Personalisation at the top of civil societies? Legitimation claims on civil society elites in Europe
| Published date | 01 November 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221129390 |
| Author | Niklas Altermark,Milka Ivanovska Hadjievska,Håkan Johansson |
| Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221129390
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2023, Vol. 25(4) 758 –788
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481221129390
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Personalisation at the top of
civil societies? Legitimation
claims on civil society elites in
Europe
Niklas Altermark1, Milka Ivanovska
Hadjievska1 and Håkan Johansson2
Abstract
Top civil society organisations (CSOs) face a particular legitimacy dilemma as they need to
have leaders who are seen as legitimate by the elite groups they interact with, and by those
they represent. This article investigates how they handle this dilemma by studying legitimation
practices of newly appointed leaders. Based on Weber’s theory of authority and Pitkin’s theory
of representation, the article investigates 114 public announcements of governance leaders in the
United Kingdom, Sweden, and the EU. The article finds a common model of civil society elite
legitimation beyond national differences. The observed model draws on two types of claims:
promoting leaders as excellent and astounding professional leaders (charismatic authority) and
as able spokespersons (substantive representation). Major European CSOs hence legitimate their
leaders as being ‘on par with’ other top leaders, as an elite among other elite groups, similar to
trends of personalisation in politics and business.
Keywords
authority, civil society elites, elite, legitimacy claims, personalisation, Pitkin, representation,
Weber
Introduction
Top civil society leaders are today prominent actors as they are formally and personally
charged with the key tasks of maintaining and representing powerful organisations. Over
the last several decades, increased resource stratification in European civil societies has
led to the disproportionate concentration of political and economic resources in the
hands of a small group of large civil society organisations (hereafter CSOs) (Johansson
and Uhlin, 2020; Lindellee and Scaramuzzino, 2020). Organisations like Amnesty
1Department of Political Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
2School of Social Work, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Corresponding author:
Håkan Johansson, School of Social Work, Lund University, Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden.
Email: Hakan.Johansson@soch.lu.se
1129390BPI0010.1177/13691481221129390The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsAltermark et al.
research-article2022
Original Article
Altermark et al. 759
International, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund, and
Caritas are examples of major players in their respective contexts. Such resource-rich
organisations tend to be recognised brands with millions of members, generous donors,
extensive turnover, and significant access to corridors of power. Their central position
compared to other CSOs allows them to engage in shaping decisions that affect not only
their members and beneficiaries, but also society in general (e.g. Guo and Saxton, 2020).
Leaders of such large CSOs tend to enjoy status and prestige not only among other
civil society leaders but also among politicians and the general public. This is further
fuelled by oligarchic tendencies within major CSOs, turning leaders into civil society
elites (Johansson and Uhlin, 2020; Michels, 1967). Specifically, studies observe widening
gaps between constituencies and the leaders who are supposed to represent them (e.g.
Hwang and Powell, 2009; Van Deth and Maloney, 2012). As professionals and top leaders
take over key areas of decision-making, beneficiaries and members risk being reduced to
‘donors’, ‘check book participants’, or ‘credit card suppliers’ (e.g. Skocpol, 2003). Like
in politics and business (e.g. Adam and Maier, 2010; Balmas et al., 2014; Rahat and
Kenig, 2018), we hence see tendencies of a personalisation ‘at the top’ in terms of a shift
from organisational to personal sources of power (Bloom and Rhodes, 2018; Townsley
et al., 2021). Having a high-profile leader could be beneficial to generate more donations,
mobilise new members, or provide access to decision-makers.
These developments provide top CSOs with key opportunities to exercise influence,
however, also create for them a particular legitimacy dilemma. As CSOs, they are
expected to have leaders who derive their legitimacy from being seen as good representa-
tives in the eyes of organisational members or constituencies (Guo and Musso, 2007;
Montanaro, 2012). As powerful CSOs, they are also expected to have leaders who obtain
legitimacy from personal authority, matching that of negotiation partners in private busi-
ness and politics. Too much emphasis on the latter could imply that the leader is seen as
lacking connection to constituencies, while too little might signal a lack of ability to lead
a major organisation.
The purpose of this article is to study how top CSOs in Europe handle this legitimacy
dilemma, and the analysis is guided by the following research questions: (1) how are lead-
ers of top CSOs legitimised by their organisations and (2) do major, resource rich CSOs
in Europe legitimise their leaders in a similar way, indicating a common model of civil
society elite legitimation across different civil society regimes? For this purpose, we con-
struct an original analytical framework combining Weber’s (1978) theory of authority and
Pitkin’s (1967) theory of democratic representation. This allows us to analyse legitima-
tion claims relating to individual authority and excellence or claims that portray the leader
as a representative of a certain constituency, thus reflecting both sides of the legitimacy
dilemma (see Meeuwisse and Scaramuzzino, 2017; Schrader and Denskus, 2010).
Benefitting from a comparison of diverse cases (i.e. the United Kingdom, Sweden, and
the EU as a whole), we thus investigate whether the centralisation of power and resources
in European civil societies has led to a common model of elite legitimation across coun-
tries. We focus on the legitimation of governance leaders (Chairs or Presidents) among
top CSOs, since they are most likely to face the dilemma described above.
Our study advances debates on civil society legitimacy through its explicit focus on
civil society elite legitimation rather than on CSO legitimacy. Researchers so far have
studied organisational legitimacy; that is, CSOs’ efforts to make themselves legitimate in
a complex environment through adjustment to external norms and requirements (Leardini
To continue reading
Request your trial