of ‘charisma’ and the case of Narendra Modi

Charismati­c leaders often emerge in times of great need for change. Mr. Modi’s rise can be attributed to several factors, but chief among these was the country’s weariness with Congress-led rule

- Radhika Santhanam

ndia is in the midst of elections to the Lok Sabha. Pre-poll surveys by the Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) showed that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was in a pole position despite economic distress. The BJP is banking on its governance record and hoping to secure a higher number of seats from southern and eastern States this time. But most of all, it is relying on its popular prime ministeria­l candidate, Narendra Modi. Over the last decade, apart from its cocktail of developmen­t and Hindutva, and its publicity blitz, the BJP has always looked to Mr. Modi to pull in votes. In this article, we examine sociologis­t Max Weber’s classificat­ion of authority, specificall­y his idea of charismati­c authority, and its appeals and dangers with the example of Mr. Modi.

ITypes of authority

Weber drew a distinctio­n between traditiona­l authority, rational-legal authority, and charismati­c authority. His tripartite classificat­ion has received classical status in political science, political sociology, and behavioura­l psychology. His writings on charismati­c authority have especially infiuenced and shaped theories on modern leadership.

Weber wrote that order is based on two polar principles of social organisati­on: norms and authority. He defined norms as rules of conduct towards which actors orient their behaviour, while the essence of authority lies in the relationsh­ip between actors in which the commands of some are treated as binding by the others.

Traditiona­l authority refers to authority that is derived from societal customs, habits, or age-old sanctified practices. This means that norms generate leaders. People obey the leader because they are socialised into doing so and because such obedience has guaranteed social stability and order in the past. Patriarchy provides the best example of this type of authority. Across the world, and over generation­s, the father of the household or the eldest male member of the family has been considered the head. Descent and inheritanc­e are through the male line. Girls take their father’s name as their last name and women take their husband’s. In India, among some Marathi and Sindhi communitie­s, the grooms rename the brides as part of marriage rituals. This example of traditiona­l authority, that is, patriarchy, has expanded outwards of the familial unit and into society. It is because it is so ingrained in our psyche that it is often dificult to question or challenge it.

The second type is rational-legal authority, which is derived from legal norms (as opposed to traditiona­l norms). Those exercising rational-legal authority may be chosen in di‘erent ways, such as via elections (ministers) or an examinatio­n (bureaucrat­s).

The third type is charismati­c authority. Weber defined charisma as a “gift” based on which a person is treated as a

“leader”. The person is perceived by the majority to possess “supernatur­al, superhuman, or at least specially exceptiona­l powers or qualities”. This means that the leader generates the norms, unlike in structures of traditiona­l authority where the contrary is true.

It is important to note here that these three types of authority are characteri­sed as ideal types. Weber spoke of them in pure terms. However, as we all know, systems of authority in the real world are often a mix of these. A priest, for instance, can derive his authority from both tradition and his own personalit­y traits and also be bounded to act within certain legal norms.

Modi’s charisma

Leaders, whether political, religious, or military, who draw their authority from charisma share an intense personal bond with their devoted followers. Weber writes, “The eternally new, the non-routine, the unheard of and the emotional rapture from it are sources of personal devotion. The purest types are the rule of the prophet, the warrior hero, the demagogue.”

This brings us to the question: Is Mr. Modi a charismati­c leader? Not everyone may agree with this statement, but that is the essence of Weber’s theory: charisma is what is perceived; it is subjective. Given that the Prime Minister’s campaigns draw thousands of people, every pre-poll and post-poll survey since 2014 has recorded his immense popularity, and his followers believe that he is heroic, possesses the power of mind and speech, and is capable of extraordin­ary acts such as “stopping the war in Gaza” or single-handedly preventing black money from fiowing in the economy, he can be characteri­sed as charismati­c. In fact, such is his hold over a section of the population that many people consider him a messiah; these are the blind followers who are disparagin­gly referred to as “Modi bhakts” by the Prime Minister’s critics. Mr. Modi can also be called a demagogue: he frequently appeals to the desires of ordinary people, does not restrain himself from using falsehoods to gain votes, and seems to believe that he is bigger than the party or the government. This is of course not to say that those who vote for the BJP do so only because of Mr. Modi’s personalit­y cult, but that this is an important factor that cannot be ignored. Devotion to a leader is more a product of passion than of intellect; it is a belief in the leader’s so-called extraordin­ary powers.

Charismati­c leaders often emerge in times of great need for change. Mr. Modi’s rise can be attributed to several factors, but chief among these was the country’s weariness with Congress-led rule and the several allegation­s of corruption that had battered the previous United Progressiv­e Alliance government.

Shortfalls of charismati­c authority

However, as Weber wrote, charismati­c authority is never long-lasting in its purest form. It is inherently unstable since it is based on the unique qualities of a particular individual; it cannot be transferre­d to someone else. Any failure that calls the extraordin­ary nature of charismati­c leadership into question instantly weakens it.

Charismati­c authority can be used to bring in positive change. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela were fine examples of this. Their charisma was rooted in ethics and morality. However, this kind of authority can equally be misused, as we have seen in the cases of Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler.

Charismati­c leadership can be dangerous not only because of how leaders misuse their charisma, but also when followers abandon rational thought and accept ideas uncritical­ly. In 2012, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic wrote that charismati­c leaders tend to become “addicted” to the unquestion­ing approval of their followers. This “reciprocal dependence” leads both parties to “distort reality”. In an article in the Harvard Business Review, Vergauwe et al wrote of how having too much charisma can hinder a leader’s e‘ectiveness. Self-confident leaders can become over-confident and narcissist­ic, seek attention all the time, and act in fanciful ways — qualities that Mr. Modi has often been accused of.

The abuse of charismati­c leadership naturally tends to be seen more in non-democratic societies than democratic societies. However, even in democratic societies, charismati­c authority can be abused — first in fits and starts and then routinely when institutio­ns that keep the leader in check weaken over time. In India, trust in the Election Commission, which has failed to control hate speeches during the Lok Sabha campaigns, is the lowest it has been in years. Over the last few years, investigat­ive agencies have been accused of pursuing charges, including dubious ones, only against the political Opposition and dissenters. Some top judges in the judiciary even expressed concern over political capture of the institutio­n a few years ago. Recently, Sweden’s V-Dem Institute termed India an “electoral autocracy”.

This is not to argue that charismati­c authority cannot exist in democracie­s. History is replete with examples to show that it can. But it depends on the extent to which the leader can preserve moral infiuence and the extent to which institutio­ns can keep such leaders in check.

The aura of Prime Minister Modi can be alluring. But it is inherently unstable, and as power is now so concentrat­ed in him, it can even damage his own party’s prospects in the long run.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India