"What is currently happening is not just another regotiation of the notoriously mobile boundary between the private and the public. What seems to be at stake is a redefinition of the public sphere, as a scene on which private dramas are staged, put on public display and publicly watched. The current definition of 'public interest', promoted by the media yet widely accepted by all or almost all sections of society, is the duty to play out such dramas in public and the right of the public to watch the performance. The social conditions which make such a development unsurprising and even seem 'natural' ought to be evident in the light of the preceding argument; but the consequences of the development are far from having been explored in full. They might be further-reaching than generally understood or accepted. "The consequence arguably most seminal is the demise of 'politics as we know it'—Politics with a capital P, the activity charged with the task of translating private problems into public issues (and vice versa). It is the effort of such translation which is nowadays grinding to a halt. Private problems do not turn into public issues by dint of being vented in public; even under public gaze they do not cease to be private, and what they seem to be accomplishing by being transferred to the public stage is pushing all other, 'non-private' problems out of the public agenda. What are commonly and ever more often perceived as 'public issues' are private problems of public figures. The time-honoured question of democratic politics — how useful or detrimental is the way public figures exercise their public duties to the welfare and well-being of their subjects/electors?— has fallen by the board, beckoning to public interests in good society, public justice, or collective responsibility for individual welfare to follow them into oblivion....
What would be the point of a discussion about 'leadership' which did not take leadership to be the cause of other relationships and processes?
What about the old notion of Charismatic Authority as a force of change (Weber)?
Charismatic authority is 'power legitimized on the basis of a leader's exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire loyalty and obedience from followers'.
Lenin's charisma [in contrast to Trotsky's] was more questionable, and Stalin had no such attributes (at least in the way Max Weber used the term). But in his new biography of Stalin, Edvard Radzinsky argues that both Lenin and Stalin "had devoted supporters and both possessed 'charisma' - the mysterious ability to dominate people by exerting a hypnotic influence over them" (p. 391). In Stalin's case, a cult replicating the attributes of a charismatic leader was created around him following his consolidation of power. It may be argued that he became charismatic as far as his perception among the masses was concerned owing to the cult's success in portraying him as an omnipotent, omniscient, superhuman being. If so, it may also be argued that "charisma" today may arise from political propaganda, manipulation, and mass receptivity, and that it need not require a truly dynamic or inspiring individual to move his followers by the force of his personality and his ability to project a sense of mission.
I agree that Charisma or Charis ( grace) is a religious almost extatic situation and to have it in the long term is not easy, so it's mostly probable to be ' manifactured' by the media. Of course Weber is not wrong to appky this term because in the PHENOMENOLOGICAL LEVEL the charismatic personality strictu sensu can be a religious person with religious attributions. But RELIGIOUS in the broader sense does not signify stereotypically the GOOD or the MORAL. It can also signify the DEMONIC that is also another stereotype for the EVIL or the NEGATIVE. In any case demonic means spiritual in greek and Socrates was accused and executed just for instroducing NEW DEMONS to the youth in the City of Athens.
Demon means essencially Spirit and also Soul ( psyche).In the socratic-platonic ontology Demon is a kind of minor DEITY
that can be mainly good( benefique) It;s called AGATHO-DAIMON ( agathos = good). The man who is influenced or inspired by such a demon is ANTHROPOS KALOS KAI AGATHOS ( man handsome + good-mora-l).