Elizabeth Zechmeister is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at UC Davis.  Her research interests include comparative politics, Latin American politics, Mexican politics, political behavior, research design and methodology, and charismatic political leadership. 

Professor Zechmeister earned a B.A. in Political Science & Philosophy from Loyola University Chicago (Summa Cum Laude), an M.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of Chicago, and a PhD in Political Science from Duke University.

Charismatic political leadership is often characterized by a strong personality, a leader who is populist in nature, who uses image-based rhetoric to appeal to people’s emotions.  There are two definitions of charismatic leadership that are out there in academic writings.  The first stems from Max Weber.  He defined charisma as something that was essentially a magical quality that people either inherently had or did not have.  He associated it with words such as supernatural or superhuman, or with what he termed “specifically exceptional qualities.”

I tend to adhere to a second definition that is related, but takes some of the magic out of charisma.  In that sense, charisma is really a bundle of traits that include things such as a large amount of empathy with respect to the people.  Other traits that might go along are someone whom is perceived to go beyond self-interest on behalf the people, someone who is enthusiastic and optimistic, and someone whose leadership conveys a greater purpose.

Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy and (former Argentine president) Juan Peron are good examples.  And just in those examples you can see that there is nothing inherently positive or negative about a charismatic political leader.  George W. Bush, for example, certainly has elements of charismatic leadership in his style.

Yes, absolutely.  Chavez has two characteristics that make him into a charismatic leader.  First, he has traits that make him inherently charismatic.  As one scholar put it, “his youthful commanding presence, his homespun language, his evident sincerity after patriotism make him an attractive leader and a stark contrast to past Venezuelan leaders.” 

Couple that natural charisma with Venezuela’s crisis when Chavez came to power in 1998, which at the time was in a tremendous political and economic crisis.  What we know about charismatic leaders is that they are most likely to surface in times of crisis.  And I’m not trying to make analogies here, but Hitler came to power during a time of significant crisis in Germany, and similarly Juan Peron came to power in a time of significant crises in Argentina.

What we have found is that in times of crisis people perceive likely leaders as more charismatic, and they actually project this charisma onto their leaders.

It certainly was when Hugo Chavez came to power, and what Chavez has done in order to stay in power is cultivate this feeling of crisis.  He came to power presumably to solve Venezuela’s political and economic crises, but since he has come to power he has found other crises that he has been able to use, I would argue, to some extent, to motivate support for himself.

Another factor that makes the Chavez administration perhaps more transitory is that he hasn’t attempted to institutionalize a party around him, which charismatic political leaders tend not to do.  Historically, such leaders rely strongly on direct, unmediated relationships between themselves and the people.  Chavez has political groups around him, but in reality he has stopped short of institutionalizing a strong party around him, because a strong party would introduce mediators between him and the people, and that would hurt the effectiveness of his message.

I would put the casual arrow in the other direction.  His fiery rhetoric in regard to the United States serves to bolster his charismatic image.  Certainly because of the image-based appeal of his rhetoric, along with the nationalism that accompanies his rhetoric, he is advancing a charismatic image.  Also, by making people concerned about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Venezuela, he is conjuring up a state of crisis in which people are more likely to view him as charismatic and in a more positive light.

No, not at all.  There is some danger in charismatic political leadership because charismatic leaders are so appealing that they can cause people to look the other way as power is centralized, or if that leader makes poor policy decisions, but I view charismatic leadership as something that exists on a continuum.  All leaders have some degree of charismatic political leadership – leaders are just more or less charismatic. 

Charismatic leadership in itself is not at all antithetical to democracy.  However, in its extreme form, which is usually in times of crisis, and coupled with a leader who inherently has instinctive charismatic tendencies, it certainly can be somewhat dangerous.

Absolutely.  He has undoubtedly centralized power while displaying tendencies that are not entirely consistent with democratic practices.

However, the argument can be made that Venezuela prior to Chavez was not very democratic either.  It was, in a sense, a country that functioned like a democracy but it was an elite driven democracy. 

Making comparisons across time, has Chavez made the country less democratic that it was?  I don’t know if I want to make that claim.  Chavez has pursed policy changes that are concerning, but Venezuela’s democracy has certainly been broadened at the grassroots level.  At its base there has been a broadening of the political arena, although institutionally, the democratic system has been weakened.

---