The media coverage of the death of Nelson Mandela and retirement of Sachin Tendulkar brought back the memory of an old essay written ‘on charisma’ by German sociologist Max Weber. I asked a German colleague how many charismatic personalities he knows in politics in his country. He responded somewhat indirectly, “There are some, but usually in Germany parties are more important than individuals.” When I hinted at Hitler, he said that Hitler played a great part in forming a distaste of ‘charismatic’ people. He added that many if not most Germans feel uneasy about populist leaders; and any attempt to revitalize them is met with strong enough opposition. He found it somewhat amusing to note that approval ratings of Hitler are quite high among Indians.
The leadership of recent governments (Manmohan Singh was PM at the time of writing) has not been marked by any vivid or memorable personal quality. Our current Prime Minister is a man of modest demeanour and speech and does not make a great impression either in front of camera or on radio. He has been target of sarcastic and other types of distasteful personal comments. He even complained once that he only get respect from international community. Perhaps he forgot his early days when media pundits were extremely warm to him. It was said that he is the most educated since Nehru and least corrupt since Shashtri.
Over time, his inability to leave ‘impression’ in public only added to his falling stocks. It is easy to understand why people do not show much enthusiasm for a “weak” prime-minister but it is somewhat paradoxical that many among those who are now uneasy about a weak leadership were first dismayed and then embittered by style of functioning of Mrs. Indira Gandhi when she kept the nation in thrall. The students of history or psychology have to tell us why a person who is so rudely disillusioned by one charismatic personality quickly find himself embracing another one?
A system governed by rules or customs is at best can be a stable system. It can hardly be attractive to a generation which is obsessed with change and alternatives. A stable system can not change itself; and if a change is desired, it needs a push from outside or an strong individual initiative from within which set the change it motion. It looks normal to me that appeal of charisma is stronger among people who are desperate for change; they will search for heroes and in their yearning for helow, might even end up creating some from people with feet of clay. The appeal for change is not likely to recede very time soon especially when other institutions of societies fails to show any improvement election after election.
The transformation of a society from an aristocratic or a hierarchical one to a democratic one has always been sustained by charismatic people or heroes. Tocqueville thought, rightly or wrongly, that unlike in aristocracy, heroes or hero worshippers have no proper place in democracies. In a democracy, according to Tocqueville, Heroes, whenever they arose will sooner or later turn into despots. Given that we have had couple of examples, the lack of heroes and charismatic leaders in our democracy may not be such a bad thing and probably a desirable goal.
The charisma, by which I mean a personal quality which makes a person irresistible to many and ensures unquestionable loyalty and devotion of followers to a leader is on decline everywhere in the world. There are no equivalents of Nehru, Churchil, or de Gaulle today. To be sure, there are leaders, in India and elsewhere, who are quite popular, but their appeal are rather limited in both time and numbers. Nonetheless, it is significant and likely to increase, at least on factional lines. Generally there is tendency that charisma is waning in democracies and this waning of charisma might be a healthy thing for democracies.
People are attracted to charismatic people not only because they posses certain qualities but also because they desire the very same qualities in themselves. In a village, where violence and threat of its use are often used to settle disputes, people admire strong and violent people and often project them as role models for their children to follow. Similarly, in IIT Bombay (indeed on any university in India) students who do well in ‘entrepreneurship’ and able to churn out a confident public appearance are seen with both envy and admiration by most if not all in student community. Academic skills are rarely admired if not ill-treated on our campuses. In cities, similar mentality is on display among those who wants ‘development’ as any rate. For them an authority who can rule them with iron hand — euphemism is “the one who gets thing done” — is more acceptable than one who gets work done through procedures and rules. It does not matter how many rules and institutions have been weakened and subverted when the “thing” was being done. The destruction of Civil Services during Indira Gandhi regime would serve us a good lesson if we are willing to learn from it.
The prevalent lack of charisma among political class these days is compensated by glorification of few dead charismatic leaders. Various political leaders have been erecting the statues of heroes, perhaps to make people feel “proud” about themselves and to raise their own charismatic profiles. Although those who do not have blue blood turns themselves into laughing-stock when they mimic their high-caste colleagues. It speaks well of a society if it keeps memories of its worthy members alive and does not suffer from amnesia. If they do not, it points to a psychological decay and an apparent lack of self-respect.
When the prevalent cultural idioms arouse the feeling of inferiority and worthlessness, one tries to find solace in symbols of potency and perfection. People are greatly attracted towards those representing ‘perfection’ (sadhu, sants and godmen, even a period of history, Vedic math?) and omnipotence (authoritative leaders who gets thing done, sports personalities who wins). The psychologist Sudhir Kakar explains the tendency.
The need to bestow ‘mana’ on our superiors and leaders in order to partake of the mana ourselves, and unconscious attempt to restore the narcissistic perfection of infancy, ‘You are perfect but I am a part of you’ is ofcourse a universal tendency. In India, the automatic reverence for superiors is a nearly universal psychological ‘fact’… Leaders at every level of society and politics, but particularly the patriarchal elders of the extended family and jati groups, take on an emotional salience independent of any realistic evaluation of their performance, let alone acknowledgement of their all too human being. When it comes to leadership in the large social institutions of business and government in India, charisma plays and unusually significant role. The search for leaders of purity and authority, and their idealization, is vividly manifest in the sphere of religion. 
One should not underestimate the urge of such potent symbols among our people. Dr Ambedkar — unlike many from his generation his speeches and writing were free from wishful thinking — was troubled with our weakness for charismatic people. He warned in constitutional assembly,
The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness... This caution is far more necessary in the case, of India than in the case of any other country, for in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
Charismatic people can hardly show any respect for rules and regulation which should govern a democratic system. If they did, they would not be charismatic in the first place. For a charismatic person, the rules and other institutions are a mere hindrance in his path which should be removed to achieve whatever he has set his mind on. The aim may be ill conceived or self-defeating but if the decision has already been made in favor of change or alternative, then why should one care to ponder over the potential costs? Our obsessive and increasing zeal to create alternative of existing institution in one go over that painfully slow process of improving them bit by bit may prove to be extremely costly in the end. Alternatives in society (as newness in science) is not discovered merely because one has a great desires to do so or simply because the lives of great many people will be improved by their existence.
A nation obsessed with personalities does not spend much of its time worrying about its institutions. Parliament and its affairs consume a great deal of our intellectual energy. But parliament is not the only institution, even the most important one, for such a unique treatment. There are others such as Courts, Police, Army, Hospitals, Universities which are extremely important. Their roles for the health of society can hardly be overemphasized. History tells us that the charismatic people are not so much of sustainer of institutions as they are the destroyer of them.
Modern societies have institutions which can also be charismatic; admired and respected by public. A student wrote on his facebook page that he thought in his childhood that IITs are so respected that one has to call them IIT jee. While encountering a student accused of cheating by his teaching assistants, instructor asked the crying student, Would people respect IITs if they come to know this is what student do here? It was a refreshing moment of some delight seeing someone is concerned about the dignity and not just the efficiency of his institute.
There seems to be a time where people respected public institutions. Remembering his childhood, Andre Beteille recounts that Congress party had a certain aura of charisma around it. The assault on its dignity by its own “charismatic” members and subsequent corrosion of its image is matter of pain to some people who sees it more than a political party, something of a national heritage. Parliament also enjoyed a great deal of respect of people and whenever many of them visited Delhi, they also visited the parliament in the spirit of pilgrimage. How many people will go to visit parliament in the same spirit? Indeed, it has been a long time since I have heard any word of praise for our institutions.
The English political scientist Walter Begehot distinguished between dignified and efficient part of English constitution. This can be extended to almost all institutions of society; an institute needs both. And like a person, it needs to be efficient and able to protect its dignity by a mindless assault from its own members. Here the role of charismatic people can be crucial. It has been said that Nehru kept the parliament in thrall during the debate by the force of his personality. Keeping parliament in thrall is one matter, letting others assaulting its dignity in open, and even participating in it joyfully, is quite another. A new parliament is going to be formed. I will speak nothing about the efficiency; but one hopes that its new members — indeed members of any institute — even if they care little about their own dignity and image, will not act in a way which irreversibly takes away a part of dignity of their institute.
 The inner world, A psychoanalytic study of childhood and society in India, Sudhir Kakar. Fourth edition, pp.162-3. Oxford University Press.
 The ones who stayed behind, Ramachandra Guha, Outlook http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?222695