charisma and crises during elections

8/7/2019 Charisma and Crises during Elections

1/14

Charisma and Crises during Elections

1

On the Saturday morning, the 4th of September an earthquake of 7.1 on the Richter scale

struck the town of Darfield in Canterbury, causing major damage. The City of

Christchurch and other metropolitan areas in Canterbury where also highly effected by

this earthquake. Heritage buildings from the 19th century where the main victims, with

many simply falling down or with dangerous structural damage. However apart from one

individual who suffered a fatal heart attack, there were no deaths from collapsing

buildings which Prime Minster John Key called a miracle (BBC 2010a; BBC 2010b).

The earthquake happened at a interesting time, with a country wide local government

election scheduled to take place just over a month later. There were some suggestions atthe time that the local elections in Christchurch should be postponed, however Gerry

Brownlee, the Earthquake Recovery Minister, rejected this idea and stated it would

continue as normal on the 9th of October (3News 2010). The main two candidates in the

election were incumbent mayor Bob Parker and politician Jim Anderton, with minimal

interest in other candidates (Scoop 2010). Incumbent mayor Bob Parker had been

controversial in his previous term, examples being buying properties from a failed

Christchurch property developer without proper public consultation and his decision to

bring the Ellerslie International Flower Show to Christchurch for $3 million New Zealand

dollars, which was highly questioned (Conway 2010a). Jim Anderton, on the other hand

is a politician in the progressive party and the minister of parliament for the Wigram

electorate in the City of Christchurch. Anderton also had some controversy in him

standing for mayor whilst remaining a minister of parliament, which was attacked by

Parker in August, who stated that the people of Christchurch do not need a part-time

mayor and that New Zealanders also do not need a part-time MP (Conway 2010b; Voxy


2/14


2

2010). One of the first opinion polls, which was collected in June by UMR Research,

showed Anderton leading at 46% compared to Parker trailing at 21%, while another at

the same time showed Anderton on 61% and parker on 30% in a head to head contest

(cited in Small 2010). Yet on the last election day Parker gained 53.7% of the vote with

68,245 votes, whilst Anderton could only manage 51,566 votes (TVNZ 2010). As local

government has an important place in the representation of the people and where the

election of officials to office is of equal importance. This begs the question on whether

the earthquake played a role in the change of heart by the Christchurch voters. Does then,

the focus on leadership during times of tragedy such as natural disasters, terrorism andother forms of mass violence create a conservative disposition amongst voters? In the

case of local government, voters will be swayed by the media spotlight of the tragedy into

favouring the incumbent mayor. In this situation, then one can argue that this has

happened in the 2010 Christchurch Local Government elections.

As mentioned before, the opinion polls recorded in June show a significant lead

by Anderton over Parker. Parker admitted that he was the underdog in the fight for

mayoralty and that the council had failed to engage with the public on important issues,

but he promised the next council would be more transparent (Conway 2010c). By late

August Anderton was recorded at 50% where as Packer was at 31% in an opinion poll by

Opinions Market Research. However this did not include 57% of respondents who stated

they had not picked who they where going to vote for at that point (cited in Conway

2010d). A press opinion poll at about the same time shows Parkers key policies, such as a

restraint in rates changes and major investments in public transport infrastructure, being

of little interest in the mind of voters (Conway 2010a). After the earthquake in which


3/14


3

Parker was seen talking to the media and escorting Prime Minister John Key around the

badly damaged city, there was vague acknowledgement that it might have some effect on

parkers re-election bid (Booker 2010). Near the end of September Parker stoped

campaigning for re-election to focus on recovering from the earthquake and called for

politicians and councillors to work together for the city instead of pulling each other to

pieces in the election (Conway 2010e). A few days later a UMR Research opinion poll

showed Parker up 27% from June with 55% of decided voters, with Anderton down

19% to 41% (Watkins 2010). Parker continued to focus on the Earthquake, rejecting the

invitation to a major debate in early October, which was broadcast live from theCathedral Square on Radio New Zealand. He excused his campaign teams lack of

interest by saying we've got so much on our plate that that takes most of our time

(Conway 2010f). Just before the election the explanation was given that Parker was

profiting from a bounce or rally effect from the earthquake (Gate 2010).

