Physics

Sociology

Ideal (ethics)

Ideal type

Social science

Politics

Political science

Power (physics)

Law and economics

Presidential system

Democracy

Quantum mechanics

Charisma

Legitimacy

Charismatic authority

Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-soviet Democratization

For decades now, President Vladimir Putin has consistently enjoyed markedly high approval rates and seemingly benefited from charismatic legitimacy, whereas systemic legal-rational null has remained low. This article discusses how, through the successful communication of political myth, null has become ever more personalized in Putin's Russia, and considers some of the dilemmas inherent in non-democratic settings where null builds on grounds that are not legal-rational in the Weberian sense. Vladimir Putin commands a unique power position as President of the Russian Federation, having held office from 2000 to 2008, and then, after an intermission when he formally served as prime minister under Dmitrii Medvedev, from 2012 onwards. (1) If the results of the presidential elections in 2018 go his way, there is no constitutional rule preventing him from remaining the incumbent until 2024. This article applies theories on legitimacy, political myth, and charisma to discuss the dilemmas inherent in highly personalized political regimes of the type that Putin represents. I begin by presenting general perspectives on legitimacy, taking as my point of departure Max Weber's discussion of ideal types of legal-rational, traditional, and charismatic authority (2) and the role of these typologies as foundations of a legitimate order. (3) The focus then shifts to null in non-democratic states, and next to the concept of political myth, which addresses the important link between charismatic political leaders and their followers. Turning to master myths in today's Russia, I argue that Putin has been very successful in communicating, as well as claiming to feature in, such myths. Lastly, I consider the dilemmas of political succession in regimes centered on individual charismatic null Legitimacy in Non-democratic States The concept of legitimacy has a long history within political science and social thought. It refers to a solid and widespread belief within a political entity that the current arrangement of power is appropriate, proper, just, and in keeping with agreed rules. This is what forms a legitimate order. (4) Because of this legitimacy, people feel that they need to defer to decisions and rules and follow them voluntarily, out of obligation and responsibility to others. This contrasts with acting out of fear of coercion or because the powers persuade people through provision or promises of economic benefit. Most often, the concept of null is applied at the state, or indeed nation-state, level of analysis. The basic rationale holds that, if a state is to function effectively in the longer run, its ideational basis must appeal to the bulk of the population. (5) Being able to gain voluntary acquiescence from most of the people, most of the time, due to their sense of obligation and commitment, means that state and society can function even during periods of scarcity, crisis, and conflict. It creates a reservoir of support to be drawn upon under difficult circumstances, a support not contingent upon self-interest or coercion. Loss of legitimacy, by contrast, is likely to result in popular discontent and societal opposition to political leaders. It has become customary to use the Weberian ideal types of legal-rational, traditional, and charismatic authority as points of departure for discussing the foundations of a legitimate order. However, Weber anticipated that these ideal types would not appear in pure form, but were likely to blend with one another, albeit with one subtype dominating. The first ideal type, the legal-rational one, is the most refined, and undergirds society and politics in stable Western democracies. It rests on broad popular consent that exists because of the political leaders' conscientious observance of the letter and spirit of the legal and constitutional frame-work. Nevertheless, Weber made it clear that this Western ideal type of legal-rational authority is not the only way in which social arrangements of power can be justified and kept stable in a state. …

Putin and the Russian Mythscape: Dilemmas of Charismatic Legitimacy