Between Ratio and Charisma - Max Weber's Views on Plebiscitary Leadership Democracy BY SVEN ELIAESON Max Weber and Politics Nazi rule, depending on whether the functional or romantic irrational aspects of his crucial con­ General cept of plebiscitary leadership democracy is In Germany Weber for a long time - until the re­ stressed. cent work on the Max-Weber-Gesamtausgabe re­ Evidently a balanced account of Weber is also ally got started, with the resulting vitalization of a rare thing in the literature; there is still a sheer German Weberology - remained largely a contro­ lack of dependable standard handbooks on versial political character. Weber has served Weber. His picture has been only partly painted many purposes, as the cultural Hero who migh and his production portioned out in bits and piec­ have saved Germany from the disasters of the es.' Weimar-republic, had he only lived longer; as a Intellectual migrations is an important back­ typical representative of the unawareness among ground factor to this scattered appearance of German intellectuals of the dangers of the au­ Weber. Its role has been discussed by H S Hughes thoritarian rule, in accordance with the peculiar­ (1975), Martin Jay (1973) and others, but exactly ities of the German societal development how this variable should be treated remains un­ (deutscher Sonderweg); and as a founding father clear. For example: both Marcuse and Bendix of the new Federal republic after the last war, in­ were German emigrees but played very different spiring the Heuss brothers. roles in relation to Weber, as indicated by their In the United Kingdom the methodological as­ respective contributions to the 1964 congress in pects of Weber have been highly appreciated, Heidelberg, dedicated to the centenary of sometimes also here in an even hagiographic Weber's birth. In general, those with a serious manner, regarding him as an up-to-date-guide to scientific interest in Weber seem to be unaware of modern research procedure. his contributions to the ordered discussions in In the USA the main role of Weber seems to and on politics, and those who take up these very have been in pioneering several substantial fields aspects sometimes seem to regard them as a rea­ of research, such as the sociology of religion, the­ son to neglect Weber scientifically or even crit­ ory of administration and bureaucray, industrial icize them as a sort of substitute for scientific crit­ sociology, and so forth, although there is a ten­ icism. sion between empiricist and theoreticist interpre­ In this essay I will rather try to stress the ratio­ tations of Weber in the New World. nal or at least functional element in Weber's po­ A scholar whose work is so rich that it can be litical analysis, especially his typological ap­ interpreted in so diversified directions is not that proach to charismatic, plebiscitary, leadership. easy to grasp. In methodological matters Weber In Reinhard Bendix' authoritative book on emerges both as a positivist, supporting the theo­ Weber's substantial sociology a rather retouched retical side in the controversy over method, and Weber is presented. "At his hands Weber's na­ an antipositivist, launching the method of inter­ tionalism and his emphasis on the role of charis­ pretative understanding (Verstehen). In politics matic leadership in a democracy appear far too he is both pioneering parliamentary democracy in blend and reassuring. The sharpness of the tone Germany, as well as forestalling authoritarian and the brutality and desperation of the thought 318 Sven Eliaeson have been flattened out; what emerges is a Weber quently included as appendix. Accordingly, cut down after forty years to the mild and well- moreover, Winckelmann tried to compose a ordered measure of America in I960",2 HS Staatssoziologie (sociology of the state) from both Hughes writes in a review. Weber's political and scientific writings. This un­ On the other hand, it remained for a long time dertaking has been much criticized, by Mommsen an obvious risk, as Bendix points out, that and others, as an "Icarian flight".' Since WuG is Weber's scientific writings in Germany would merely a torso and Weber himself never elaborat­ have been totally put ad acta and left to foreign ed the political level in WuG systematically, there judgement only. However, that impression cer­ is some leeway for extrapolation, indeed compli­ tainly no longer stands, since German Weberol- cating the modern evaluation of Weber.5 ogy indeed catches up rapidly in the wake of the MWG-efforts and the debate on Weber's Ge­ Weber - a frustrated politicón samtdeutung, initiated by FH Tenbruck's thor­ ough article in Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie Weber's call for value-freedom (Wertfreiheit) has und Sozialpsychologie (1975), with contributions often been misinterpreted. Although he does use by W Mommsen, W Hennis, W Schluchter etc.3 the term it is in reality qualified to mean value- The problem of