Charisma in <scp>Right?Wing</scp> Populism: Comparing the View of the Leader and Followers within the Swiss People’s Party

The ‘charismatic leader’ is a recurring topic within the literature on populist radical right parties (PRRPs), arguing that charisma important for success of these parties. However, most studies assess charismatic leadership only through perception leaders' followers and make no statement perspectives their role party institutionalisation. This article compares supply demand sides by drawing interviews with so-called leader Swiss People's Party (SVP) – Christoph Blocher local, regional national representatives. shows assessing both contributes to better understanding its importance internal in institutionalised PRRPs. case SVP further demonstrates successful institutionalisation strong organisational structure party's durability less dependent could lead efforts depersonalisation. Der ‘charismatische Leader’ ist ein wiederkehrendes Thema der Literatur über rechtspopulistische Parteien wobei argumentiert wird, dass Charisma für den Erfolg dieser wichtig ist. In meisten Studien werden charismatische Führungspersönlichkeiten nur aus Sicht Anhänger bewertet; hingegen keine Aussagen die Perspektiven und ihre Rolle Institutionalisierung Partei formuliert. Dieser Artikel vergleicht Angebots- Nachfrageseite von anhand Interviews mit dem sogenannten charismatischen Führer Schweizerischen Volkspartei - lokalen, regionalen nationalen Parteivertretern. zeigt, Betrachtung beider zu einem besseren Verständnis seiner Bedeutung interne Führung institutionalisierten PRRPs beiträgt. Fall zeigt zudem, eine erfolgreiche starke Organisationsstruktur Beständigkeit weniger Führungspersönlichkeit abhängig macht Bemühungen um Entpersonalisierung führen können. Le ‘leader charismatique’ est un thème récurrent dans la littérature sur les partis populistes de droite (PRRP), où l'on argumente que le charisme pour succès ces partis. Cependant, plupart des études n'évaluent leaders charismatiques du point vue partisans et ne formulent pas conclusion perspective leur rôle l'institutionnalisation parti. Cet compare l'offre demande base d'entretiens avec soi-disant charismatique l'Union démocratique centre (UDC) représentants L'article démontre l'examen deux contribue à une meilleure compréhension son PRRP institutionnalisés. cas l'UDC montre en outre qu'une institutionnalisation parti organisationnelle solide rendent pérennité moins dépendante charismatique. Within scholarly populism, we find an ongoing debate about significance Scholars often describe as essential feature (Zaslove, 2004; Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008). Others identify factor facilitates rather than defines populism (Mudde, 2004) highlight other aspects, such centralisation power maintain political strength (Heinisch Mazzoleni, 2016). Connected discussions, researchers analyse relevance personalised (PRRPs). Mudde (2007) distinguishes between different personal orientations, influenced charisma. External denotes capacity ensure electoral success, whereas indicates ability develop institutionalise organisation. focus this study will be latter according underestimated institutional orientation leadership. As originally conceived Max Weber (1978), affective bond his/her followers. Charismatic are assumed exhibit extraordinary qualities like authority (Pappas, 2016), sense mission (Eatwell, 2006) rhetorical persuasion 2018), which need perceived Yet, solely focusing followers' perceptions, potentially miss insights. Wodak (2015) argues one salient elements right-wing “well-crafted strategic performance frontstage” (2015: 125). raises question whether believe themselves idealist value or if they just well versed making them. addition, previous analyses provide scarce information leaders’ ‘converted’ (Mény Surel, 2000: 260) ‘insider-radicalised’ majority focuses leader's uncontested founding father party. Such examples include Jean-Marie Pen's National Front (Front National), Filip Dewinter's Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang), Umberto Bossi's Nothern League (Lega Nord) (Michel al., 2020). But how do respond effectively takes over, personalises converts established already routinised organisation (Kriesi, 2018: 10)? To stick Wodak's metaphorical image, first puzzle addresses audiences' perceptions differ from self-reflected view performer insider-radicalised Another aspect examined linkage process crucial parties' endurance. Harmel Svåsand (2018: 6; 2019: 2) define it “process acquiring properties durable valued own gaining others such”. also face de-institutionalisation forgo routinisation decision-making features (Harmel 2018). questions connection charisma, personalisation Whereas Panebianco (1988: 144) “charisma intrinsically