1.3.1 Theoretical Contributions

My investigation of emergence and revival of charismatic movements holds several important theoretical implications. To my knowledge, this analysis is the first to challenge the routinization thesis and offer an alternative explanation for persistent personalism and institutional weakness in countries where charismatic movements have developed. In doing so, the study contributes to the growing literature in political science that reintroduces charisma as a concept worthy of systematic, empirically driven analysis (e.g., Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991; Merolla and Zechmeister Reference Merolla and Zechmeister2009b, Reference Merolla and Zechmeister2011; Pappas Reference Pappas2019). In particular, the investigation empirically captures the relational nature of charisma by combining quantitative, qualitative, and experimental methods to examine both the demand for and supply of charismatic leadership – highlighting the perspectives of followers and leaders, respectively. This pluralistic methodological approach addresses challenges of conceptualization and measurement with which many studies of charisma have struggled.

Second, this study contributes to the literature on political identity and partisanship by shedding new light on a unique yet resilient form of identity that is rooted in charismatic attachments. Because existing research perceives such personalistic bonds to be short-lived, it overlooks their potential to develop into a stable and enduring form of political identification. In contrast, my analysis indicates how charismatic attachments compete with and undermine the development of programmatic and organizational linkages thought to be foundational to conventional forms of partisanship. By overpowering alternative linkage types and sowing deep roots in the leader’s narrative of salvation, I show that charismatic attachments can develop into a stable yet deeply personalistic political identity. Although the substantive content of this identity differs from that of programmatic and organizational forms of partisanship, I demonstrate that it shares important characteristics, including the capacity to endure over time and split society based on a cleavage that crystallizes “in” and “out” groups defined by allegiance or aversion to the founder and his mission to transform society (Cyr and Meléndez Reference Cyr and Meléndez2015; Huddy Reference Huddy, Huddy, Sears and Levy2013; Lipset and Rokkan Reference Lipset, Rokkan, Lipset and Rokkan1967; Meléndez and Rovira Kaltwasser Reference Hawkins, Carlin, Littvay and Kaltwasser2019; Roberts Reference Roberts2014; Tajfel Reference Tajfel1974). By recognizing charismatic attachments as foundational to a specific and enduring type of political identity, this study clarifies the precise ways in which charisma can exert a more lasting influence on political systems than previously thought.

Through its historical analysis, this study also addresses important debates regarding the roles of structure and agency in charismatic politics. In particular, I underscore the crucial importance of structural conditions, such as the presence of an acute crisis, for both the emergence and revival of charismatic movements. While scholars acknowledge crisis as an important factor for the consolidation of charismatic attachments (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991; Merolla and Zechmeister Reference Merolla and Zechmeister2009b; Pappas Reference Pappas2019; Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978), I document precisely when and why crisis matters – not only for the solidification of an individual leaders’ charismatic authority, but also for the perpetuation of these leaders’ movements.

I also acknowledge the important role of leader agency in reviving charismatic movements. Self-starters simply cannot portray themselves as heirs of the founder without generating their own personal appeal – that is, signaling their own charisma. Yet self-starters’ agency only goes so far: the leaders are inherently constrained by the preexisting, personalistic structure of the movement. Thus, as I will demonstrate in the case of the unsuccessful presidential candidate Antonio Cafiero in Argentina, even talented self-starters cannot rely on their skill and appeal to fundamentally restructure the movement into a depersonalized, programmatic party. Indeed, a programmatic strategy, even if well executed, will fail to resonate with the followers, who are in search of a savior – not an ordinary representative. Thus, while recognizing the role of agency as important, this study paradoxically stresses structural factors as central to the vitality of charismatic movements.

Next, this book contributes to the growing literature on challenges to democracy by clarifying how charismatic movements encourage authoritarian tendencies in their leaders, undermine citizens’ representation, and impede party system development – all of which make democratic regimes vulnerable to illiberal threats. Leaders who draw their legitimacy from charismatic attachments develop authoritarian behaviors to sustain their image of invincibility. For example, they demand unquestioning loyalty from their followers and display intolerance toward critics. This intolerance can manifest itself in various ways, from public haranguing to discriminatory legalism to, occasionally, outright repression (Weyland Reference Weyland2013). Moreover, to prove their heroic capacities, charismatic leaders seek to concentrate their executive power, undermining the institutional checks and balances that are critical to representative democracy. Finally, to minimize challenges to their authority, these leaders surround themselves with personal cronies rather than professional advisers and experienced bureaucrats, which, in turn, fosters nepotism, corruption, and scant political accountability.

In addition to authoritarian leader tendencies, I demonstrate that charismatic movements dilute the quality of citizens’ democratic representation. This is because, in their quest to appear heroic, the leaders of these movements introduce bold programs that demonstrate their miraculous image and openly defy “rational, and particularly bureaucratic, authority” (Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 244). While such daring reforms may provide benefits at the outset, the leaders’ disregard for bureaucratic rules and sustainable practices eventually compromises the welfare and interests of the movement’s supporters. Because the leaders’ legitimacy rests not on the supporters’ “reasoned deliberation,” rather, it rests on deeply affective bonds, the leaders also enjoy far more leeway in their performance than do politicians in programmatic contexts (Urbinati Reference Urbinati2019, 119). Further, over time, the volatility in the substance of charismatic leaders’ policies generates a programmatically ambiguous party brand (see Lupu Reference Lupu2013). For all of these reasons, citizens cannot be certain what policies they are supporting when they vote for a charismatic leader. Peronist leaders, who are known for their dramatic policy reversals that span the left–right ideological spectrum, exemplify this programmatic volatility and uncertainty (Ostiguy Reference Ostiguy2009). In short, citizens’ democratic representation suffers because they base their support on the personal appeal and immediate impact of each new leader rather than on the substantive consistency and coherence of the leader’s policies.

Finally, the emergence and revival of charismatic movements inhibit the development of stable, institutionalized party systems. Each leader who comes to power must overcome institutional limitations and exercise direct authority in order to prove the capacity to fulfill a heroic and transformative mission. Moreover, these leaders’ audacious policies, while successful in the short term, contain the kernel of their own collapse. When the collapse finally occurs, the country enters a period of crisis with no leader to guide the way. Rather than opening a path to routinization, these circumstances make followers crave a new savior to resolve the crisis, perpetuating the cycle of political and economic volatility. Thus, unlike routinization, which suggests that charismatic movements eventually transform into institutionalized parties, my theory of charismatic movement revival indicates that these movements can expose societies to frequent and severe crises, tenacious personalism, and persistent institutional weakness. Argentine history exemplifies these neurotic cycles.

1.3.2 Empirical Contributions

Substantively, Peronism and Chavismo have irrevocably transformed their respective countries. From the rise of Juan Perón in 1946 to the time of writing in 2020, Peronism has dominated the Argentine political system. Until Mauricio Macri’s recent presidency (2015–19), only Peronist presidents had managed to complete full terms in office, earning the movement a reputation as the only force capable of governing the country (Mora y Araujo Reference Mora y Araujo2011; Ollier Reference Ollier, Gervasoni and Peruzzotti2015). Existing literature suggests that Peronism owes its longevity and power to the fact that it has transformed into an organized and largely depersonalized political party (Levitsky Reference Levitsky2003; Loxton and Levitsky Reference Loxton, Levitsky, Loxton and Mainwaring2018). Yet, the movement has remained characterized by intense personalism and profound institutional weakness (Gervasoni Reference Gervasoni and Mainwaring2018; McGuire Reference McGuire2014). In fact, its most successful leaders – Juan Perón, Carlos Menem, and Néstor and Cristina Kirchner – have subordinated the party (and the political system writ-large) to their individual authority, governing based on their bold, nearsighted policies and captivating personal appeal.

In Venezuela, Chavismo has also upended politics and mobilized poor citizens in an unprecedented fashion. Chávez’s anointed successor, Nicolás Maduro, has doubled down on his symbolic connection to his beloved predecessor since rising to power in 2013, widely disseminating images of Chávez in public spaces across Venezuela and even constructing a hologram of the founder to walk the streets of Caracas (@VTVcanal8 2016). Simultaneously, Maduro has overseen a devastating crisis and has resorted to brutal authoritarian tactics to remain in power. Maduro’s failed leadership has been widely interpreted as evidence of Chavismo’s inevitable death (Denis Reference Denis2015; López Maya Reference López Maya2014). Nevertheless, my research shows that followers, many of whom disavow Maduro as the true son of Chávez, remain profoundly attached to Chavismo, proclaim devout loyalty to Chávez, and express hope that a more capable successor will emerge in the future (see also Briceño Reference Briceño2015a; Morales Reference Morales2016). Thus, like Peronism, Chavismo challenges the predominant view in the literature that routinization is the only viable path for charismatic movement survival.

