Politics in times of charisma

Charismatic leadership has always been one of the phenomena that have puzzled sociologists. Weber's sociology of charisma, which went so far as to nearly ignore the importance of leadership in the governance of modern societies and institutions, had buried charismatic leadership in history as a phenomenon of the past in modernized societies. Yet the twentieth century showed that all the great countries shone on the stage of history only through their charismatic leaders, indeed thanks to those leaders. From Gandhi to Jinnah, from Chirchill to Lenin and Stalin, from Atatürk to Abdunnasır, all the leaders who played influential roles, positive or negative, in the history of the past century stood out with their charismatic qualities.

However, although in all these societies charismatic leadership played a founding, elevating role, it could not be handed on. Sometimes two charismatic figures were seen to follow one another, but each remained one of a kind.

In the history of a society charismatic leadership is an exceptional event, and in its presence the dynamics of politics are largely affected by it.

Politics or social processes do not proceed as in normal times.

Indeed, charismatic leadership has a dimension that disrupts the social routine, and re-establishes and operates it.

The re-establishment of routines already finds its own setting, either because the old routines have become inoperable or because they have dragged society into a certain environment of crisis.

That is why charisma and crisis are closely related processes.

Crisis environments generally nourish the need for a charismatic leadership in proportion to their depth and social resonance. However, it is not necessary for every crisis environment to express a need for a paradigmatic change in politics, nor for this to give birth to a charismatic leadership.

There is also a charisma produced by solving crises generated from within the system or paradigm itself, but it is not always necessary for this charisma to reach a founding dimension either..

But if the system or paradigm is itself a problem and constantly produces crises, then a charismatic leadership that will cope with this system and aspire to change it becomes all the more exceptional.

We saw more clearly, largely through the leadership performance Erdoğan displayed, what kind of brake the parliamentary system in Turkey puts on the country's development. If Turkey fell behind many countries that were in a much worse condition because of the circumstances of the First and Second World Wars, it was largely because of this system, which shackled its feet, as it were.

Let us admit that, since 2002, an extremely exceptional situation that could be possible within a parliamentary system has been experienced thanks to Erdoğan.

The political leadership Erdoğan has demonstrated shows itself both in the practice he displayed in Turkey's exit from its overall political crisis, and in the solutions he opened up in response to every crisis that befell the community he has led since his time as Mayor…

His manner of managing the crises entered into, from 28 February, from the military tutelage regime, on 27 April, on 12 September, at Gezi, on 17-25 December and most recently on 7 June; his handing over, in his own place, first the Presidency to Abdullah Gül and then the premiership to Ahmet Davutoğlu,

showed, by repeating it each time, that his leadership was no coincidence.

In fact, under Turkey's given normal conditions the parliamentary system does not allow one party to rule alone for such a long period. The AK Parti's 14 years of single-party rule effectively provided the advantages that could be expected from a presidential system.

But one must see that this is an exceptional situation made possible by Erdoğan's leadership. The risk this contains was clearly recalled by what has happened since 7 June.

There is no doubt that President Erdoğan himself is an exceptional charismatic leader in Turkish history. This quality of his made his premiership exceptional, and, together with the additional strength that being elected adds, it makes his Presidency exceptional as well.

In my book titled Karizma Zamanları (Times of Charisma), which I began writing in 2000, I had tried to explain that in times of charisma politics gives rise to a language or spirit of its own. I had also tried to explain that this exceptional form of leadership holds the strongest reserve of social capital for a society, but that this social capital must be used very well in building the future.

For this, the charismatic period must be regarded as an opportunity for developing institutional structures with better and more rational functionality.

Otherwise society or its audiences remain a wasteful consumer of the radiance of charisma in its own time.

The presidential system, which has been tried by many leaders before and is undoubtedly a far more productive system for governing and developing the country, can only be put in place through a strong charismatic intervention.

In the person of Erdoğan, Turkey seems to have seized this opportunity.

It is quite clear that Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu too has exceptional qualities such as few in Turkish politics are fortunate enough to have. The concepts he put forward in foreign policy and his distinctive style have gone down in history as an important contribution to the literature. With a share in the successes of the AK Parti at every stage since its founding that no one can overlook, he will always remain one of the most important elements in the AK Parti's very mortar. The process that led him to leave the party's chairmanship will undoubtedly, and inevitably, be the subject of different assessments. But no one will be able to overlook that he too is an exceptional personality.

His exceptional character also showed itself in the incredible dignity he displayed in deciding to leave an office. His asceticism toward offices that no mortal could easily sacrifice, and his speech of loyalty that gave no opening to any flame of strife, was of course an attitude impossible to understand for those who speak the customary language of politics.

The politics of Times of Charisma is not always like this, of course.

But the language of politics of the AK Parti under Erdoğan's leadership is exactly this.

Those who wish to understand it will first need to learn this language.