Political life, charismatic leadership, and statesmanship

In political science, political leadership is a highly studied subject. This is because the leader is crucial in the formation and development of political life, political institutions, and political culture, acting as both an influencer and the influenced. 

Turkey is one of the countries where politics is leader-centric. Moreover, charismatic leadership is always highly accepted by the public. However, while charismatic leadership provides a great advantage to the party the leader belongs to—through oratorical power, vocabulary, body language, gestures and mimics, their stance and address on the podium, in the square, or on screen, and the bond they establish with the public, as well as their reflection and perception in society—it often makes the institutionalization of that party and the emergence of other figures within the party difficult. In other words, a charismatic leader is both a great strength for their party and a significant obstacle to institutionalization. 

A charismatic leader does not necessarily mean a populist leader. Throughout history, there have been many leaders who were charismatic but not populist. When a charismatic leader is also a populist, it affects not just their own party, but the entire political life. And usually, it affects it negatively. Other leaders also try to resemble them. They imitate them, they emulate them. Thus, it is often not ideology, ideas, or politics that come to the fore, but polemics, conflict, and escalating tension with rivals. When charisma, personality traits, and style take precedence over ideological orientations and economic policy preferences, hitting below the belt, insulting, and attacking through private life go beyond political polemics. Frequently, as a result of these debates and insults, the matter is taken to the judiciary. This situation is common and ordinary in Turkish political life. 

Turkey is a country skilled at producing charismatic leaders. Both the left and the right of politics, the socialist left and the Islamist right, have produced charismatic leaders. From Bülent Ecevit to Süleyman Demirel, from Necmettin Erbakan to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, from Turgut Özal to Alparslan Türkeş, and from Adnan Menderes to Mehmet Ali Aybar, a large number of charismatic leaders can be counted in Turkey in one breath across a wide spectrum.

Charismatic leaders, especially when they are also populist, generally have an increasing tendency toward authoritarian policies. They tend to consolidate personal power and personalize governance. They exhibit overly suspicious attitudes. They do not like intra-party competition. They are inclined to label groups, factions, and cliques within the party as "traitors," "turncoats," or "disloyal."

More alarmingly, in some leaders of this type, an inner yearning for kingship, sultanate, or caliphate is also observed. The discourse of viewing the nation, society, the public, and the voter as subjects or a mass, and the rhetoric of protecting, saving, and patronizing them, draws attention. Let us not look too far; US President Trump is a politician who explains his own position with divine providence, believes he is "God's chosen and appointed servant," and tries to "explain and ground his duty not only politically but also from a religious, divine perspective." This is one of the reasons why he often says he carries a mission to bring peace to the world, beyond just governing the US. 

When a charismatic leader is also a populist, patronage relationships in politics come to the fore as if they were a natural, inevitable relationship between the politician and the voter. It becomes ordinary for the voter to be economically favored and for the charismatic and populist leader to be seen as an actor who almost grants, bestows, and gifts this to the voter. According to this logic, since the legitimacy of a leader who comes to power through the ballot box cannot be questioned, they also have the right to enrich whomever they want. If anyone bothers them, the state's coercive apparatuses are already activated. This method and form of governance are very similar to and intertwined with the characteristics of patrimonial politics, which is frequently used in political science. 

To consolidate and increase the power and public support behind them, the politician often focuses on creating an "other" and inventing enemies. They do their best to multiply and diversify their own front, and to dissolve, narrow, and marginalize the rival front. The "others" are sometimes the intellectuals in that country, sometimes foreign powers, imaginary enemies, sometimes elites, sometimes communists, sometimes rival politicians, sometimes scientists, or sometimes the media. The state-nation distinction and opposition are also never off the lips of these politicians. Even if they govern the state, they are the representatives of the nation. According to them, those who govern the state are the elites and interest groups that oppress the people. 

Not every charismatic leader possesses the characteristics of a statesman. And not every leader with the qualities of a statesman is charismatic. 

For example, İsmet İnönü—the close colleague of our great leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the second president, the second chairman of the CHP, a war hero, a hero of Lausanne, the one who did not let Turkey enter World War II, who ensured the transition to multi-party life in Turkey, who accepted the 1950 election defeat with maturity, and who stepped down from his seat with great maturity when he lost the leadership race in the party assembly at the convention—is a leader who received much criticism from both the right and the left. Moreover, there is some validity to some of these criticisms. 

But above and beyond all this, İsmet Paşa is a statesman. He always prioritized harmony, balance, and stability. He was never in search of being in power or staying in power at any cost. He acted this way both within the party and in the administration of the country. This is a common point in the findings of my esteemed teacher, friend, and elder Prof. Dr. Rıdvan Akın, who has works on İsmet İnönü, as well as our teacher whom we remember with mercy and longing Prof. Dr. Şerafettin Turan, Prof. Dr. Metin Heper, Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, and Dr. Selim Erdoğan. 

In summary, in our country where the number of political parties has reached 190, while pondering on politics, it should not be forgotten how important the position of the leader is. Because the answer to the question of whether the leader is democratic, authoritarian, charismatic, first among equals, populist, or a team player, or whether they have a high ego, is important.