Charisma: How this superpower is changing the world of politics

Charisma: How this superpower is changing the world of politics

By Katharina Sharma

Discussions of charismatic leaders tend to be cautionary tales. Today, discussions of charisma feel especially relevant, with politicians having a stronger presence on social media aiming to charm and persuade voters. At the same time, the increasing emphasis on individualism (especially in Western democracies) places a high value on leaders’ charisma. Impact’s Katharina Sharma explores how the debate surrounding charisma as a political tool has intensified over the years.

To grasp the implications of charisma as a political superpower, it is worth consulting with some of the most prominent theories in the field. Max Weber, an influential German sociologist in the late 20th and early 21st century, first popularised the concept of ‘charismatic leadership’, in which an individual’s charisma legitimises their claim to power. Weber defines charisma as the ‘quality that makes an individual seem extraordinary’ and in possession of ‘exceptional powers’.

Charismatic leaders usually emerge in periods of suffering and appeal to revolutionary ideas. Adolf Hitler is a classic example of this: Emerging during a period of economic depression, he utilised extensive propaganda to portray himself as the ‘chosen one’. Thereby he convinced the public of his ability to defend Germany from its enemies, enabling his rise to power.

Influenced by Weber’s work, Joseph S. Nye argued that charismatic leadership is essential to harnessing ‘soft power’; the ability to influence others through the force of attraction, rather than forceful coercion. Nye links charisma to possessing advanced communication skills, confidence, appearance (found to be especially decisive for women leaders) and the ability to convince others of your vision.

Donald Trump is a contemporary embodiment of a visionary charismatic leader. His mission to ‘make America great again’, combined with attacks on those he labels as threatening his vision, evokes mass support by emotionally resonating with the public.

Whilst charisma in politicians is associated chiefly with right-wing authoritarianism, Nye emphasises that leaders with largely positive receptions, such as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King utilise it too.

Recently, this includes Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine. International trips and passionate speeches in which he portrays physical strength, courage, and resolve to defend Ukraine and democracies, are his primary means of securing support, including from the UK. The Spectator reports that Rishi Sunak, otherwise known for neglecting foreign policy, has ‘fallen for Zelensky’s Charm’, enhancing the government’s support for Ukraine’s military efforts.

Through his major success in utilising his charisma both internationally and nationally, it seems almost forgotten that he was unpopular and considered unlikely for re-election before the outbreak of war, largely due to his faltering anti-corruption policies. This shows how citizens primarily desire charismatic leadership in times of crisis.

However, the ability charisma holds in legitimising power is limited.

Weber believes that charismatic leaders must provide proof of their proclaimed abilities, or they will eventually be removed from power.

During his campaign and early premiership, his charisma aided him in achieving many of his goals, such as his successes in the Northern Ireland conflict. However, his over-reliance on establishing legitimacy through a positive media image, an onslaught of new government initiatives which were scarcely implemented, combined with scandals over Iraq, eventually led to his demise.

Despite these limitations, the emergence of charisma as a political superpower is undoubtedly reason for concern. Experts on leadership and charisma warn that support for charismatic leaders is grounded in emotional sentiment and idealisations of leaders, rather than shared values, beliefs, or reason.

Supported by individuals’ personal attachment to them, these leaders possess enhanced leeway to break norms and taboos and implement revolutionary practices, which tend to result in authoritarianism.

A further danger of increases in charismatic leadership is that it advantages certain groups, regardless of their leadership capabilities.

Professor Jessica Flanigan, whose work centres on the ethics of leadership, concludes that ethnic minorities are disadvantaged, with white men being perceived as more charismatic than Asian men. Certain appearance traits also matter, with tall people generally viewed as more charismatic.

Psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic highlights a connection between displays of confidence and charisma. Since over-confidence and hubris are more commonly found in men than women globally, they are commonly mistaken as more capable leaders. Not only does this lead to the underrepresentation of women, but also to the frequent appointment of incompetent leaders.

As Chamorro-Premuzic explains, ‘arrogance and overconfidence are inversely related to leadership talent’, with (in Chamorro-Premuzic’s view) modest behaviours, such as humility, linked to the emotional intelligence necessary to inspire citizens; a quality which helps enable them to recognise and strive for the common good.

Despite some limitations of what leaders can achieve based purely on their charisma, it is undeniably a political superpower: it serves to unite and inspire people under revolutionary ideas and mobilise mass support, whether for better or for worse.

However, in any given context dominated by a charismatic leader, reason suffers, and our values and morals come under threat. It is crucial to acknowledge the immense power charisma holds when it is time to turn to the ballot boxes.