Individuals suffer psychological stress in crisis and feel a loss of control from

events; in order to regain this they then invest control via proxy in leaders. In the

aftermath of tragedies such as natural disasters, terrorism and other forms of mass

violence, individuals suffer an immense amount of emotions. These can include, but are

not limited to shock, anxiety, confusion, anger, fear and sorrow. Individuals do not know

what to do and how to think, and look for outside influence (Bligh, Kohles & Meindl

2004: 212). In these circumstances people will be attracted to charismatic leaders in their

local community and political leaders both in their local and central government (Pillai &

Meindl, 1998: 649). These responses are a coping mechanism, to take back control via


4/14


4

proxy by supporting the charismatic leader and the choices of that leadership (Bligh,

Kohles & Meindl 2004: 212; Pillai & Meindl 1998: 649). A charismatic leader is a

leader who has powerful influence over the behaviour, beliefs and the performance of

followers, in which they can get them to perform above and beyond the call of duty and

make significant personal sacrifices (House, Spangler, & Woycke 1991: 364). They

achieve this through their own personal example of actions, beliefs and in their behaviour

(House, Spangler, & Woycke 1991: 366). According to Weber, charismatic leaders are

set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or

at least specifically exceptional qualities (cited in Merolla, Ramos & Zechmeister 2007:32). Rather than meta-physical forces as Weber overemphasised, this comes from the

subjective belief by followers that the leader has effective organisational and

performance enhancing skills, who will return the community to the status quo (Bligh et

al 2004: 213; Falco 1999: 79). These leaders tended to use language that is active and

progressive which features terms that represent movement and change in a motivational

manner. They talk of implementing their ideas and the dangers of inactivity (Bligh et al

2004: 221; Pillai & Meindl 1998: 649). According to Willner there are four stages of

events in a crisis which shows the connection between it and charismatic leaders. They

are: 1, crisis situation[s]; 2, the distress of individuals; and 3, a hopeful leader that has

4, policies that promise salvation from the problem (Bligh et al 2004: 221). An extreme

case can be found in the 1930s in Germany with Adolf Hitler, where he presented himself

as saviour of Germany, who would end the political and economic crisis that had inflicted

the country since the end of world war one (Pillai & Meindl, 1998: 649). This means that

individuals becomes stressed after tragedies and feels a need to put great trust in what


5/14


5

they deem as a strong and articulate leader, who they hope will be able to save them.

The reaction of New Yorkers to September the 11 th, was to view Rudy Giuliani

and George W. Bush as great leaders who would return the city to its former glory. This

was co-opted by the media who presented them favourably, and was forgetful of their

past criticisms. In the 9 months leading up to September the 11th in which Bush was in

office as president of the United States, there were questions rising about his leadership,

especially in relation to the foreign policies that were being drawn up in the White House.

Bush was not seen as a strong or charismatic leader; at least one that educated Americanscould place their faith in during a crisis, they would still have had the controversy over

the election votes in Florida fresh in their minds (Boutier 2004: 2; Bligh et al 2004: 213).

In the opinion polls taken in those 9 months, on average 88% of Republican Party

partisan supporters thought that Bush was doing a good job, where as only 31% of

Democrat partisans thought the same (Jacobson 2003: 5). An opinion poll taken on the

10th of September showed Bush having an over all support of only 51%. However four

days later on the 14th, Bush had a approval rating of 85% (Boutier 2004: 2; Bligh et al

2004: 213). The reaction to the attacks by the White House was praised and the effective

emergency response won him bipartisan support in Congress (T Hart, Tindall & Brown

2009: 474). The event shattered American illusions of safety and invulnerability (Bligh

et al 2004: 212), however it transformed the presidency, giving purpose to the president

by making him into a savour of the country (Boutier 2004: 2-3). Rudy Giuliani was also

someone who was looked at as a savour that day (Booker 2010; Kettl 2006: 285).

Giuliani had rushed to the scene as soon as he had found out that the first aeroplane had


6/14


6

crashed into the World Trade Centre, in which he showed strong leadership that gained

him hero status in the eyes of most Americans (Pennebaker & Lay 2002: 272). Giuliani

even earned the title as the Americas Mayor and subsequently became the Time

Magazines 2001 Person of the Year (Rendall 2007). With both Bush and Giuliani the

media played an important role in presenting these leaders, which effect the publics

perceptions (Bligh et al 2004: 221). The media are found to have focused on Bushs

motivational comments and on comments that were inclusive and collective in nature

(Bligh et al 2004: 223). The speeches he gave at that time have been noted for not being

the work of a great orator, but they where soothing and of the right tone for theAmerican people (Schubert, Stewart & Curran 2002: 561). Americans at this time where

more likely to forgive or overlook policy mistakes (Merolla et al 2007: 39;T Hart et al

2009: 474), such as Giulianis placement of the citys emergency communication centre

in the basement of the World Trade Centre (Kettl 2006: 285). With America being so

united after September the 11th, it was difficult for the democrats to campaign in the

midterm elections in 2002, in which many aspiring democratic politicians decided not to

even run (Jacobson 2003: 6). Bushs re-election campaign took full advantage of the

tragedy with strategic ad campaigns (Merolla et al 2007: 40). Both Bush and Giuliani

gained major support from the event, where the public rallied round these leaders and

called them heroes. However this also meant that many overlooked their mistakes,

including the media who are the ones who present these leaders to the public.