This book moves beyond routinization to explore a different explanation for the remarkable persistence of Peronism and Chavismo. Using an array of methodological tools that shed new light on the perspectives of followers and leaders, my research reveals a personalistic mechanism of survival that causes these movements to persist in society while taking power in fits and starts. On the followers’ side, I demonstrate that charismatic attachments endure in a fairly steady fashion. This is due to followers’ deep, emotional identification with the movement, which they establish and preserve through personal narratives that glorify the founder as the ultimate savior, reinforce his mission to combat the people’s enemies, and promise a more prosperous future. In contrast to the stability of followers’ attachments, both the founder and subsequent leaders bring the movement to political predominance in a temporary and intermittent manner. My analysis indicates that these leaders can only consolidate power under favorable conditions, at which point they must exercise individual agency to portray themselves as heroes in their own right – and, in the case of successors, as symbolic reincarnations of the founder. Moreover, successors who effectively claim the founder’s mantle can only do so temporarily, as their shortsighted policies eventually collapse and reveal their weaknesses to the followers. While these leaders never fully replace the adored founder, they play a crucial role in perpetuating the movement because they reinvigorate the political relevance of followers’ charismatic bonds, incorporate new supporters from different groups, such as from younger generations, and temporarily restore the movement’s supreme power.

The spasmodic trajectory highlighted in this study shows how political movements such as Peronism and Chavismo have risen and persisted by sustaining a fundamentally charismatic core, despite having experienced periods without strong leadership, such as under Isabel Perón in Argentina and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. Indeed, such leaderless periods are bound to occur when initially successful self-starters have fallen from grace and conditions have not yet aligned for a new leader to pick up the founder’s baton. By illustrating how the tumultuous cycle of charismatic leadership unfolds in these movements, my theory better accounts for the ongoing personalism, institutional weakness, and frequent crises that characterize politics in both countries.

1.4.1 The Demand Side of Charisma: Follower Support for Charismatic Leaders and Movements

On the demand side, I first draw on public opinion data to quantitatively examine the extent to which citizens’ charismatic perceptions of the founder influence their initial attachments to the movement relative to competing factors rooted in evaluations of movement-affiliated programs and participation in relevant social organizations. While existing literature notes the central role of charisma in generating citizens’ original bonds to these movements (e.g., Hawkins Reference Hawkins2010; Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991; Zúquete Reference Zúquete2008), it rarely examines the influence of competing linkage mechanisms. I assess these different mechanisms and confirm that the followers’ initial attachments to the movement are primarily charismatic rather than programmatic or organizational in nature. Moreover, I demonstrate that these charismatic attachments are more than short-lived ties to the original leader; rather, they develop into a resilient form of political identity with both the leader and his movement. Due to limited availability of relevant public opinion data from Argentina during Perón’s first two presidencies (1946–55), this portion of the analysis focuses on the more recent Venezuelan case.

Next, I analyze the trajectory of citizens’ charismatic attachments after the death of the founder. In particular, I examine citizens’ bonds at distinct junctures across the two movements: about forty years after the founder’s death in Argentina (2013–16), and fewer than five years after the founder’s death in Venezuela (2014–17). I begin with semi-structured interviews and focus groups with self-identified followers of Peronism and Chavismo. This exploratory investigation provides crucial insights regarding followers’ relationship to the movement from their own perspectives. The interviews reveal detailed information about individual followers’ experiences, whereas the focus groups allow for thought-provoking discussion among followers regarding their shared understandings of their connections to the movement (Berg Reference Berg2001; Cyr Reference Cyr2016; Sugiyama and Hunter Reference Sugiyama and Hunter2013). I use these data to explain the mechanisms through which followers’ charismatic attachments to the movement cultivate an important and enduring political identity that can be reactivated by subsequent leaders.

In the third and final stage of follower-focused research, I conduct a survey experiment with 999 followers of Peronism and Chavismo in three diverse regions of Argentina and Venezuela, respectively, to test my theory on the reactivation of charismatic attachments. Specifically, I test the extent to which two strategies of new leaders – (1) the fulfillment of bold, initially impressive performance and (2) symbolic ties to the charismatic founder – strengthen followers’ emotional bonds with the movement and increase political support for the successor. In the experimental setup, participants are randomly assigned to one of four conditions in which a new leader uses both of these strategies, only one of the two strategies, or neither strategy. By controlling for observable and unobservable factors that might otherwise confound the analysis, this random assignment allows me to parse out and directly assess the causal impact of the two (often-overlapping) strategies on followers’ emotional ties (Druckman et al. Reference Druckman, Green, Kuklinski, Lupia, Druckman, Green, Kuklinski and Lupia2011). In sum, I use public opinion data, interviews, focus groups, and survey experiments with followers of Peronism and Chavismo to clarify the mechanisms through which their charismatic attachments form, endure, and become politically reactivated by new leaders.

1.4.2 The Supply Side of Charisma: Leader Strategies for Charismatic Movement Revival

On the supply side, I turn to elite interviews and archival research to trace the process through which new leaders succeeded or failed to reactivate citizens’ charismatic attachments and restore the movement to power under their own authority. This method, which highlights the roles of timing and sequence (Bennett Reference Bennett, Box-Steffensmeier, Brady and Collier2009; Collier Reference Collier2011), permits a careful examination of important junctures in the development of Peronism and Chavismo and of the conditions that facilitated or impeded new leaders’ attempts to employ strategies of reactivation and pick up the founder’s charismatic mantle. Though it is difficult to obtain fresh insights from the perspective of movement leaders on these historical cases, my interviews with former leaders, campaign managers, and political strategists provide crucial information regarding the nature and effectiveness of the leaders’ tactics for consolidating support, as well as whether and how the leaders associated themselves with the charismatic founders of the movement. Archival materials including newspaper articles, campaign posters, and public opinion polls from the relevant historical periods shed additional light on the context in which successors sought power, the leadership style they adopted, and the extent to which their campaigns resonated with the public.

Finally, I integrate the perspectives of followers and leaders to examine how charismatic movements unfold over time. Focusing on the case of Peronism, this historical analysis demonstrates how charismatic movements emerge with the meteoric rise of the founder and proceed in a wave-like pattern of booms and busts in which subsequent leaders come to power, temporarily reactivate the emotional vigor of citizens’ identification with the movement, and inevitably sow the seeds of their own collapse. Specifically, I examine four waves of Peronism led by the founder Juan Perón (waves 1 and 2), Carlos Menem (wave 3), and Néstor and Cristina Kirchner (wave 4). I also briefly review the fifth and most recent wave of Peronism, which began with Alberto Fernández’s rise to the presidency in 2019. The results illustrate the endogenous and fitful pattern that characterizes charismatic movements.

1.5.1 Charisma

Weber, who developed the most important, seminal conceptualization of charisma, defines it as “a certain quality of individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” (1922/1978, 241). Charisma has since been adopted in a widespread fashion to describe individuals – usually leaders – who possess intrinsic, magnetic appeal.

While intuitive, this interpretation of charisma has drawn criticism for two reasons. First, it suggests that charisma consists of a set of fixed, objective leader traits such as divine grace and extraordinariness, which are notoriously ambiguous and difficult to pin down (Antonakis et al. Reference Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart and Shamir2016, 301; Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser Reference Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser2017, 66). Second, this interpretation tends to treat charisma dichotomously: someone “is either charismatic or is not” (Eberhardt and Merolla Reference Eberhardt and Merolla2017, 103). Approaching charisma as a set of universally understood, black-and-white, yet frustratingly elusive characteristics has resulted in much debate over who qualifies as “charismatic” and why, if at all, it matters.

In an effort to address these issues, others have emphasized a more subjective definition of charisma that highlights followers’ perceptions of the leader rather than the leader’s objective characteristics (e.g., Eberhardt and Merolla Reference Eberhardt and Merolla2017; Haslam, Reicher, and Platow Reference Haslam, Reicher and Platow2011; Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991; Merolla, Ramos, and Zechmeister Reference Merolla, Ramos and Zechmeister2007; Merolla and Zechmeister Reference Merolla and Zechmeister2011; Urbinati Reference Urbinati2019). These scholars look to Weber’s insistence that it is followers’ recognition of the leader’s traits – rather than the independent existence of those traits – that form the foundation of charismatic authority. Thus, these authors conclude that charisma is a characteristic or attribute that is conferred on the leader by the followers (Eberhardt and Merolla Reference Eberhardt and Merolla2017, 104; Haslam, Reicher, and Platow Reference Haslam, Reicher and Platow2011, 245; Steffens et al. Reference Steffens, Peters, Alexander Haslam and van Dick2017, 530). This subjective understanding of charisma has important advantages. For one, it does not require universal consensus regarding what it is that makes the leader inherently “exceptional”; instead, it suggests that charisma exists to the extent that the followers regard their leader as exceptional, however defined. Second, it interprets charisma in relative rather than absolute terms: charismatic perceptions can range on a continuum from weak to strong and can shift in intensity across time, contexts, and individual followers (Bass and Avolio Reference Bass and Avolio1995; Eberhardt and Merolla Reference Eberhardt and Merolla2017; Merolla, Ramos, and Zechmeister Reference Merolla, Ramos and Zechmeister2007).

