ArTiCLe oN GaNDhi & HiTLeR

Leaders throughout History have proven to be either good one’s or bad one’s in terms of their use and or misuse of power. Most leaders ofcourse were charismatic. Weber defines charismatic leadership as “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him” These were the leaders with exceptional qualities which made them almost god-like for their followers. The charm of such people made their followers go behind these leaders without questioning them.

This power is given to them by the people whom they rule otherwise they would have no such thing. Power is a two way system, it is both given to the leader by the majority and also adhered to by the majority. The power implied here is ofcourse political power, the power to enforce one’s own belief system upon the many in order to achieve change. This change however can be good or bad. Power can be realized through communication. Good coomunication is essential in achieving certain goals through getting messages across.

Let us take for example two of History’s arguably most iconic leaders Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi. Both leaders were very powerful in terms of their influence over the people they governed. But what made them so powerful? Arguably both leaders were very charismatic speakers in different ways. Hitler, the great public speaker and Gandhi the very timid and polite non-violent philospher.

A look Into Two of History’s Most Charismatic Leaders

Hitler was very passionate in his public speeches he used German, although he was actually Austrian, as his langugae to convince the German people of his dream for Germany. He dreamed of a United Germany which ruled the world. He used a communication style which moved crowds on a level of emotion rather than intellect. He also cultivated his public image to an obsessive degree, ensuring that it lay at the heart of all things in the Nazi state. He also utilized propaganda such as print media in order to promote his Nazi parties belief in anti-semitism, mythology and of course the Fuhrer himself. To further understand the impact and influence of Hitler on the people of Germany at the time we must also take into account the social sphere of Germany at the time. Germany was suffering the aftermath of World War One and the German state was powerless in refusing the policies of the allied forces. This in turn fostered an environment of poverty and suffering for most of the German people. The German people naturally felt the need for a saviour of sorts and Hitler’s promise of redemption naturally came as viable solution for the social issues at the time.

Mahatma Gandhi on the other hand was the total opposite although he too had a dream for his beloved India. He did not speak to crowds as fervently as Hitler did but he possessed a unique style of communication which arguably only he at the time possessed. His style was talking politely in proverbs which promoted non-violence. It has often been asserted that Gandhi’s impact on the people he met and spoke to was simply electrifying. These people were not just freedom fighters and politicians, writers and thinkers; there were among them slum dwellers and villagers, farmers and labourers, little-educated people and illiterates. Gandhi said what he thought, meaning he said things for the truth rather than what he thought his audience would like to hear; he was on the contrary quite capable of saying things or doing things that were rather incomprehensible to the people at large or were considered unacceptable, which may not be surprising since he was a great deal more than the leader of a freedom movement; he was a social reformer too. He sought for true Independence and Equality in and for India.

People followed him, even when they did not see his point or grasp. His language was polite, shunning harshness, as is evident from his interactions with the English men and women, and also from what he said in response to highly critical remarks about India from people like Churchill. He mentioned that Churchill was a very good leader in a sense that he took over as prime minister at a time of great peril for Great Britain during World War Two. He did not give any negative comments about Churchill, instead he applauded Churchill for his efforts to keep Great Britain safe from the ravages of war. His choice of language for communication was Gujarati, Hindi (or Hindustani, as he would call it) and English. The choice of the language depended on who he was addressing to. He would however say that English was not in the best interests of India, since it was and would always be used by a very small section of the people. “Our English speech,” he said, in an answer to a student’s question, “has isolated us from the millions of our countrymen” (December 12,1925). (B.N.Patnaik, n.d)

In a nutshell they both asserted that their fight was for a just cause, and presented their fight as one against the forces of oppression. The language they used was each used was simple, straightforward, and unambiguous. But what separates Gandhi from Hitler is the extreme egotism that one finds in Hitler’s but not in Gandhi’s language, which is not surprising, since Hitler saw himself as a kind of saviour and had no hesitation in giving expression to it in public. From his speech we may take note of his egotism, “My patience is now at an end”: In this hour the German people will unite with me! It will feel my will to be its will. Just as in my eyes it is its future and its fate which gives me the commission for my action…And so I ask you my German people to take your stand behind me, man by man, and woman by woman (September 26, 1938).

In order to understand Gandhi as a communicator, it may be necessary to bear in mind that he had a very diverse audience of people belonging to various religions and castes, who often perceived their interests to be mutually conflicting, and were consequently hostile to one another. Gandhi condemned all those who indulged in violence, he didn’t say what would please his audience; he often said the contrary. But he talked about non-violence, togetherness, and harmony. He talked about sarvodaya, the “rise of all”. (Palshikar, n.d)

In contrast, Hitler stressed on the humiliation that the Germans felt they had been subjected to after the World War One. Hitler in contrast to Gandhi told his respective people what they wanted to hear. Hilter used a language of supremacy and hatred for everyone and everything non-German or non-Arian as he liked to call it. Hitler too had a large following, so as a communicator he too was effective but an implication of their communication styles would ofcourse be the outcomes of their messages. Gandhi fostered peace and harmony while hitler encouraged racial superiority and dischord. Both were very effective communicators but the difference lies in their message and their use of power through communication to get their respective messages across to their respective audiences.

In terms of power, Hitler abused his. Because of his lust for war, Germnay was then again brought into desolation since Germany lost the war. Gandhi on the other hand inspired Milliond of people however India’s society and arguably state still split into two which is now present day India and Pakistan. Communcation may be a catalyst for change either good or bad depending on who uses and in what context. Charisma is indeed essential in communication when the context is in terms of power.

Opinion:
I think both leaders indeed posessed a n extraordinary level of charisma because not everybody could move mutlitudes of people the way Hitler and Gandhi did. In my opinion Hitler could have been great instead of infamous if and only if he utilized his charisma through communication in a way that people wouldn’t have to buy into the whole idea of ultra-nationalism. Unfortunately at the time, Facism was the trend not only in Europe but the whole world. Gandhi on the other hand wasn’t much of a public speaker, but he did talk to crowds too but not in the same manner as Hitler did. I think Gandhi’s way of communication was very philosophical and polite which encouraged peace. Leaders of today should learn from the communication these two showed the world because leaders have the power to shape public opinion not just through laws or public policy but also through communication. People may argue however that the age of rhetoric and ultra-nationalism has been long gone, it may be so but leaders should bear in mind their responsibility to communicate with their citizens well enough and that their decisions must be in-line with the common good and not that of destruction.

It was believed that the masses who heard Hitler speak gave them a sense of purpose and pride in being German. His very presence and voice commanded every German to take up arms and fight for the Fatherland.