science vs politics in Weber's relation. (Wertbezogenheit). Weber did not, for production is, at least in practice accentuated example, say that scientists should not take nor­ when the very subject is political. Furthermore, mative stands. On the contrary, the methodolog­ there is no clear line of demarcation between ical consequence of his value-theory is that the Weber's political and scientific writings in the scientist should and must adopt normative stands field of politics. In Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - not necessarily his own - in order to conduct (WuG) Weber treats political matters in a purely empirical investigations. But values and facts are classificatory manner, outlining his ideal-types of not to be mixed. Weber's position is doubtful different forms of legitimacy, like Carl von Lin­ from a methodological perspective, since it seems naeus viewed flowers in nature. In his war-time to exclude the possibility of pure empirical expla­ articles in the Frankfurter Zeitung Weber con­ natory theory, as WG Runciman (1972) and oth­ ceives of political, affairs in an empirical and sci­ ers have pointed out. However, we do not recog­ entific way, but here his aim is the normative one, nize the naive positivist Weber who Alvin to give policy recommendations to the leaders of Gouldner (1964) and others attack.6 the country. Thus these so called lagespolitische Right or wrong, Weber's methodology still Kommentaren (comments on current politics) are marks a "break" or at least transition in relation value-oriented. We might take them as examples to both earlier forms of inductivist and empiricist of "normative empirical theory" (i.e. instrumen­ historicism, as well as to natural law normati- tal means-end-analysis), applied on a situational vism. Moreover, Weber's procedure is well in line level. There is, moreover, a third level of analysis with a long tradition of normative empirical theo­ in Weber's political writings, as when he writes ry, to be distinguished from purely explanatory about Germany and Russia in World politics, a empirical theory, the former still dominating in sort of conjectural analysis neither ephemeral modern economically inspired policy analysis, its daily politics, nor scientific classification only, roots originally stemming from Hobbes and Ma- rather analyses with a "middle-range" time-hori­ chiavelli.7 zon of - let's say - a couple of decades. Maybe In consistence with Weber's reactions against the famous East of Elbe-studies on the Polish "Systemsucht" we do not find any theory "prop­ migrant farm workers in the Eastern border area er" in Weber's production, although he never­ is the best example of this sort of middle-analysis theless is a most important classic in what is con­ in the political sphere.4 veniently referred to as "political theory", in­ The boundaries between the different types of spiring both Michels and Schumpeter in their analysis is not that clear after all. Joh. Winckel- reflections on competitive elites.8 mann has argued that some of Weber's articles, Weber simply had the intellectual strength and for example those collected under the common ti­ honesty to unite strong political commitments tle "Parlament und Regierung in neugeordneten with unbiassed search for truth - and keep these Deutschland", should be seen as a draft (Rohent- inclinations apart! wurf), preliminary version, for WuG. In Winckel- mann's editions of Weber's WuG they are conse­ Between Ratio and Charisma 319 Weber's political values to collide in a concrete analysis. Nevertheless, Weber was a dedicated liberal even if he was pes­ since Weber's whole methodological procedure simistic about the future of liberalism. He was rests on value-relation and his philosophy of concerned with the problems of freedom (freiheit- value does not provide us with any scientific liche Ordnung, is here a typical German term method for the proper choice between the values with a certain intrinsic ambiguity) in an age of serving as points of departure in alternative anal­ growing bureaucratization. However, he despised yses, adjusted to competing value-hierarchies, it the nostalgic visions of classical liberalism. In the is quite illuminating to scrutinize Weber's own days of Weber there were some tensions revealed value-hierarchy, in order to understand his policy between vision and reality which the classics were recommendations and the degree to which they lucky to be unaware of. Historically speaking, are scientifically well-founded. mass democracy - a fairly late phenomenon - and David Beetham, in his authoritative study on individual rights are two different "projects". Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics Moreover, since this secularized views on democ­ (1974, especially pl4 and p54), speaks of a cer­ racy left no room for the normative metaphysics tain ambivalence between Weber's nationalism of the "democratic spirit" he saw no necessary and his liberalism.