Despite these improvements, the subjective conceptualization of charisma introduces another problem: It highlights the charismatic “effect,” or the intended outcome of charismatic leadership, rather than charisma itself (Antonakis et al. Reference Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart and Shamir2016, 302). In fact, charisma does not consist of connections between leaders and followers; rather, it creates those connections. Examining the establishment and impact of charismatic attachments is itself a worthy endeavor – indeed, it is the primary objective of this book – yet it would be misguided to conflate these bonds with the phenomenon that led to their formation in the first place.

In light of these issues and debates, I contend that charisma is a property of leadership that, when applied under certain conditions, encounters massive receptivity and therefore results in the establishment (or reactivation) of charismatic attachments between leaders and their followers. Specifically, in keeping with Antonakis and his colleagues in the field of business management, I define charisma as a type of leadership that signals through both words and actions a particular set of symbols and values that, in certain circumstances, resonates on a deeply personal and affective level with the intended audience (Antonakis et al. Reference Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart and Shamir2016, 304). As I will elaborate in Chapters 2 and 3, leaders signal and exert their charisma in three ways: They (1) directly recognize the genuine and undeserved suffering of their followers, (2) vow to personally resolve the people’s misery through bold action, and (3) use emotional, quasi-religious symbols and rhetoric to cultivate a mission of profound societal transformation designed to defeat evil forces and provide the followers with a prosperous future. The extent to which followers recognize, fall for, and respond to a leader’s charisma is influenced by both the leader’s individual characteristics (e.g., their personality, communication skills, and experience) and contextual circumstances.

If executed when many people suffer from serious problems and therefore long for a savior, charisma allows the leader to establish (or reactivate) charismatic attachments: linkages with followers that are unmediated, asymmetrical, and deeply emotional in nature. The unmediated quality of these attachments implies that the leader communicates directly with the followers rather than using intermediary bureaucratic channels. The asymmetry of the bonds arises because the leader maintains an exalted position over the followers and therefore enjoys unmatched power and commands their unwavering loyalty. Indeed, the qualities that followers perceive in the leader “are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary” (Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 231). Although the leader is unlikely to possess divine roots in reality, the followers’ perception of divinity substantiates the leader’s charisma and justifies his/her influence over them. Finally, the emotional character of charismatic attachments inspires the followers to feel “intense devotion to and extraordinary reverence for the leader” (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 5). The combination of these features makes the followers feel that they have a unique and intimate relationship with the leader. It also convinces them to relinquish control over their lives to the leader, whom they perceive as their savior.

How, then, does charisma apply to the political arena? I argue that politicians can exercise charisma to cultivate unmediated, asymmetrical, and emotional attachments with their followers across a wide spectrum of organizational settings. Just as voters in the United States can worship Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Barack Obama as their redeemer, so can Chinese citizens praise Mao Zedong as their ultimate hero. While these leaders vastly differed in ruling strategy and organization, they all may be considered charismatic because they recognized the unjust suffering of their people, vowed to boldly resolve it, and, in doing so, crafted a mission of salvation. Despite their many differences, these signals enabled these leaders to develop unmediated, top-down, and deeply affective connections to their most devout supporters; thus, all three came to be viewed by these supporters as quasi-divine saviors.

Though charismatic attachments can develop in strikingly diverse contexts, the political relevance of these attachments varies based on the extent to which leaders rely on the personalistic authority they derive from these attachments to govern. Neither fully democratic nor clearly totalitarian leaders use charisma as their primary source of power. On the democratic end of the spectrum, leaders such as FDR, Obama, and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva cultivated charismatic attachments with a significant number of voters, yet they governed primarily based on “rational” laws and institutions. On the totalitarian end of the spectrum, Mao and Adolf Hitler also enjoyed the unwavering, emotionally driven loyalty of many citizens, but relied far more on ruthless, overt repression than charismatic bonds to rule. In contrast to these liberal–democratic and totalitarian extremes, as I will explain subsequently, leaders who rely predominantly on charismatic attachments to assert their authority thrive best in “populist” settings.

1.5.2 Populism

An “essentially contested concept,” populism has undergone various definitional transformations since it emerged in the nineteenth century in the United States, Russia, and France (Rovira Kaltwasser et al. Reference Rovira Kaltwasser, Taggart, Ochoa Espejo, Ostiguy, Rovira Kaltwasser, Taggart, Ochoa Espejo and Ostiguy2017, 2–4). While scholars have debated the term’s true meaning for decades, the recent surge in political leaders and parties considered “populist” has injected these discussions with renewed urgency. Although several conceptualizations of populism exist, contemporary scholars tend to subscribe to one of two approaches: one ideational and the other political-strategic.Footnote ²

Proponents of the ideational approach define populism as “a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people” (Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser Reference Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser2017, 5). This definition emphasizes three components: the virtuous “people,” who are the key protagonists of the populist cause; the malevolent “elites,” who encompass all who oppose the populist cause; and the “general will,” or the source that unites the people and justifies their mission to vanquish the selfish and morally bankrupt elites (ibid., 9–14).

At its core, the ideational approach understands populism to be independent of the context from which it emerges. It is a highly flexible discourse that virtually anybody can adopt and perform, for any period of time. As a “thin-centered” ideology, it can be combined with any left–right ideological position, political project, or regime type (ibid., 5). Theoretically, then, any leader, party, or ordinary citizen could become populist simply by taking up the rhetoric dividing “the people” and “the elites.” Moreover, while charismatic leaders are by far the greatest producers of populist rhetoric, charisma has no place in the ideational definition (ibid., 77).

In contrast, the political–strategic approach promotes a more specific definition of populism that incorporates the political context and focuses on the connection between “the people” and the leader who claims to represent them. Weyland, an early adopter of this approach, states that “Populism is best defined as a political strategy through which a personalistic leader seeks or exercises government power based on direct, unmediated, unistitutionalized support from large numbers of mostly unorganized followers” (2001, 14). Rather than mere discourse that praises “the people” while attacking “the elites,” this interpretation defines populism as a holistic strategy used by political leaders to mobilize support and take power (ibid., 12; Urbinati Reference Urbinati2019, 34). In other words, populism constitutes a distinct political force characterized by intense personalism. Unlike leaders in programmatic parties who mobilize support through the party’s firmly established apparatus, populist leaders bypass institutional channels to connect with and secure the devotion of their supporters in a quasi-direct and seemingly intimate fashion. Only through establishing unmediated linkages with voters can populists achieve their ultimate goal: leveraging the fervent support of the masses to exercise unchecked authority.

To be sure, the political-strategic definition of populism acknowledges the important role of Manichean rhetoric outlined by the ideational approach. However, it maintains that this discourse matters only insofar as it helps the leader convince the supporters that he/she personally embodies their will and therefore deserves their unfaltering loyalty (Weyland Reference Weyland, Rovira Kaltwasser, Taggart, Espejo and Ostiguy2017, 58–59). As Urbinati states, “The populist leader is emotionally and propagandistically active in his daily effort to reconquer the authorization of the people” (Reference Urbinati2019, 117, emphasis added). In contrast to liberal democracy, which embraces a spirit of pluralism, promotes competition between multiple parties, and imposes a system of institutional checks and balances, populist movements stress that sacred leaders and their “people” constitute the only source of legitimate power and deem all opponents to be unworthy of representation (ibid., 114–15).

I contend that the political–strategic approach offers the most precise definition of populism because it makes clear the important role of charismatic attachments. Specifically, this interpretation suggests that the populist leader’s objective of obtaining and exercising power rests fundamentally on his/her capacity to cultivate charismatic – unmediated, asymmetrical, and emotional – attachments with his/her followers. As mentioned previously, it is true that non-populist leaders ranging from democratic presidents and prime ministers to totalitarian dictators can use charisma to establish these attachments with their supporters. Whereas these leaders complement their charismatic influence with other strategies and mechanisms, charismatic connections form the basis by which populist leaders win and exercise power.

1.5.3 Charismatic Movement

Throughout this book, I use the term “charismatic movement” to describe the group of people bound together by unmediated, asymmetrical, and emotional bonds to the charismatic leader and his/her mission of redemption. While each follower perceives their connection to the leader as profoundly personal, the shared identity that emerges from these attachments, and the influence these bonds grant the charismatic leader, constitute a powerful and potentially transformational force.

Because populist leaders rely so heavily on charismatic attachments to establish and exercise power, I argue that populism constitutes the purest and most powerful form of charismatic movement in the political sphere. However, charismatic movements – like charisma itself – can complement other forms of authority across a range of regime types and can even emerge outside of politics.

