Searching for the truth Issues 28 - Documentation Center of Cambodia

100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50
Black
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Number 28, April 2002
man whose deeds were nothing short of the utter reduction
of a country of seven million people into mass killing
fields. It is difficult, however, to explain how this
man, whom some have called “worse than Hitler” and
a “genocidal maniac” (Chandler, 1999, p. 4), was able
to lead a political and armed movement to national power.
His military triumph in April 1975 paved the way for
him to impose his vision of “a collectivist agrarian
utopia” (Thayer, 1997, p. 14) on the entire nation.
What made Pol Pot a charismatic leader in the
eyes of his followers? And, why did Pol Pot, whose
political career seemed all but over when he was
driven from power in 1979 and when his horrific
crimes against his own people became known to the
world, continue to command respect from his core
followers virtually up until his death in 1998? To
answer these questions, it is necessary to understand the
phenomenon of charisma, the basis for charismatic
authority, the conditions under which charismatic
leadership often arises, and the characteristics that are
typical of charismatic leaders. To understand Pol Pot as
a charismatic leader capable of appealing to the hearts
and minds of his followers, it is also necessary to
place him inside a Cambodian context.
Charismatic Leadership Theory
The word charisma is derived from a Greek word
meaning “gift of grace.” For years, social scientists
have analyzed and debated the origin of charisma and
why people gravitate toward charismatic leaders.
Influential sociologist Max Weber was one of the first
to study the theory of charismatic leadership. According
to Weber, social actions are controlled and directed by
a general belief on the part of the members of a society
that a legitimate social order exists. The probability
that social behavior will be oriented in terms of that
order constitutes the basis for its authority. Weber
postulated that there were three ways to convert power
into legitimate authority: rational, traditional, and charismatic,
and that each type of authority was validated
differently. Established orders such as educational
36
Searching for the Truth ⎯ PUBLIC DEBATE
institutions or courts of law give rise to rational authority.
Traditional authority arises when leader and follower
relationships such as parent/child, teacher/student, or
officer/soldier are bounded by long-standing traditions.
Traditional and rational bases of authority are not effective
forms of authority to bring social or organizational changes.
Charismatic authority, on the other hand, is part
of the expression of schismatic tendencies in society.
In contrast to legal or traditional authority, charismatic
authority is the antithesis of routine activities and
represents the desire for disruption and change of the
prevailing social order. It is a necessary part of the
dialectic between the human need for structure and the
equally human need for variation and innovation in
society. Charismatic authority is different from
rational or traditional authority in that it spawns not
from established orders or traditions, but rather from
the special trust the charismatic leader induces in his
followers, the peculiar powers he exhibits, and the
unique qualities he possesses. According to Weber, it
is difficult for charismatic leaders to maintain their
authority because followers must continue to legitimize
this authority. There is a need for the charismatic leader
to constantly exhibit leadership performance to his
followers to reinforce the legitimacy of his authority.
Several theoretical frameworks have been put forth
to explain the crucial elements that give rise to charismatic
leadership. Our psychological sense of self-worth or
self-esteem is a function of the status of our identifications
with certain self-objects. These self-objects may
be tangible (i.e., a social class to which we belong or
a car we drive) or intangible (i.e., a belief or a cause).
When the status of the self-objects with which we
identify increases, our self-esteem increases. When
the status of the self-objects with which we identify
diminishes in value, our self-esteem diminishes. Effective
leaders elevate the status of the self-objects with which
their followers identify, raising their followers’ selfesteem
to new heights. When followers identify with
a leader, and that leader enhances their self-esteem,
Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam)