I attempted to conceive of different governments who gained their legitimacy from Weber’s three forms: tradition, charisma, and rules. Upon first glance it seemed as though the traditional and rational/legal form dominated. Governments until recently attained their legitimacy mostly from inheritance, like the old monarchies of Europe, be it the queens of England, the czars of Russia, or the Kaisers of Prussia. Most recently, governments have attained legitimacy through rules, where the leader need not fear rebellion despite their popularity. Charisma seemed to be simply a tool used by leaders of both the legal/rational and traditional style to supplement their legitimacy.
However, widening my frame of reference, I realized that the charismatic form of legitimacy was a way for Weber to account for revolutions. From the American Revolution to the Russian Revolutions, the legitimacy of those assuming power was derived from the shared interests of those they represented. While we may now be able to argue convincingly that the United States derives its legitimacy from its set of laws, the same cannot be said of our country at its conception. As these new states developed a body of laws and a history of ruling, the weight of their legitimacy changed from the charismatic to the other two.
Upon further consideration, I realized that I had fallen into a Western perspective so criticized by Roy Macridis. Tribal structures often had leaders who derived their legitimacy from charisma. If we use Weber’s definition of a state, as that which holds a legitimate monopoly on violence, we may include tribal states like the Mongol Empire. Mongol leaders were selected in Kurultai by tribal leaders, and the role was not necessarily hereditary. Their legitimacy rested on the ability of the leader to unite the various tribes under his leadership. Therefore, legitimacy derived from Weber’s conception of charisma is just as rich as the legal and the traditional styles.
1 comment:
after reading thru your post, I agree that traditiona/legal/charisma forms are just as powerful as the other. A person may become the leader of a state because of family inheritence, but if he/she does not have the personal skills, he/she may not last long or have as much of an impact. More often than not, people tend to think that a particular leader is only a king or so powerful because his family was the sole ruler, but forget about the logics behind why this particular leader may or may not be successful. People very often looks at what is on the surface and not beneath it. We often forget about how big of a role charisma can have an effect, the charismatic skills of JFK and Obama. Charisma helps the leader to gain more popularity and aids him/her to achieve the ultimate goal sooner than expected. In the past, people forgot about the skills of the leader and only assummed that he/she is so successful only because of the traditional/legal forms.
Post a Comment