As mentioned earlier, in Brazil’s liberal-democratic setting, Lula governed as the head of a programmatic, center-left political party (Hunter Reference Hunter2010). He also consolidated the fervent support of an important base of followers from the country’s impoverished Northern and Northeastern regions using his charismatic appeal rather than his party affiliation. Consequently, the number of citizens who identified personally with the leader and who viewed him as their savior (lulistas) outnumbered those who identified with his party (petistas) (de Souza Reference de Souza2011, 75, 88; Hunter and Power Reference Hunter and Power2019, 69; Samuels and Zucco Reference Samuels and Zucco2014, 130). Furthermore, though Lula’s charismatic movement never subsumed the programmatic Workers’ Party he helped found, its resilient influence unquestionably impacted succession politics – a process I explain in Chapter 6. Indeed, like other charismatic movement founders, Lula struggled to anoint a compelling presidential successor. His first handpicked heir, Dilma Rousseff, suffered a terrible crisis of legitimacy and was ultimately impeached in 2016. In the 2018 elections, after Lula was barred from running at the eleventh hour, he personally selected yet another uninspiring presidential candidate, Fernando Haddad, who covered his own face with a mask of Lula on the campaign trail in a desperate attempt to borrow Lula’s appeal, but lost the election to the right-wing fringe candidate, Jair Bolsonaro (Hunter and Power Reference Hunter and Power2019).

Charismatic movements can also emerge within totalitarian regimes. For example, as discussed earlier, Mao relied primarily on his well-organized and ideologically cohesive Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to assert totalitarian control. Yet, he also used charisma to establish profound, unmediated bonds with millions of Chinese citizens – especially with those who became his Red Guard, the “true believers” who were “blindly devoted to Mao” (Andreas Reference Andreas2007, 438). Periodically, Mao leveraged his charismatic movement to shake up the CCP and reassert his personal grip on power, most notably by launching the Cultural Revolution in 1966.

Finally, charismatic movements can develop outside of politics, often in the form of (pseudo-)religious cults such as Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church (known as the “Moonies”), Marshall Applewhite’s Heaven’s Gate, Jim Jones’ People’s Temple, and Keith Raniere’s NXIVM. Similar to their political counterparts, Singer states that these groups take the shape of “an inverted T,” in which “the leader is alone at the top, and the followers are all at the bottom” (Singer Reference Singer2003, 8). Cult leaders use charisma to entice their followers: They recognize their followers’ suffering, claim to be endowed with unique – even miraculous – power to resolve this suffering, and declare a mission to forge a “simple path to happiness, to success, to salvation” (Zimbardo Reference Zimbardo1997). These leaders establish profound, emotional bonds with their followers and thus enjoy tremendous influence over them. Using these bonds, cult leaders build charismatic movements that often engage in a range of controlling and destructive behaviors, some of which even culminate in mass homicidal and suicidal acts (Bohm and Alison Reference Bohm and Alison2001; Hassan Reference Hassan1990).

As I explain in the subsequent section, this book focuses on charismatic movements in the political sphere. In fact, I focus on charismatic movements that constitute a leader’s main basis for winning and exercising power and that therefore also qualify as populist. However, I use the former concept rather than the latter as the foundation of my analysis in order to shed light on charisma’s essential role in the establishment and revival of these movements. Although many populism experts view charisma as a prominent feature of these movements, few consider it to be a definitional property. In contrast, I view charisma as the indispensable glue that holds these movements together – even after their original leaders disappear. Moreover, my analysis may be extended in the future to study charismatic movements in other contexts, including diverse political regimes and nonpolitical settings.

2.1.1 The Depersonalization of Followers’ Charismatic Attachments

According to Weber, attachments between charismatic leaders and their followers are “strictly personal, based on the validity and practice of [the leader’s] charismatic personal qualities,” as those qualities are perceived by the followers (Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 246). Scholars identify two such qualities as especially important for shaping the “leader-to-mass flow of communications and benefits” (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 25). First is the leader’s seemingly miraculous performance, which provides the followers with tangible benefits and demonstrates his heroic capacity to resolve their suffering.Footnote ¹ The second quality is the leader’s frequent, direct communication with his followers, which gives the followers the illusion of an intimate relationship with their beloved savior.

Existing studies suggest that the survival of charismatic movements depends on routinization in part because new leaders cannot replicate the founder’s charismatic qualities in the eyes of the followers. To begin, proving superhuman abilities would require “the constant achievement of ‘miracles’” (Eatwell Reference Eatwell2006, 141). The founder’s chosen successor, typically “a functionary who is not remotely comparable with the predecessor” (Kostadinova and Levitt Reference Kostadinova and Levitt2014, 500–1), is unlikely to achieve this ambitious feat. Compounding this issue of lackluster performance, especially in comparison to the almighty founder, the chosen successor struggles to sustain unmediated ties with the followers (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 25). Unable to tap into these intimate connections, the successor cannot control the masses through “symbolic manipulation” in a manner reminiscent of the founder (Jowitt Reference Jowitt1992, 107).

Because successors cannot perform miracles or captivate the masses using magnetic appeal, they cannot uphold the founder’s deep, emotional attachments with the followers. This leads scholars of routinization to conclude that the nature of followers’ attachments must undergo a fundamental change if an initially charismatic movement is to survive. In particular, the literature suggests that, because the emotional intensity of citizens’ attachments to the founder irreversibly dissipates upon his disappearance, the agents of routinization must replace those attachments with alternative linkage types (Jowitt Reference Jowitt1992, 107; Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 29; Shils Reference Shils1965, 202; Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 246).

Studies of partisanship suggest two alternative party–voter linkages that could replace citizens’ charismatic attachments to the movement. First, programmatic attachments could emerge based on the ambitious policies enacted by the founder. These policies, validated by their initially impressive success and their association with the founder’s valiant promises to rescue society, could develop into a programmatic trademark for the movement (Lupu Reference Lupu2013, 51–52). To sustain followers’ loyalty based on this mechanism, the movement’s new leadership would need to preserve the substantive content and positive performance of the founder’s policies. If successful, first-generation followers who recognized and supported this set of policies would reinforce their attachment to the movement; those who disagreed or were simply unaware of the policies would become less attached after the founder’s disappearance (Key Reference Key1966, 7–8). Subsequent generations of citizens whose issue preferences coincided with the content of the movement’s programmatic trademark – due to a combination of parental socialization, preference formation occurring during young adulthood, and retrospective evaluation of the movement’s past performance – would be more likely to develop strong attachments to the movement in the future (Achen Reference Achen2002; Fiorina Reference Fiorina1981; Niemi and Kent Jennings Reference Niemi and Kent Jennings1991). However, if their issue preferences deviated over time or the movement’s programmatic trademark became diluted, the basis for citizens’ programmatic attachments would break down, resulting in the erosion of the movement’s core of supporters (Lupu Reference Lupu2013, 52; Roberts Reference Roberts2014, 26).

A second linkage that could routinize the followers’ charismatic attachments rests on an organizational mechanism. Specifically, the followers could sustain their devotion to the movement based on their participation in the network of movement-affiliated organizations, social clubs, and neighborhood associations created under the charismatic founder (Campbell et al. Reference Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes1960; Granovetter Reference Granovetter1973; Green, Palmquist, and Schickler Reference Green, Palmquist and Schickler2002; Huckfeldt and Sprague Reference Huckfeldt and Sprague1992). Crucially, the persistence of followers’ organizational ties to the movement would depend on the followers’ ongoing (informal or formal) membership in these social groups (Green, Palmquist, and Schickler Reference Green, Palmquist and Schickler2002, 4, 91; Roberts Reference Roberts2014, 27). Moreover, the movement’s new leaders would have to actively mobilize the movement’s organizational network to remain politically relevant and win follower support (Huckfeldt and Sprague Reference Huckfeldt and Sprague1992, 70; Samuels and Zucco Reference Samuels and Zucco2015, 758–59). Subsequent generations of followers would then be socialized into the network during childhood or through their social groups during young adulthood, perpetuating the strength of the movement over time (Lewis-Beck et al. Reference Lewis-Beck2008, 138–41; Niemi and Kent Jennings Reference Niemi and Kent Jennings1991, 979–81). In contrast, the disintegration of movement-affiliated groups would weaken followers’ connections to the movement and would undermine their loyalty as a result.

In sum, the routinization thesis posits that successors to the charismatic founder cannot replicate the founder’s seemingly miraculous performance; moreover, these successors struggle to maintain direct, intimate connections with the followers. Given these weaknesses, the survival of the movement requires that citizens’ deep, emotional attachments to the founder transform into depersonalized linkages based on either a steady, substantively meaningful programmatic trademark or a strong network of movement-affiliated organizations that generate feelings of belonging among the followers.

2.1.2 The Replacement of the Leader’s Charismatic Authority with a Party Organization

In addition to the transformation of the followers’ profoundly affective attachments, routinization studies claim that the founder’s concentrated, charismatic authority invariably dissipates. Thus, the founder’s subordinates must work together to develop an organizational structure that can substitute for his authority (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 29). Crucially, these intermediary agents do not personally inherit a dose of the founder’s charismatic appeal. Rather, the founder’s appeal becomes associated with the offices that the agents occupy and with the rules that govern the agents’ behavior. Eventually, the institutional “roles and rules” acquire independent legitimacy rather than leaning on their (increasingly distant) association with the founder (Shils Reference Shils1965, 205). In other words, a depersonalized type of authority that rests on institutions rather than on individuals stands in place of the founder’s charismatic authority.

