Hosni Mubarak
The Charisma Deficit
One mystery of the current stand-off in Egypt is the absence of a clear charismatic alternative to Hosni Mubarak. This deficit seems to be the case in much of the Arab Middle-East, where, in spite of long standing authoritarian regimes and longstanding opposition movements, true charismatic leaders have not emerged in the opposition. What is the cause of this charisma deficit?
This was not always an issue. Recall the period of the 1950’s when imperialism was dismantled in much of the Third World. Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Nehru in India, Nkrumah in Ghana, Tito in Yugoslavia were charismatic figures whose lives were sources of magical emotions in their countries. These men were the leaders too of the Non-Aligned Movement, themselves in many ways autocratic and imperious, yet were able to draw on deep reservoirs of nationalist sentiment during their lives. What accounted for their appeal? In part, they were part of the best moments of early nationalism, in the first flush of post-colonial independence. They spoke in the names of an unsullied nationalist narrative, before the death of the Soviet Union, the rise of global markets and the birth of internet democracy all conspired to dilute the force of anti-imperial nationalism. These leaders (and many others like Ho Chi Minh, Kenyatta, Bourguiba and Houphet-Boigny followed in their slipstream, spoke for a more innocent period of nationalism.
And we have seen more recent charismatic heroes also emerge in very different circumstances in the later decades of the twentieth century. Nelson Mandela is perhaps the most powerful example, whose standing in South Africa remains unmatched by any of his successors. Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran is today being discussed as the most recent example of a charismatic opposition leader who brought down a dictatorship in Iran in 1979. Alexander Dubcek in Czechoslovakia in 1967 had some of this magic about him as well, and Aung San Kyi in Burma certainly represents anti-authoritarian charisma in Burma today. Even in Latin America, where the end of many military dictatorships has produced some charismatic figures like Lula, Chavez and Evo Morales, many Latin American countries have colorless coalition politicians at their helm.
Still, on a world-wide basis, and especially in the Arab Middle-East, democratic oppositions do not seem to have a charismatic figure at their center. Why are global democratic movements not able to generate iconic and heroic leaders.Iin societies like Haiti, Palestine, Nepal, Tunisia, and now in much of the renascent Middle-East, grass-roots democratic movements appear acephalous, leaderless and without a sacred focal point. Why is this so?
One reason is that many of these movements are dominated by youth. And youth, by its nature, does not throw up recognizable leaders overnight. The second is that repression may not kill popular aspirations for freedom but it can disperse, dilute and demoralize potential leaders through exile, isolation and fear. The third reason might be the most important. In a world of global markets, social media networks which link locals and their diasporas, and global images of celebrity, the nation does not any more monopolize images of magic, power, glamour and liberation.
In Tahrir Square today, it is clear that Egyptian nationalism is alive and well. But nationalism without a personal icon is hard to organize. This may be Hosni Mubarak’s biggest asset. He harks back to Sadat and via Sadat to Nasser, and thus still has claims on the nation’s charismatic resources. May the Egyptian people be blessed with an alternative source of what Max Weber, building on St. Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, memorably called charisma.
Related articles
- The Muslim Brotherhood may gain power in Egypt by default | Kenan Malik (guardian.co.uk)
- Egypt may find that orderly transitions are sometimes disorderly | Michael White (guardian.co.uk)
