Throughout human history, people withby strong will, as if gifted from above with a certain charisma, decided the fate of other people, countries, and the world, established their own order and power, and many of them, even after death, still continue to influence social and political life.
Considering the concept of "power" asgeneral sociological category, it is customary to distinguish three types of governance. This is a legal (legal rational), traditional, charismatic power. In science, they are called ideal types. Such a division was once proposed by the famous German sociologist and historian M. Weber. It should be noted that charismatic leaders often have two sociological features: they are mostly people from the periphery, and sometimes even citizens of another state, and in almost a hundred percent of cases they come to power not by legal means, but through usurpation or as a result of the established critical circumstances.
Charismatic power was determined by MaxWeber as one of the ideal types. In his studies, he does not pay enough attention to how a leader becomes a ruler and remains with him, preferring to explore more the relationship between citizens and leaders, that is, the so-called social factors.
Таким образом, М.Weber determines that the traditional power is based on the fact that citizens automatically agree to this system precisely because of its existence. This means that people, emotionally and often despite the effectiveness of the system, continue to maintain the existing order. On the contrary, it is precisely by virtue of its efficiency that law-rational government supports citizens in the belief in the legitimacy of government, which gives people a belief in the justice of such a government.
Charismatic authority is based solely onLeadership abilities, often not important, are real qualities or imaginary. Weber in his works does not define what exactly is meant by this concept. Regarding the charismatic personality, he implies that he is a leader with supernatural and superhuman qualities or at least exceptional abilities and capabilities. Thus, religious leaders fall under the concept of charismatics, but the question of whether these leaders have real power remains open. According to Weber, the main characteristic of the charismatic power is the presence of an acute social crisis; in fact, the scientist does not consider that the leader’s popularity may arise without it.
Subsequent researchers have greatly expandedthe scope of such a thing as "charisma." If initially this concept was associated exclusively with some kind of “divine gift”, then already in the works that the recognized charismatic leaders themselves left behind, the explanation of this phenomenon does not boil down to a supernatural manifestation. The points of view on this issue are extremely different. For example, Marxist determinism connects the appearance of such people with the will of society, which requires change, rejecting the role of the individual. And on the contrary, such an ideal charismatic leader, as French President Charles de Gaulle, fully supports the theory of the exceptional role of the individual himself in a given crisis period, which he directly writes about in his book On the Edge of a Sword.
The combination of distinctive properties as a characteristic of charismatic power is manifested in the following points:
Signs of charismatic power will manifest itself in the following form:
Legitimacy, that is, the consent of citizens with suchboard, arises as soon as a sufficiently large number of people are ready to become followers of their leader. There is no more personal form of government than the charismatic type of government. The power acquired by the leader surrounds him with a kind of aura and helps to believe more and more in his abilities, which, in turn, attracts an increasing number of adherents. But the charismatic leader would not have been so if he had not felt the needs of the people.
Именно лидерская власть, харизматическая по своей nature, takes on serious significance in such conditions when a radical change or radical changes in an environment that is not adapted for this purpose is necessary, inert due to an entrenched culture and traditions and often for a long time remained in a state of stagnation. However, it is rather unstable due to the fact that the leader needs to consistently demonstrate his strength and exclusivity, manage and simultaneously solve all new and new tasks, and with great success. Otherwise, even from a single failure, a leader in the eyes of followers may lose attractiveness, which means a loss of legitimacy.
In addition, this type of power has bothpositive points and disadvantages. The main negative parameter is that the government, charismatic in its essence, is both a usurpation and, moreover, forces the ruler himself to delve into and solve almost all the everyday and even the smallest everyday issues of the state. However, if a leader can cope with these tasks, a serious positive effect arises, due to the fact that the government actually satisfies the majority of public interests.
At a minimum, a charismatic person should have a number of features that can be called basic:
Charismatic leaders initiallycharacterized by Max Weber as religious personalities, but capable of changing the social life of society. There is no doubt that Jesus Christ and the prophet Muhammad were charismatic persons who still influence the historical process. But to be a charismatic person and to be a charismatic leader are two completely different things. In the future, sociologist George Barnes slightly corrected the concept, and at the moment for those whom we used to call charismatic leaders, another definition is more appropriate, namely, “heroic leader”.
Именно такими героическими личностями были Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Lenin and Stalin, Hitler and de Gaulle. These people, who possess completely different abilities, are vivid examples of charismatic people who became heroic leaders in critical events. In such a context, it is very difficult to call the charismatic leaders of major manufacturers, such as Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, or Bill Gates, for example, although they undoubtedly have charisma. Collectively, we can add to this some classic examples of charismatic (heroic) leaders, who in reality had minimal power, showing their influence more through the support of supporters - Jeanne d,Арк, маршал Жуков, Че Гевара.History knows many examples when the government, charismatic and legitimate, ended up with a complete defeat of both the leader and his ideas, and served as a tool for the death of states and the reorganization of the world order. This is undoubtedly Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Mikhail Gorbachev.
Of the living charismatic leaders in fullAt least to this concept, without any reservations, only one person can be attributed - Fidel Castro, who, undoubtedly, even after resigning power, is an extremely influential leader both among his own people and in the global social environment.