The position on whether the leader is charismatic or not can be reduced or


7/14


7

emboldened, based on the presumed effectiveness of the leader. The changeability of the

perceived charisma has been strongly linked to the effectiveness of the leader which can

effect their presentation in the media (Pillai 1996: 556-7). This means that the leader who

resolves a crisis successfully, will be seen to be far more charismatic than a leader who is

unsuccessful, who might cease to be seen as charismatic depending on their effectiveness

(Pillai & Meindl 1998: 651). The Turkish earthquake in zmit of 1999 caused major death

and destruction, which was also plagued by political scandals and corruption. The

building standards were inadequate because the government officials had been taking

bribes from builders and contractors this led to shoddy materials and practices to be used.After the earthquake it was found that that there was only a couple of dollars left in the

state earthquake fund because of embezzling by government officials. Only some of the

aid sent for the earthquake arrived at its destination as the Turkish Red Crescent had sold

off donated equipment that was sent from other countries as aid (Kubicek 2001: 37). Not

only was there a high level of dishonesty in the government, but the President of Turkey

Sleyman Demirel caused political problems for his party by his dispassionate reaction to

the earthquake. The Presidents motorcade critically blocked atrial routes which stopped

the ability to transport injured victims to the hospitals. His uncaring attitude can be

characterised by his comment on the lack of sanitation in zmit, in which he stated that

the people should use the Sea of Marmara for their ablutions. Any criticisms of the

handling of the disaster was retorted by him in saying that it must not be criticised as it

was Allahs will (Kubicek 2001: 38). As mentioned, his behaviour did not do any

favours for his party in the next election. The ability for leaders to lose their charisma is

characterised by London mayor Ken Livingstone. After the bombings in London,


8/14


8

Livingstone was compared to Rudy Giuliani because of his similar response, which was

reminiscent of Giulianis strong positive leadership and his motivational speeches.

Livingstones speeches were also compared by British observers to have had similar

rhetorical to that of the wartime speeches given by Winston Churchill. When asked by

the medi for his first comments, he proclaimed to the terrorists: Whatever you do,

however many you kill, you will fail. Livingstone had already achieved a high level of

popularity and this only increased after the bombings (Contenta 2005: A10). However a

fortnight later he tarnished his reputation by claiming that Britain had brought the

bombings on itself by its historical role in the subdivision of the middle east andcontinuous interference (Nelson 2005: 8). Livingstone also gained controversy after this

because he had invited a year before hand, Yusuf Qaradawi to London. Qaradawi is a

radical muslim preacher who ran pro terrorist websites, however Livingstone hailed him

as the most progressive Islamic Theologian (Contenta 2005: A10). Not only was

Livingstone seen to lose his charisma, But George W. Bush gained his charisma on

September the 11th, but lost it in Louisiana. After hurricane Katrina in 2005 that

particularly effected the state of Louisiana, the White House was widely criticised, in

which George Bush took most of the flak from the failed response to the natural disaster.

The response to the disaster was condemned by a congressional committee, they

criticised President Bush s lack of proactive intervention. The White House

underestimated the potential devastation of the storm and were seen to be oblivious to the

suffering and the chaos caused by the damage to the infrastructure; the lack of response

after the levies broke was angrily denounced by the African American and Hispanic

communities who felt mistreated. The congressional committee also criticised the lack of


9/14


9

leadership and responsibility that was shown (T Hart et al 2009: 474). The main problem

with the response was the lack of communication between the local government, federal

response team and the federal government. The situation that New Orleans mayor Nagin

found himself in is a prime example of the lack of communication between government

departments and all other parties evolved. Mayor Nagin was trapped by the flood waters

in the Hyatt Hotel for two days without a telephone. The federal government did not

assist him by providing any form of communication equipment. He resorted to begging

on CNN for telecommunication equipment. However Mayor Nagins staff members

hooked up a temporary telephone via a satellite internet connection (Kettl 2006: 285).The perception of how charismatic a leaders is, is based on their ability achieve results

that they would deemed by citizens as a successful return to the status quo.

