Are political leaders inevitably tethered to violence? It is a question that haunts the corridors of power and the pages of history alike. In my latest article, published this month in the journal Leadership, I seek to answer this by returning to one of the most tumultuous moments in British history, the trial and execution of Charles I in 1649. However, this is not merely a history lesson. By applying Max Weber’s concept of ‘elective affinity,’ we can begin to disentangle the complex web connecting authority, the sacred, and the use of force.
The Weberian Lens: Elective Affinity
The term ‘elective affinity’ (Wahlverwandtschaft) suggests a relationship that is neither purely causal nor accidental. But one where drawn together are two elements, by a mutual attraction or structural compatibility.
The central inquiry of this paper is whether such an affinity exists between political leadership and violence. Do leaders choose violence, or does the role choose it for them? The answer, I argue, lies in the critical distinction I have long championed: the difference between Leadership and Command.
1649: The Case of the English Regicides
The execution of Charles I serves as a potent case study. Here, we see violence flowing in two directions:
- The King’s Violence: Used against his own subjects to maintain his divine right.
- The Regicides’ Violence: The parliamentary forces who, in a radical act of ‘desacralising violence,’ put the King on trial and executed him, a sacrifice deemed necessary to break the sacred bond of the monarchy.
However, the cycle did not end there. The subsequent restoration saw the ‘resacralising’ of the monarchy through violent retribution against the regicides themselves.
The Core Argument: Command vs. Leadership
Analysing this historical sequence reveals that violence is not a universal tool of all forms of authority. Instead, the elective affinity with violence is far stronger with Command than with Leadership.
Command operates in the realm of critical problems and crises, where necessity and urgency legitimise coercion. It is here, especially when the situation is infused with elements of the Sacred (the holy, the untouchable, the existential), that violence becomes a ready instrument.
Leadership, by contrast, thrives on collaboration and the navigation of ‘wicked problems’ where force is often counter productive.
The conclusion is stark: while political office often provides the permission for violence, it is the mode of Command, driven by crisis and the protection of the Sacred, that pulls the trigger.
Why This Matters Today
We live in an era where political violence is once again becoming visible, often justified by the language of crisis and existential threat. Understanding that this violence is not an inherent trait of ‘leading’ people, but a specific characteristic of ‘commanding’ them during sacred crises, is vital for anyone wishing to understand the nature of modern power.
To read the full analysis, including the detailed application of the elective affinity framework to the events of 1649, please visit the article below.
Join the conversation in the comments below. If you would like to read more leadership post, then click the button below. Or read the previous post about What the New Model Army Teaches About Whole System Change.
Leave a Reply