unstable, sooner later eliminated routine administrative needs”, previously may undergo processes become associated leader. re-institutionalise, needs depersonalise, implying infusion departs dominant Svåsand, 2019). date, however, lack converted mainstream affect representatives' opinions leaders. Therefore, second solve what extent current depend (Panebianco, 1988; Weyland, 2001; Heinisch two conundra, main Switzerland facto Blocher. academic literature, Peoples' (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP) not described strongest Western Europe (Bernhard, 2017; Stockemer, but “led entrepreneur” (Albertazzi, 2009: 6) successful, wealthy businessman who uses his financial resources achieve goals while being seen man people (Skenderovic, 2009; 2015). Nevertheless, Mazzoleni Rossini (2016) influence Blocher's developments after entering Unlike leaders, was never elected president. ‘old SVP’ historically rooted created 1971 merger former Farmers, Traders Citizens (Bauern-, Gewerbe- Bürgerpartei, BGB) Democratic Party. instrumental radicalising personalising became ‘new SVP’, professionalising structure, moving ideology increasing vote share (Mazzoleni Rossini, Focusing allows us explore PRRP. address research questions, I draw upon 34 interviews11 author conducted all French German. were fully transcribed then translated into English author. representatives three cantonal branches (Zurich, Bern Geneva). nature based interview October 2020.22 Interview transcripts originating deposited UK Data Service (https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/) available April 2022. Although representative PRRPs, serves intriguing charisma-related family. argue comparative assessment side provides more nuanced Structured along key characteristics, offers profound insight compared perceptions. best my knowledge, exists at present. proceeds follows: sections three, discuss characterises institutionalisation, respectively. fourth section, present specific context trajectory same hypotheses introduced theoretical approaches. results indicating demonstrate ambivalent leadership, albeit features. SVP's much final propose avenues future research. 1988), conceptual clarity over leadership’. contested concept, identifies vagueness term problem. Eatwell (2006) outlines several approaches why have appeal. These theories structural crises, cultural legitimation, facilitation, support organisation, various psychological explain that, considering bonds followers, evolved since Weber's (1978) conceptualisation. sentiment echoed Pappas (2016: 2), labels approach “obligatory departure”. basic understanding, deriving approach, entails set qualities. recognised those subject appeals, thereby creating (Weber, 1978: 242). thought would difficult sustain because constantly prove Similarly, Tucker (1970) notes depending culture, does exclude possibility disagreeing contesting Alluding Willner (1965) emphasise inherent. They agree has inspire due common grievances interests segment population. essentially, “it so he regarded decisive validity charisma” (Willner Willner, 1965: 79). A validated others. Somewhat irrespective plethora theories, connects vaguely defined superior Some authors argued intrinsic quality therefore characteristic (Canovan, 1999). use establish intense connections compensate unstable weakly organised structures (Weyland, 2001). works invaluable 2004), communicate connect citizens (De Lange Art, 2011) dominate works, either convincingly theorised treated innate makes appealing successful. Viviani (2017) criticises constituting differences cores claims “one people”, attributes puts him “above people” (Viviani, 2017: 296). Related issue 1, 3–5) states should viewed categorical either–or type; embodies certain criteria not. He postulates conditions classify charismatic. rulership, exercises Second aims rule, democratic radically transforming well-established orders. Employing dichotomous (2018) extensive categorisation measure An idealistic core Weberian defining trait 2002). powers qualities, them apart ordinary Those include: great confidence (media) presence; symbiotic hierarchy, means self-presentation people; Manichean demonisation, represents targeting external enemies 2006). trait. “a elicit following deference, devotion, awe toward himself source authority” (1965: Other scholars skills, claiming simplify issues, align rely emotional presentation (Manucci, 2017). Several complex concept there components involves (Randall 2002; early definition, Janda (1980: 19) “exists social momentary patterns behaviour it”. commonly used Panebianco's (1988) integrated theory describes externally autonomous level ‘systemness’ interdependence sectors 1988: 55). party, largely independent environment coherent working For