Bob Parker positive and motivational messages to fellow Cantabrians led to

people perceiving him as a charismatic leader. Local governments are considered

responsible for the standard of the infrastructure and its maintenance and up keep. Even

though the Canterbury earthquake was high on the Richter scale the infrastructure came

through the earthquake for the most part unscathed. Local governments are the

pulmonary organisation to prepare for the disaster and the organisation responsible to

direct the Civil Defence (Arceneaux & Stein 2006: 46). As was the case in

Christchurch, the central government provides funds and personal once the resources of

the local government are depleted. The response of local government to the disaster and

its effectiveness to the disaster transforms into the charisma of the leader (Arceneaux &

Stein 2006: 46). Parkers response to the earthquake according to Anderton, was clear and


10/14


10

decisive and that this had helped all Cantabrians in the aftermath of the earthquake

(Conway 2010b). Bob Parker was inclusive and collective in his speech and called ever

citizen a hero or a heroine (NZPA 2010). For this Bob Parker has also been compared

to Rudy Giuliani which according to talkback host Mike Yardley, parker was an effective

leader who had proved himself in a time of crisis and in escorting John Key around the

city, was reminiscent of Giuliani (Booker 2010). Parkers charisma arises from this

effectiveness that citizens perceived him to possess. In an UMR Research poll at the end

of September 88% of those that responded thought parker handled the earthquake

considerably well. Civil Defence was also considered to have performed well, with 95%of respondents believing this and 75% thought they had performed considerably well

(Watkins 2010). The councils upkeep of the infrastructure resulting in its survival and the

effective response to the earthquake meant that Bob Parker was then seen as Charismatic.

The anxiety, stress and other emotions created by disasters brings uncertainty to

individuals, who will then try and find certainty in a charismatic leader. They will hope

that leader will return them to the status quo by removing the afflictions of the disaster.

During disasters, both the government and society try to act in a united manner in order

to deal with the crisis affectively. In disasters, the media has a large role in presenting the

leaders as being charismatic and also in disasters the media along with the public tend to

overlook past misdemeanours. The leaders charisma comes from the perception of the

public on how successfully they sooth the residents and remove the afflictions of the

disaster. Bob Parkers empathy with the people and positive attitude as well as the

standard of the infrastructure and his effective response means that Christchurch residents

saw him as a charismatic leader. Through this it one can see how voters did not vote for


11/14


11

parker as a conservative leader but one who has been perceived, with the help of the

media, as someone who is effective in the moment of crisis. However if the earthquake

had caused more chaos and loss of life, then it is questionable that the outcome of the

election would have been the same.

Bibliography

3News (2010) ChCh local elections - postpone due to earthquake?.Athttp://www.3news.co.nz/ChCh-local-elections---postpone-due-to-earthquake/tabid/423/articleID/175197/Accessed October 10, 2010.


12/14


12

Arceneaux, Kevin and Stein, Robert M. (2006) Who is Held Responsible When DisasterStrikes? The Attribution of Responsibility for a Natural Disaster in an Urban Election.Journal of Urban Affairs 28(1), 43-53.

BCC (2010a) Aftershocks rattleC

hristchurch after New Zealand quake. Athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11187166 Accessed October 10, 2010.

BBC (2010b) Strong earthquake rocks New Zealand's South Island. Athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11183685 Accessed October 10, 2010.

Bligh, Michelle C., Kohles, Jeffrey C. & Meindl, James R (2004) Charisma undercrisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after theSeptember 11th terrorist attacks. The Leadership Quarterly 15(2), 211239.

Booker, Jarrod (2010) Mayor compared to Giuliani post 9/11, New Zealand herald. Athttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10671398.

Accessed October 10, 2010.Boutier, Jean-Pierre (2004) Charisma as Social process: A Longitudinal Case Study ofGeorge W Bush's Leadership. BBA, Goteborg University.

Contenta, Sandro (2005) 'Red Ken' in attack mode; London mayor doles out blame forbombings Says extremism grew from West's lust for Mideast oil. Toronto Star, P. A10,July 21.

Conway, Glenn (2010a) Parkers policies lost on voters, Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4073500/Parkers-policies-lost-on-voters. Accessed October10, 2010.

Conway, Glenn (2010b) Anderton now says he wont quit Parliament. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/canterbury-earthquake/4114482/Anderton-now-says-he-won-t-quit-P

arliament. Accessed October 10, 2010.