To successfully replace the founder’s charismatic authority in this fashion, scholars stress that the movement must develop a party structure with at least a moderate degree of organizational capacity (Jowitt Reference Jowitt1992, 107; Kostadinova and Levitt Reference Kostadinova and Levitt2014, 500–1; Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 25–29; Shils Reference Shils1965, 202–5). In fact, the more extensive the organizational structure, the better the chances of movement survival. As Shils explains, “the more widely dispersed, unintense operation of the charismatic element in corporate bodies governed by the rational-legal type of authority,” the greater the possibility of establishing a powerful, lasting, and firmly institutionalized party (Reference Shils1965, 202).

2.2.1 Theoretical Limitations of the Routinization Thesis

To begin, scholars of routinization suggest that followers’ charismatic attachments fade away upon the founder’s disappearance. Yet it seems unlikely that citizens’ fervent bonds would be so fragile. During the founder’s rule, these bonds are so strong that they cause a “searing reorientation” in the lives and identities of the followers (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 24). The founder’s promise to provide the followers with salvation inspires a deep devotion that is missionary, even Christ-like (Zúquete Reference Zúquete2008, 107). Indeed, charismatic attachments transcend the mundane world of self-interest, inspiring the followers to “rise above, and to go beyond, mercenary concerns of contractual obligation and exchange” (Haslam, Reicher, and Platow Reference Haslam, Reicher and Platow2011, 31). Given the deeply emotional and quasi-religious nature of these ties, it seems unreasonable to conclude that the founder’s death would cause them to disappear. To the contrary, social psychology research on the “death positivity bias” and “postmortem charisma” suggests that the founder’s death – an emotional and tragic event for the followers – could actually intensify their love for the founder and strengthen their loyalty to his movement (Allison et al. Reference Allison, Eylon, Beggan and Bachelder2009, 116; Steffens et al. Reference Steffens, Peters, Alexander Haslam and van Dick2017, 532).

A second issue overlooked by routinization studies is the difficulty of developing an institutional structure that can supplant the founder’s charismatic authority. Scholars describe the transfer of authority from the founder to his intermediaries as an inevitable, if gradual, process. For example, Madsen and Snow explain, “The emergence of such intermediary roles…occurs gradually as the leader finds it more and more difficult to maintain frequent and direct ties with his or her following” (Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 25). Similarly, Shils states that charisma “flows from the central authority … [to] a multitude of others who live within a territory ruled by the central authority” (Reference Shils1965, 212, emphasis added).

Yet, charismatic founders prioritize concentrating authority above all else, casting doubt on the notion that their authority would transfer in such a smooth and inexorable fashion. In fact, these leaders take extraordinary measures to undermine the development of structure in their movements and ensure that their influence cannot be easily shared during or after their lifetimes. For example, they exercise authority on a whim, relying on spontaneity and capriciousness to prevent others from sharing or challenging their power (Carroll Reference Carroll2013, 135). Furthermore, rather than constructing a hierarchy of officials, charismatic leaders allow and even intentionally generate feelings of jealousy and competition among their inner circle of agents in order to keep the structure of their movements weak and reduce threats to their unmatched superiority (Burns Reference Burns1978, 125; Roberts Reference Roberts2014, 37; Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 243). Finally, to keep their legacies from being overshadowed, charismatic leaders tend to anoint weak, inexperienced, and fervently loyal successors (Lasswell Reference Lasswell1948, 101; Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 246).

Due to their extraordinary efforts to preserve their concentrated influence, the disappearance of charismatic founders results in a tumultuous and disorganized power vacuum in the movement’s leadership. It seems unlikely that routinization would take place under these circumstances. The movement’s intermediaries would struggle to develop party structures through which to disperse the founder’s authority. Moreover, these mid-level agents would likely be suspicious of and hostile toward one another – a result of the founder’s efforts to keep his underlings weak and divided. Thus, it would be unrealistic to expect these individuals to willingly and effectively share power among themselves. Indeed, the personalistic structure of the movement would incentivize new leaders to consolidate power for themselves in the style of their predecessors rather than behaving as disciplined bureaucrats committed to the task of institutionalization.

2.2.2 Empirical Limitations of the Routinization Thesis

The trajectories of Peronism and Chavismo reflect the shortcomings of the routinization thesis. In Argentina, the behaviors of both followers and leaders of Peronism call into question the viability of routinization. More than forty years after Perón’s death, many Peronists have continued to express direct, deeply emotional attachments to the founder and his wife, Eva, as well as to subsequent leaders, including Carlos Menem, Néstor Kirchner, and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. At the same time, followers have expressed little understanding of the movement’s programmatic principles and few have consistently participated in Peronist-affiliated organizations, suggesting that followers’ affective attachments have not been replaced by more conventional partisan ties (Levitsky Reference Levitsky2003, 84–90; McGuire Reference McGuire, Mainwaring and Scully1995, 201–2).

In addition to citizens’ persistent emotional bonds with the movement, prominent successors of Perón have tied themselves to his charismatic legacy and have deliberately weakened institutions in order to exercise power in a direct and personalistic manner. For instance, Menem relied heavily on personal appeal to rise to the presidency in 1989 (McGuire Reference McGuire1997, 208; Ostiguy Reference Ostiguy2009, 13–14). During his presidential campaign, he attracted the support of millions of Peronists and thus won the presidency by emphasizing his allegiance to the charismatic foundations of Peronism, explicitly invoking the names of Juan and Eva Perón, and demonizing establishment politicians. As president, Menem enacted bold reforms via emergency decree to combat hyperinflation and portray himself as the people’s savior (Weyland Reference Weyland2002, 134–47). Notably, the neoliberal substance of these reforms contradicted Perón’s original platform of economic nationalism! Yet Menem declared that Perón would have behaved identically if he had governed during the same period (Comas Reference Comas1993). As this behavior demonstrates, Menem sought to embody Perón’s charismatic appeal and had little interest in developing a programmatic trademark to carry the movement forward.

While Menem’s brazen economic policies ended in collapse and unleashed a severe crisis in 2001, Peronism survived and was returned to power in 2003 with the election of Néstor Kirchner. As president, Kirchner secured overwhelming popular support by implementing unilateral decrees to address the crisis and attacking rapacious foreign bondholders and human rights abusers from the 1976–83 military dictatorship (Gantman Reference Gantman2012, 345; Gervasoni Reference Gervasoni, Gervasoni and Peruzzotti2015). Furthermore, Kirchner and his wife, Cristina – who succeeded him as president in 2007 – explicitly evoked the legacies of Juan and Eva, portraying themselves as symbolic reincarnations of the charismatic couple. Moreover, to ensure their power went unquestioned, both Kirchners regularly intervened in political institutions ranging from the Supreme Court to the National Institute of Statistics and Census (Gervasoni and Peruzzotti Reference Gervasoni, Peruzzotti, Gervasoni and Peruzzotti2015). In short, similar to Menem, the Kirchners used personalistic tactics to further concentrate their authority, declaring that they would save the Argentine people from misery and deliver their followers a better future (Ollier Reference Ollier, Gervasoni and Peruzzotti2015; Wortman Reference Wortman, Gervasoni and Peruzzotti2015).

In Venezuela, Chavismo has likewise endured in personalistic form, casting further doubt on the logic of routinization. Chavistas have sustained profoundly affective attachments to Chávez since his death in March 2013. Indeed, they have openly mourned their beloved founder, worshipping him at shrines constructed in homes and public spaces. Followers have also commemorated Chávez by sporting images of his face in the form of T-shirts and tattoos, listening to recordings of his speeches and television shows, and singing songs about his heroic impact. However, while continuing to revere Chávez, these individuals have grown disillusioned with the movement’s collapsing programs; furthermore, their participation in movement-affiliated organizations has remained low. These factors suggest that programmatic and social attachments to Chavismo are still underdeveloped, contrary to what routinization would predict (Aponte Reference Aponte2014; Machado Reference Machado2009).

From the perspective of the leadership, Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, has made little effort to routinize the movement. Instead, he has focused relentlessly on Chávez’s mission to transform society and vanquish the movement’s enemies. He has also stressed his spiritual connection to the founder to keep citizens’ affective attachments alive and vicariously garner support. For example, shortly after his election in 2013, he claimed that Chávez had returned to Earth reincarnated as a bird to offer a personal blessing to Maduro (Scharfenberg Reference Scharfenberg2013). In 2016, he developed a hologram of Chávez that walked the streets of Caracas to celebrate the “Day of Loyalty and Love for our Commander Hugo Chávez Frías” (@VTVcanal8 2016). By symbolically reconstructing the founder’s image, Maduro has attempted to leverage citizens’ personalistic bonds to defend the contemporary regime and decry all who oppose it as traitors to Chávez’s legacy. Consequently, he has sustained crucial support for a remarkably long time, given the deplorable performance of his regime (GBAO Strategies Reference Strategies2019).