study, Harmel, Mjelde's contemporary framework treat multidimensional consisting objective durability. Internal refers intra-party (value infusion, routinisation) behaves values regular procedures society's last. Objective persist critical periods. conceptualisation, “processes reversal indicators institutionalisation” 6). Echoing approaches, some proclaim somewhat incompatible 2007). view, obstacle 3). coupled centralised (Betz, 1998; Zaslove, 2004). transfers control leader, point, still liability seeks constrain 1988). attention paid variations types. De Art (2011) entrepreneurial founder-leaders, Dutch Partij Voor Vrijheid (PVV) can skills. able issues attract presenting “united front, epitomised single leader” 2006: 154). organise internally. Equally, Pedahzur Brichta (2002) hard institutionalise, provided receive enough participate governments. vulnerable incapable routinising context, Mjelde Progress Parties Norway Denmark Danish de-institutionalised disputes level, Norwegian did suffer fate. What often-assumed improbability once (or entrepreneurial) institutionalised. disagree combination impedimental PRRPs' transformation 1978; Brichta, Mudde, founded distinct existed conservative before appearance involvement. Most scholarship analysing regards (Mazzoleni, 2008; Albertazzi, 2009), although appeal (McDonnell, 2016; Pappas, Eatwell, role, goes beyond leading new forms Switzerland. Bornschier Helbling (2005) note landscape rarely been personality-centric. One exception Blocher, president Zurich SVP, long-time Councillor, Federal known throughout politicians, personifies rise change late 1980s 1990s (Stockemer, fact, involved, “the built way around worth noting refuses called populist, unlike opportunistically adapt programme respective audience (Furrer Neff, reiterated our interview. decentralised, conservative, rural agrarian underwent shift towards achieved territorial penetration After election 1977, post held until 2003, transformed driving force behind programmatic According McDonnell 55–56), strategy aimed efficient, ideologically electorally appealing. “winning formula” 2008), focused nationalism traditional values, market-friendly policies anti-establishment narratives. terms increased extensiveness, intensiveness reduce autonomy branches. strategies resulted continuous gains mid-1990s 2007, becoming largest parliament. agenda institutionalising nationalising Skenderovic, 2007) de-institutionalisation. While systemness reification substantially increased, strongly connected mission, authority. such, brand politics 2016: 84). development paramount example agency affects (Albertazzi Following Council replaced four years later, stirring frictions replacement moderate member, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf Grisons branch, major crisis Just year, had tried benefit effect (Kriesi 2005) completely campaign slogan ‘Support Blocher! Vote Thus, non-election constituted blow image true (Church, defeat led “third phase evolution” experienced brief period growing when threatened withdraw ‘opposition’ non-cooperation governmental year (Vatter Church, 2009). short-lived ran counter tradition concordance. Internally, faced factionalism disapproval yet proved secured return, strengthened central office, changed statutes expel disloyal sharpened ideological profile It survived crises remained biggest lost seats 2007 2011, voter 2.8 percentage points 2015 despite 3.8 loss remains 25.6% 2019. nimbus invincibility, re-institutionalisation. exemplified return federal government 2008 2015. few eventually retired committees and, turned 80 old 2020, announced voluntary withdrawal politics, stating younger charge (Müller, looming retreat powerful figurehead perceive form manages exist retiring (Janda, 1980). Addressing parties, juxtapose bonds, assumptions 1999; assume prone fight positive cohesion strength, likely origins expectations (Tucker, 1970; Keeping mind founder-leader state hypothesis: H1: self-reflective Secondly, assumption, suggest another reason affecting contribute consolidation delay 1965). managed radicalise centralise SVP. improvements ensuring combined without him. current, position prompt challenge actively disassociate commanding 1978). Based presented linkages formulate H2: If achieves outlined Research paper original data collected part larger models structured elite (26 men, 8 women) Cantons Zurich, Bern, Geneva operating levels, ranging presidents local parliamentarians Councillors.33 See Appendix full list interviewees (anonymised). guarantee anonymity, indicated number each (PR), position,44 L = representative, R N representative. Canton (e.g. PR21, L, Due small sample size virtual impossibility obtaining random sample, purposive sampling 2016) inclusion levels. choice justified played 2005).