Conway, Glenn (2010c) Parker claims underdog status. Stuff.Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/3837276/Parker-claims-underdog-status . AccessedOctober 10, 2010.

Conway, Glenn (2010d) Anderton leads in mayoral race. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4070928/Anderton-leads-in-mayoral-race. Accessed October

10, 2010.

Conway, Glenn (2010e) Parker decides to focus on recovery work. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4172804/Parker-decides-to-focus-on-recovery-work. Accessed October10, 2010.

Conway, Glenn (2010f) No debate for mayoral pair. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/vote-2010/4194539/No-debate-for-mayoral-pair. Accessed October 11,


13/14


13

2010.

Falco, Raphael (1999) Charisma and Tragedy : An Introduction. Theory Culture Society16(3), 71-98.

Gate, Charlie (2010) Bob bounce from quake gives Parker poll lead. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4209608/Bob-bounce-from-quake-gives-Parker-poll-lead.Accessed October 11, 2010.

House, Robert J. Spangler, William D. & Woycke, James (1991). Personality andCharisma in the U.S. Presidency: A Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 364-396.

Hunt, James G Jerry, Boal, Kimberly B and Dodge, George E (1999) The effects ofvisionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers An experimental examination oftwo kinds of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 10(3), 423-448.

Jacobson, G.C. (2003) Terror, Terrain, and Turnout : Explaining the 2002 MidtermElections. Political Science Quarterly 118(1), 1-22.

Kettl, D. F. (2006) Is the Worst Yet to Come?. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science 604(1), 273-287.

Kubicek, Paul (2001) The Earthquake, Europe, And Prospects ForPolitical Change In Turkey. Middle East Review of International Affairs 5(2), 34-47.

Merolla, Jennifer L. Ramos, Jennifer M. & Zechmeister, Elizabeth J. (2007) Crisis,Charisma, and Consequences: Evidence from the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. TheJournal of Politics 69(1), 3042.

Nelson, Fraser (2005) Outrage as Livingstone tries to 'explain' suicide bombers. TheScotsman, p. 8, July 21.

NZPA (2010) Councillors applaud quake effort. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4159113/Councillors-applaud-quake-effort.Accessed October 12, 2010.

Pennebaker, James W. & Lay, Thomas C. (2002) Language Use and Personalityduring Crises: Analyses of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Press Conferences. Journal of

Research in Personality 36(3), 271-282.

Pillai, Rajnandini (1996) Crisis and the Emergence of Charismatic Leadership in Groups:An Experimental Investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26(6), 543-562.

Pillai, Rajnandini and Meindl, James R. (1998) Structure, Collectivism, and Crisis toCharismatic Leadership Context and Charisma: A "Meso" Level Examination of theRelationship of Organic. Journal of Management24(5), 643-671.


14/14


14

Rendall, Steve (2007) The Media's Mayor: Mythologizing Guiliani and 9/11. Athttp://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3117 Accessed October 12, 2010.

Schubert, James N., Stewart, Patrick a. & Curran, Margaret Ann (2002) A Defining

Presidential Moment: 9/11 and the Rally Effect. Political Psychology 23(3), 559-583.

Scoop (2010) Anderton Leading Parker In Race. Athttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1006/S00145.htm Accessed October 10, 2010.

Small, Vernon (2010) Poll gives edge to Anderton. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3809339/Poll-gives-edge-to-Anderton. Accessed October 10, 2010.

T Hart, Paul Tindall, Karen & Brown, Christer (2009) Crisis Leadership of the BushPresidency: Advisory Capacity and Presidential Performance in the Acute Stages of the9/11 and Katrina Crises.Presidential Studies Quarterly 39(3), 473-493.

TVNZ (2010) Bob Parker triumphs above adversity Athttp://tvnz.co.nz/local-elections-2010/bob-parker-triumphs-above-adversity-3828736 AccessedOctober 10, 2010.

Voxy (2010) Mayor Bob Parker Attacks Jim Anderton's Decision Not To Resign FromParliament. Athttp://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/mayor-bob-parker-attacks-jim-anderton039s-decision-not-resign-parliament

/5/58352 Accessed October 10, 2010.

Watkins, Tracy (2010) Post-quake Christchurch poll shock. Stuff. Athttp://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/canterbury-earthquake/4179364/Parker-pips-Anderton-in-poll.

Accessed October 11, 2010.

charisma and crises during elections

Documents