Leadership and populism: A parallel reading of Hannah Arendt and Franz Neumann

Abstract

Populism was the Cambridge Dictionary's new word of the year 2017. The surge in interest reflects recent events such as the UK Brexit referendum, the arrival of Donald Trump at the helm of the US presidency, or the electoral victories of self-styled anti-establishment leaders throughout Europe and the World. The first part of this article explores the scientific status of populism. It concludes that the widespread use of populism as a term obscures a number of epistemic and conceptual limitations, arguing that 'trouble-in-democracy' is the more pertinent and more penetrating lens. The configuration of this populism focus has consequences on the definition of populist leadership, which is dominated by the notion of charisma. Through engagement with Hannah Arendt and her fellow exile Franz Neumann the article proposes an alternative phenomenological framework for apprehending populist leadership. To do this, it relies on the analogies between populist and totalitarian leadership. Finally, it maps out the priority areas for the deployment of populist discourse and practice, arguing that this is where non-populist (responsible) leaders should be focusing their efforts.

Josh Hawley meets Igor Stravinsky: A leadership symphony

“…At that school he imbibed Roman Catholic orthodoxy through what their website says is, "a comprehensive study of the liberal arts and a strong commitment to the Jesuit mission of service to the church and community." The school also declares: "Here, we strive to develop 'men for others,' men distinguished by their competence, conscience and compassion" (Rockhurst, 2021). Through his liberal arts education Hawley encountered a resource including historical, sociological, philosophical, and creative works.…”

The truths and falsehoods of post-truth leaders

“…As soon as followers stop seeing their leader as an extraordinary person, his charisma disappears. This is a constant danger, as the leader’s authority is tied to the person, rather than being rooted in a stable ideology (Sanders, 2019). Being a charismatic leader, therefore, implies a need to endlessly demonstrate that one does not belong to the reality of ordinary people.…”

“…However, as others have also noted (e.g. Sanders (2019) and Spector (2020)), it would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that what we are witnessing today is a new form of leadership. Discussions about post-truth leadership tend to miss the fact that the relationship between leadership and truth is, and always has been, a complex one.…”

Made a Moby-Dick: an Organizational Reading of Paulo Guedes’ Privatist Monomania as a Discursive Strategy of Neoliberal Authoritarian Leadership in Brazil

“…Thus, authoritarian leadership can come from anyone providing others trivialize the evil it defends or practices -it does not necessarily involve being a heroine or hero with special charisma. It is in this sense that Sanders (2019) argues that "Arendt's major reservations with relation to charismatic leadership coincide with his general aversion to 'heroic leadership'" (p. 758). According to Arendt, it is not the aura of leaders with their personal (miraculous, bellicose, intellectual) achievements that should be the focus of apprehension, but the fact that the "credibility of totalitarian rulers essentially depends on the organization they lead," that is, on people's deliberate blindness in letting them lead the organizations they direct or on the incapacities of the opposition to confront them" (Baehr, 2017, p. 229).…”