To recapitulate, citizens’ deep, emotional ties to the charismatic founders of Peronism and Chavismo, respectively, have remained profoundly affective in nature. Moreover, subsequent leaders of these movements have governed using a direct, charismatic style rather than dispersing power and responsibility to intermediaries in their respective parties. These outcomes contradict the routinization thesis, which emphasizes the depersonalization of citizens’ attachments and the dispersion of leaders’ power as necessary conditions for the survival of charismatic movements. In light of this puzzle, I develop an alternative theory according to which these movements can survive by sustaining their original personalistic nature.

2.3.1 The Demand Side: Formation, Survival, and Reactivation of Followers’ Charismatic Attachments to the Leader

2.3.1.1 Formation

To begin, the revival of charismatic movements depends on the initial formation of the unmediated emotional attachments between a leader and his followers. A crucial condition that enables this process is the presence of a crisis overseen by a low-performing government. The reason is that a widespread and severe crisis places many people in a difficult situation they cannot resolve by themselves, which makes many of them feel desperate for an outside source of relief. As the theory of “proxy control” developed in social psychology suggests, many people who experience crisis and corresponding feelings of exclusion, desperation, and hopelessness seek out a savior to recognize their suffering, take control of their seemingly unmanageable situation, and combat the “evil” forces blamed for their problems (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 12–15). When political incumbents confront such crises using bold leadership, they can appear more charismatic to these people (Merolla, Ramos, and Zechmeister Reference Merolla, Ramos and Zechmeister2007). Yet politicians who poorly manage the situation can cause desperate voters to look elsewhere for a hero to rescue them (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 143; Weyland Reference Weyland2003, 843). These circumstances provide an important opportunity for ambitious new leaders to rise up and forge powerful attachments with the suffering people.

I argue that leaders who emerge under these conditions have the potential to cultivate direct and deeply affective bonds by exercising charisma. Importantly, crisis does not produce a charismatic leader; rather, it provides the opportunity for ambitious individuals who seek power to step forward, exert charisma, and form attachments with the suffering citizens. The process of cultivating charismatic attachments includes three components. First, the leader appeals to citizens by directly recognizing their genuine and unwarranted suffering. Crucially, this recognition results in an asymmetrical relationship: The leader directly grants recognition to the followers, such that the latter feel indebted to, rather than empowered by, the former. Using the crisis, the leader calls out the failures of the established regime, recognizes the people’s suffering and perceived exclusion, and vows to personally resolve their misery.

Second, to prove his extraordinary ability to “save” the people, the leader aggressively attacks the “enemies” held responsible for their misery and implements bold, initially successful reforms to improve their condition (Pappas Reference Pappas2012, 4–5; Roberts Reference Roberts2014, 29; Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 242). This impressive performance confirms the followers’ exalted perceptions of their leader but lacks programmatic coherence and sustainability. Instead, the leader’s early success is greatly facilitated by his emergence following the eruption of the crisis, which helps make the leader’s bold countermeasures appear particularly heroic (Weyland Reference Weyland2003, 825). Being at the cusp of favorable economic conditions, such as rising oil prices or a commodity boom, can further facilitate the leader’s enactment of sensational, though short-lived, reforms. And while the audacious character of these policies eventually produces their own decline, the swift, tangible relief they initially provide causes many voters to perceive the leader as extraordinary, if not miraculous.

The third factor required for the cultivation of charismatic attachments is the construction of an emotional, symbol-laden narrative that glorifies the leader alongside other historical protagonists as a hero, vilifies opponents as enemies, and stresses the leader’s mission to rescue and fundamentally transform society. Discourse that frames politics as an existential struggle between good and evil is essential to convert strong popular support into an intensely personal form of “political religion” (Zúquete Reference Zúquete2008, 91). Indeed, the narrative unites the followers against the allegedly malevolent opposition and solidifies their identification with the leader’s redemptive mission. To spin a compelling narrative, the leader draws on personal appeal; achieves constant, direct contact with voters; and ties himself to “sacred figures, divine beings, or heroes” that already form part of the voters’ cultural identity (Willner and Willner Reference Willner and Willner1965, 82). Additionally, the leader dominates public spaces with images, words, music, and other symbols to help reinforce the power and moral superiority of him and his movement (Plotkin Reference Plotkin2002, 24; Zúquete Reference Zúquete2008, 93–103).

Together, these factors consolidate the suffering citizens’ perceptions of the leader’s charisma and foster powerful, unmediated bonds between the leader and his followers. Direct recognition of people’s exclusion and suffering makes followers feel indebted to the leader; bold reforms deliver tangible improvements to the followers’ lives and appear to substantiate the leader’s exceptional capacities; and the symbolic narrative solidifies the leader’s role as the ultimate savior. Figure 2.1 summarizes the factors involved in the initial formation of charismatic attachments. At the outset, a crisis creates favorable conditions for charismatic leaders to seek power. In turn, if one such leader comes forth and recognizes the people’s crisis-induced misery, vows to resolve it through heroic performance, and cultivates a compelling symbolic narrative, the leader can form powerful, long-lasting charismatic attachments with the people.

Figure 2.1. The initial formation of charismatic attachments

Although various studies acknowledge the importance of one or more of the abovementioned characteristics for the initial formation of charismatic bonds, I go a step further to identify two ways in which these factors help perpetuate the bonds when the founder disappears. First, I argue that charismatic attachments do not merely establish an emotional connection between the founder and his followers, but that they also undermine the influence of alternative types of political linkages. For one, charismatic attachments provide the leader with a “Teflon shield” that weakens linkages rooted in the substantive coherence and steady performance of the programs and policies (Merolla and Zechmeister Reference Merolla and Zechmeister2009a, 33). Indeed, the founder’s early, seemingly heroic acts cause the followers to shower him with far more praise than would result from rational evaluations of his performance. Moreover, the followers’ perceptions of his performance as miraculous prevents them from “updating” their beliefs and withdrawing their support when the leader’s unsustainable initiatives begin their inevitable decline, as would occur with programmatic attachments (Achen Reference Achen1992, Reference Achen2002; Downs Reference Downs1957; Fiorina Reference Fiorina1981). Instead, the followers double down on their devotion to the founder, whom they believe will resolve their suffering once again with his superhuman power.

In addition to undermining programmatic attachments, charismatic bonds undercut linkages that develop based on citizens’ participation in organizations affiliated with the movement. In particular, the charismatic leader hinders “horizontal forms of association either in civic or partisan areas” for fear that these grassroots activities will distract from his personalistic authority (Roberts Reference Roberts2014, 27–28). Though the founder may create base-level organizations at the outset to mobilize supporters, these clubs actually serve as centers in which to worship the founder rather than vehicles for grassroots empowerment and citizen participation (Hawkins, Rosas, and Johnson Reference Hawkins, Rosas, Johnson, Smilde and Hellinger2011, 186–87). Furthermore, these organizations serve to generate “a strong top-down quality in the relationship between citizens and politicians” (ibid.). This contrasts markedly with the notion of grassroots empowerment typically engendered by participatory associations (Ellner Reference Ellner2011, 430–31; Samuels and Zucco Reference Samuels and Zucco2015, 758–59). The underdeveloped state of programmatic and organizational attachments significantly increases the difficulty of routinizing followers’ charismatic bonds upon the founder’s death.

Second, I claim that the symbolic narrative initially crafted by the founder plays a crucial role in establishing the followers’ attachments as a stable, enduring, and inherently personalistic identification with the movement. Each component of the narrative – the sanctification of the founder, the demonization of opponents, and the cultivation of a mission of salvation – solidifies the followers’ charismatic identity and shapes their worldview. The symbolic narrative’s quasi-deification of the founder after his death elevates the followers’ exalted perceptions of him and sustains their hope that a protégé will eventually pick up his mission to rescue them, thereby reinforcing their personalistic relationship with the movement (Steffens et al. Reference Steffens, Peters, Alexander Haslam and van Dick2017, 531). The demonization of the movement’s opponents also imbues the followers with the perception that their livelihood is perpetually under attack, “sharply cleaving the electorate along a personality-based axis of competition” (Roberts Reference Roberts2014, 29). In turn, this crystallization of “in” and “out” groups increases the movement’s cohesion and reinforces followers’ perceptions of the founder’s charismatic appeal (Huddy Reference Huddy, Huddy, Sears and Levy2013, 44; Tajfel Reference Tajfel1974, 66–67). Lastly, the promise of salvation outlined in the founder’s mission increases feelings of solidarity among the followers and provides their righteous community with a profound sense of purpose that goes beyond a superficial connection with a popular leader. In short, by glorifying the founder, demarcating the movement’s enemies, and emphasizing this mission to transform society, the symbolic narrative offers the followers “a comprehensive view of the world … [that] aims to shape and purify the collective consciousness, thus bringing a new society and a new humanity here on earth” (Zúquete Reference Zúquete2008, 96).

2.3.2 The Supply Side: Conditions for New Leaders’ Revival of Charismatic Movements

How can new leaders successfully employ the material and symbolic strategies required to reactivate followers’ emotional attachments, revive charismatic movements, and establish independent authority? I argue that three conditions related to both structure and agency shape successors’ ability to achieve this feat: their mode of selection, the presence of a crisis, and the style of leadership they adopt to consolidate power.

To begin, I clarify the theoretical criteria that constitute the “successful” revival of charismatic movements and outline the corresponding observable implications. Theoretically, success entails three factors: The new leader must openly identify himself as the heir of the charismatic founder, rise to the position of chief executive, and achieve widespread popularity. Three observable implications should follow the new leader’s successful revival of the movement: he publicly associates himself with the movement and its founder, becomes the nation’s chief executive through legitimate means, and achieves an approval rating that exceeds 50 percent for a period of at least one year. The third and final implication is important because it suggests that, like the founder, the successor has the capacity to establish and maintain impressive, widespread appeal that reaches beyond the movement’s core base of supporters.

The first condition that facilitates the successful revival of charismatic movements concerns the way in which successors emerge. I distinguish between two types of successors based on this condition: anointed successors and self-starters. Anointed successors, who are often directly handpicked by the founder and immediately take over, seek legitimacy based on the founder’s explicit endorsement. Rather than boasting independent skill and experience, these successors showcase their submissive loyalty to the founder as their most compelling attribute, openly embracing the position of second fiddle. By contrast, self-starters seek power on their own terms, whenever they feel conditions are favorable. Unlike anointed successors, these leaders do not seek the direct endorsement of the founder; instead, they rely on their own resources to leverage the founder’s legacy, depict themselves as true heirs, and revive the movement in their own name.

While the direct endorsement of the beloved founder would appear to advantage anointed successors over self-starters, this bequest of charisma makes it exceedingly difficult for such handpicked disciples to successfully revive the movement. Conversely, self-starter status creates a much more favorable window of opportunity for new leaders to revive charismatic movements under their own authority.

Anointed successors’ struggles to reactivate the followers’ attachments begin with the reluctance of charismatic founders to share power. Because the founders perceive themselves as unparalleled heroes, they hesitate to groom strong deputies and prospective successors (Weber Reference Weber, Roth and Wittich1922/1978, 241–46). To guarantee their predominance and legacy of unmatched power, these leaders tend to treat everyone else in the movement as an underling and surround themselves with sycophants who pose little threat to their “divine” authority. Charismatic leaders also marginalize skilled politicians, who present potential threats to their unmatched superiority (Lasswell Reference Lasswell1948, 101–3). The refusal to nourish a worthy replacement, combined with the determination to eliminate skilled competitors, helps founders consolidate their status as supreme protectors. However, it also results in a scarcity of talented heirs. Indeed, when forced to face their mortality, these leaders are much more likely to select a replacement based on allegiance than skill. Having been followers for years, anointed successors face an uphill battle to become respected leaders in their own right. As fervent disciples, they are likely to demonstrate devout loyalty to the founder but are unlikely to possess the independent strength, self-confidence, and personal appeal to tap into the founder’s deep bonds with the followers.

Compounding the problem of anointed successors’ inadequacy is the time-bound nature of their bid for power. Because they are typically positioned to immediately replace their charismatic predecessors, these new leaders are forced to inherit the founders’ bold policies. While the founder may have used such programs to prove his heroic capacities, the programs are likely to be on the verge of collapse by the time anointed successors take power. The reason is that, for these policies to make a truly remarkable impact, the founder uses resources unsustainably, often draining them. Such behavior makes the founder appear extraordinary (Merolla and Zechmeister Reference Merolla and Zechmeister2011, 30). Yet, due to the rushed, haphazard, and weakly institutionalized nature of the founder’s programs, they are prone to eventual failure. Crucially, the founder delays this outcome by seeking new ways to impress the followers rather than adapting the policies to achieve more sustainable, if modest, progress. This protects the founder’s image, yet it leaves anointed successors – who must also demonstrate extraordinary performance to appear worthy of the founder’s mantle – in a precarious position.

On the one hand, the initial benefits generated by the founder’s actions profoundly shape the followers’ loyalty to the movement in the first place. Thus, any attempt by anointed successors to change these revered policies would appear to betray the founder. Fearing reprisal from the followers, these new leaders therefore tend to be excessively risk-averse, strongly preferring to maintain the status quo rather than enacting a change that could frame them as traitors (Weyland Reference Weyland2002, 5). On the other hand, by the time these successors take power, the early success of the founder’s programs has long waned. Because these leaders struggle to demonstrate their independent abilities, followers are likely to blame them, rather than the beloved founder, for these failures. Moreover, anointed successors typically have no scapegoat to target for the resulting problems (Loxton and Levitsky Reference Loxton, Levitsky, Loxton and Mainwaring2018, 120). They cannot blame the founder, who represents their sole source of legitimacy and the object of the followers’ adoration. Yet, by directly succeeding the founder, there are few, if any, alternative targets to convincingly accuse. Consequently, anointed successors struggle to demonstrate promising potential. In fact, their loyalty to the founder typically constitutes their only redeeming quality in the eyes of the followers.

Scholars of routinization agree that anointed successors face an exceedingly high probability of failure (Kostadinova and Levitt Reference Kostadinova and Levitt2014, 500–1; Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 25–28). However, this fact leads the scholars to conclude that the followers’ charismatic attachments inevitably disintegrate. In contrast, I contend that the disappointing leadership of anointed successors has a minimal effect on the profound, affective nature of the followers’ bonds with the founder – a point that I will highlight in the case of Venezuela in Chapter 4. Moreover, due to this resilience, I argue that it is possible for subsequent leaders to reactivate the followers’ attachments, revive the founder’s transformative mission, and consolidate independent authority.

Self-starters have greater potential to revive charismatic movements because they can avoid two key problems impeding anointed successors. Crucially, because self-starters seek power on their own terms rather than requiring the explicit endorsement of the founder, they need not rise immediately after the founder’s disappearance. Instead, they often choose to bide their time and seek power several years later. This allows the implosion of the founder’s policies and the associated image of inadequacy to fall on someone else, making it easier for self-starters to step out of the founder’s overbearing shadow. Furthermore, the ambitious nature of self-starters makes them more likely to exercise the individual agency necessary to adopt a personalistic style reminiscent of the founder. By rising on their own and harnessing independent ambition, skill, and personal charisma, these successors have the capacity to emerge not as subservient followers, but as leaders in their own right who demonstrate their personal talents and attract the movement’s supporters.

Even so, the success of self-starters is anything but guaranteed. In fact, most of these aspirational leaders fall short of establishing themselves as powerful heirs of the charismatic founder. Two additional conditions greatly facilitate self-starters’ efforts to revive the movement and become its preeminent leader. First, as with the initial formation of charismatic attachments, an exogenous condition – the eruption of an acute crisis – provides an important opportunity for self-starters to reactivate these bonds. Under such circumstances, which are similar to those in which the founder sought power, many people lose their sense of self-efficacy: citizens feel they are unable to control their lives (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 14–19; Merolla and Zechmeister Reference Merolla and Zechmeister2009a, 27–28; Weyland Reference Weyland2003, 825–26). This is especially true of the followers who, as traditionally marginalized people, are likely to suffer disproportionately. A crisis places these individuals – who are adherents of the founder with great faith in his mission of salvation – in a desperate situation that, once again, causes them to look for a leader capable of rescuing them. It also produces excessive optimism in the followers, increasing their willingness to interpret any indication of positive material performance as evidence of the leader’s miraculous powers (Weyland Reference Weyland2003, 825–26). Finally, because a crisis can threaten the livelihood of the followers, it can intensify their identification with the movement and their distrust of outsiders, fostering group cohesion (Huddy Reference Huddy, Huddy, Sears and Levy2013, 761; Tajfel Reference Tajfel1974, 66–67).

The renewed strength of this identity, combined with feelings of low self-efficacy, intensifies followers’ hope for a new hero to save them in a manner reminiscent of the founder and renders it more likely that they see an appealing candidate as the savior they have been waiting for. This condition provides a crucial opportunity for successors to enact the material cue necessary for reactivating the followers’ charismatic attachments: achieving bold performance to demonstrate heroic capacities.

By itself, however, the existence of a crisis is insufficient to reactivate citizens’ charismatic attachments. Self-starters are much more likely to become the movement’s new leader if they also fulfill a second, more subjective condition that depends on their individual agency: using their own skill, ambition, and charisma to “perform” as the people’s savior by adopting and embodying the founder’s personalistic leadership style (Moffitt Reference Moffitt2015, 190). In contrast to organization-building and programmatic development – leadership tactics associated with routinization – this strategy better corresponds to the movement’s preexisting nature and fulfills most followers’ hopes for a new savior. Because it showcases self-starters’ charismatic appeal, it resonates deeply with supporters, who desire a new leader to fill the void left by their beloved founder.

To foster their own affectionate bonds with the followers, self-starters draw on supreme communication skills to bypass intermediary institutions and establish frequent, direct contact with the followers (Burns Reference Burns1978, 20). These politicians also incorporate symbols associated with the founder into their speech, dress, and gestures to appear as genuine heirs (Haslam, Reicher, and Platow Reference Haslam, Reicher and Platow2011, 137). Finally, they frame their actions as crucial steps for fulfilling the founder’s mission of transformation and claim personal credit for any shred of success. By adopting a personalistic leadership style reminiscent of the founder, self-starters can effectively implement the second, symbolic cue required for reactivating followers’ attachments.

