Charismatic leaders and ignorant people in modern Indian democracy

By Harasankar Adhikari 

Political gatherings are one of the most significant phenomena in Indian democracy, a recurring aspect that we regularly witness. Whenever a particular political party calls for a meeting at a specific venue on a designated date, a large crowd often congregates. The size of the crowd varies, but the ruling party often boasts the largest gatherings. Is this due to the political awareness and literacy of the people, their paramount interest and faith in democracy, the charisma of the party's leader, or the fear tactics employed?

In reality, the main participants in these gatherings are often working-class individuals and the poor, many of whom are ignorant of the purpose of the meeting. If asked why they attended or what they learned from the event, most would respond with little to no understanding. Many attend simply for a packet of lunch or pocket money, while others participate out of fear of local party representatives, who exert additional pressure. These gatherings often serve as a show of strength, intended to intimidate opponents by showcasing apparent mass support for the party in power and to project voter satisfaction with the party’s programs and policies. In this sense, they function as a democratic tactic of advertisement.

As Thomas Carlyle aptly remarked, “Modern democracy has produced millions of fools who vote, other men who go to the parliament and palaver, and, inevitably, the few who act.” Leaders of political parties often present themselves as catalysts for societal change. However, as Tolstoy warned, “There is no greater fool than he who thinks he makes history and believes others when they assure him he does.”

A political leader can be identified as anyone occupying an established political position or any individual whose political activity significantly influences the behavior of a group more than the average member. People choose or follow leaders due to various influences. But does the massive turnout at these gatherings reflect the charisma of the leader?

According to Max Weber, “Charisma is the quality that enables one man or woman, without measurable traits far exceeding those of their followers, without coming from any ruling group or holding any office, to exercise surpassing magnetism and gather a tremendous following. Charisma is non-rational, nontraditional, and non-bureaucratic.” It is a unique quality that sets an individual apart from ordinary people and often appears almost supernatural. It involves continuous demonstrations of heroism, striking successes, and the ability to inspire prophecy. A charismatic leader challenges the existing political leadership, government, and even established laws.

However, contemporary political leaders, irrespective of their political affiliations—left or right—do not align with Max Weber’s description of charisma. For instance, Pandit Nehru, despite his uncertain character, was rational, skeptical, and impatient with the adulation he received as a “miracle man.” Yet, in his own words, he said, “I drew these tides of men into my hands and wrote my will across the sky in stars.”

Modern political leaders often regard themselves as demigod-like figures, akin to Hitler. Their followers, in turn, worship them, either to gain personal benefits or out of fear. Today’s political environment is often directionless, dominated by fear and threats. People frequently ask, “What will we do?” “What is there to live for now and in the future?” “Who will save us?”

Political leaders, regardless of how they acquire their positions, must deliver results that exceed the expectations of ordinary people. Their survival depends on their performance—unless they lose their skill or fortune. These leaders must act in accordance with their constitutional oaths and the principles of democracy. To truly succeed, they must consolidate their positions through sustained efforts and genuine service.