In combination with the impressive impact of their heroic accomplishments amid crisis conditions, self-starters’ symbolic gestures can persuade followers to view them as contemporary heroes of the movement. The material and symbolic accomplishments also attract new followers (e.g., from newly marginalized groups or younger generations), expanding self-starters’ support base and consolidating their image as truly paradigm-shifting leaders – veritable reincarnations of the charismatic founder.

In sum, new leaders are most likely to successfully revive the movement in their own name by fulfilling three conditions: coming to power as self-starters rather than as anointed successors; taking advantage of a crisis, which primes citizens to look for a savior; and tapping into the followers’ attachments by using their own skill and charisma to adopt the founder’s personalistic leadership style. These conditions provide successors with the opportunity to enact daring policies to “prove” their superhuman potential while co-opting the founder’s legacy to reinvigorate the movement and consolidate follower support. Figure 2.2 illustrates these three conditions.

Figure 2.2. Flowchart: Conditions for the successful revival of charismatic movements

2.3.3 Integrating Perspectives: The Spasmodic Trajectories of Charismatic Movements

Existing studies suggest that the personalistic nature of charismatic movements has little enduring impact on political systems. In many cases, charismatic leaders arise during extraordinary crises, accumulate impressive but short-lived power, and disappear just as quickly, as society returns to its former routine (Weber Reference Eisenstadt and Eisenstadt1968, 22). Even if a charismatic movement survives, the routinization thesis indicates that the original leader’s charisma has little influence on the movement’s subsequent trajectory, as his magnetic appeal transforms into a depersonalized form of authority. If anything, routinized movements are thought to have a stabilizing impact on political systems, as the movements discard their charismatic nature and become institutionalized parties, gradually accumulating programmatic strength over time (Converse Reference Converse1969; Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 25–29). In this sense, while charisma acts as a “fulcrum” that facilitates the transition to a new institutionalized system, the system soon becomes autonomous (Tucker Reference Tucker1968, 734).

My theory challenges both of these arguments, contending instead that charismatic movements can dramatically shape the political system for decades after the founder disappears. Integrating the perspectives of followers and leaders, I demonstrate that these movements establish a tumultuous cycle of politics in which periods of intense personalistic leadership, when the movement is revived, alternate with periods of leaderless fragmentation, in which the movement is latent. Thus, unlike routinized parties, which strengthen party institutions over time, I show that charismatic movements repeatedly undermine those institutions.

On the demand side, followers’ affective attachments lay the foundation for the fitful trajectories of charismatic movements. Because these attachments develop into a resilient political identity that coincides with a prominent personalistic cleavage, they provide subsequent leaders with the opportunity to win a stable base of support when conditions are ripe. This base may not constitute a majority of voters (often, it encompasses about one-third of the population), but it sustains the movement during latent periods in which the political environment is not receptive to strong, charismatic leadership and the movement is out of power (Taylor Reference Taylor1989, 761). During such periods, followers’ attachments to the movement may be “dormant” and the corresponding cleavage depoliticized; in other words, the followers remain passionately devoted to the founder and his mission of salvation, but they feel that there is no current leader who embodies the founder and therefore feel unrepresented in the political arena. Then, when conditions become more conducive to charismatic revival, this reservoir of support provides an important “reserve army” waiting to be mobilized by self-starters who rise up and associate themselves with the founder and movement in their quest for power.Footnote ³

In addition to the resilience of charismatic attachments, their profoundly emotional nature – which remains intact over time, even when the attachments are dormant – entices self-starters to adopt personalistic, rather than programmatic or organizational strategies to secure the followers’ loyalty. Thus, whereas extant studies argue that the “rootedness” of citizens’ loyalty facilitates the development of an institutionalized party (Levitsky Reference Levitsky2003; Loxton and Levitsky Reference Loxton, Levitsky, Loxton and Mainwaring2018; Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 24; Panebianco Reference Panebianco1988), I argue precisely the opposite: paradoxically, citizens’ resilient attachments can serve to perpetuate the charismatic and volatile character of the movement.

This is because, while citizens’ attachments to the movement persevere, leaders who succeed the founder can only revive charismatic movements in an intermittent and temporary manner. Similar to the founder, successors seek power under conditions that occur sporadically. For example, they tend to emerge after the eruption of serious crises, when the followers feel desperate for a hero to pick up the founder’s baton. These new leaders are also more likely to succeed when they can take advantage of favorable political and socioeconomic circumstances to enact bold, initially impressive reforms that “prove” their worthiness to the followers. Since such conditions do not occur regularly, charismatic movements cannot unfold in the stable, linear manner of routinized parties.

Furthermore, while the bold performance of self-starters helps secure their place as charismatic heirs of the founder, it also plants the seeds for the eventual decline of their leadership. Symbolically, while portraying themselves as saviors initially resonates with the followers, these leaders struggle to maintain their heroic image for long – especially as the crisis they valiantly promise to resolve begins to subside, along with the followers’ acute desire to be rescued (Madsen and Snow Reference Madsen and Snow1991, 22–23; Weyland Reference Weyland2002, 44). More importantly, the successors’ seemingly extraordinary “reform packages,” though crucial for proving their charismatic power at the outset, undermine the institutions responsible for ensuring that the policies are enforced over time (Bersch Reference Bersch2016, 207; Levitsky and Murillo Reference Levitsky and Murillo2013, 100). In short, the same strategies that enable self-starters to revive the movement also bring about their political demise.

In sum, the dramatic but unsustainable rise of new leaders, made possible by the followers’ enduring affective loyalty, causes charismatic movements to develop spasmodic trajectories. Thus, whereas existing studies view charismatic leadership as a temporary disruption of “politics as usual,” I argue that the volatility caused by charismatic movements is self-reinforcing. Due to the founder’s charismatic prowess, the followers’ personalistic attachments solidify into a powerful and enduring political identity that divides society along a cleavage based on citizens’ allegiance to or rejection of the charismatic founder. While anointed successors who immediately replace the founder cannot fill his shoes, their poor leadership generates a crisis that causes the followers to search for another savior – a charismatic self-starter – to revive the founder’s mission of salvation and provide them with much-needed relief. Under these conditions, self-starters are well positioned to fulfill the followers’ expectations by embodying the founder’s charismatic authority and implementing audacious policies.

Initially, the policies proposed and implemented by self-starters appear to obliterate the crisis. This reinvigorates citizens’ profound reverence for the movement – deepening the stability of their attachments – reenergizes the personalistic cleavage, and bestows a charismatic sheen on the new leader. Yet, because these policies trade long-term sustainability for early success, they are eventually bound to fail and bring the self-starter down with them. Under these circumstances, many followers become disillusioned with the once-impressive self-starter, their attachments temporarily lose their political intensity, and the movement recedes again. The political system then experiences another power vacuum with no leader to guide the way. Nevertheless, citizens’ quasi-religious devotion to the charismatic founder and his transformative mission persists – as does the aversion of non-followers to the movement. Moreover, the crisis generated by each new successor’s decline generates suffering among the followers that, once again, compels them to look for a new and more convincing replacement to embody the founder’s heroic leadership. This process produces a cycle of deeply entrenched political and economic volatility.

Figure 2.3 illustrates the emergence and revival of charismatic movements. As demonstrated in the figure, the movement emerges after the eruption of a crisis with the ascension of the founder. In this context, the leader exerts charisma by recognizing the suffering of individuals who feel they have been marginalized, vowing to resolve their suffering through the enactment of bold and seemingly miraculous policies, and crafting a symbolic narrative that promotes a quasi-religious mission of salvation. The leader’s charismatic signals resonate deeply with the suffering people, who crave a savior to resolve their distress. This results in the establishment of deep, charismatic bonds that catapult the founder and his movement into power. The founder enjoys highly concentrated and personalistic authority until he is unceremoniously removed – either by death (e.g., Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez), force (e.g., Thaksin Shinawatra), or strong pressure (e.g., Alberto Fujimori).

Figure 2.3. Illustration of the emergence and revival of charismatic movements

With the founder’s disappearance, many followers feel “leaderless,” and the political relevance of their attachments declines. Crucially, however, the followers’ deeply emotional identification with the movement and founder does not disappear; instead, it persists while becoming politically dormant. During this leaderless period, the movement endures, sustained by followers’ resilient identity.

Finally, in the midst of a crisis (whether it is the same crisis that erupted upon the founder’s disappearance or a new crisis), an ambitious self-starter rises and depicts himself as a virtual reincarnation of the founder. The self-starter achieves this by expressing her own charisma through promising similarly daring policies and weaving herself into the movement’s symbolic narrative as the founder’s true heir. This reactivates citizens’ charismatic attachments, which enables the self-starter to revive the movement and consolidate power as its new leader. Eventually, the daring yet unsustainable policies of the successor collapse, leading to her demise, and causing the cycle of charismatic movement recession and resurgence to repeat.