88 | Martin Buber’s Theopolitics
the concept of hierocracy, rule by priests (or some other religious caste claiming
to speak for the divine), as a name for what is most commonly called “theoc-
racy”—in contrast to direct theocracy, which is the topic of Kingship of God.^18
The historical form of direct theocracy, according to Buber, is a charismatic
leadership in which the recipient of the temporary charis is commissioned to
some particular task (never to unlimited leadership). But what is charis, exactly?
According to Buber, “there is here no charisma at rest, only a hovering one, no
possession of spirit, only a ‘spiriting,’ a coming and going of the ruach; no assur-
ance of power, only the streams of an authority which presents itself and moves
away. . .. Authority is bound to the temporary proof of the charisma.”^19 Charisma
is thus a fleeting quality, even for the recognized charismatic, and it requires
proof through deeds.
Yet its very transience renders charisma supreme: “The charis accordingly
stands superior to every enchantment as well as every law.” Problems occur, how-
ever, with any effort “to exercise theopolitics even when it is a matter of letting
the charis hold sway beyond the actual charisma,” or in Weberian terms, to base
an enduring institutional structure upon manifestations of charis.^20 Most funda-
mental is the question of succession. A dying charismatic leader leaves the com-
munity with these options:
- Waiting for a successor to have an epiphany and to demonstrate his or her
qualifications (allowing for an interregnum, potentially endangering the co-
hesion and continuity of the community) - Securing continuity by one of the following methods:
i. The charismatic leader designates a successor
ii. If not the leader, then the followers identify a qualified candidate
iii. The community recognizes the possibility of transmitting charisma
through blood ties or ritual anointing and coronation (Salbung und
Krönung, a process that can lead to hierocracy)
Buber seems to prefer the first option, waiting: “Certainly the faithful wait for
the grace as that alone which they want to follow.”^21 He also claims, however, that
the Bible itself favors the first option; according to Buber, the history of prestate
Israel knows only one instance of the transfer of charisma to a successor, namely
the succession to Moses by Joshua.^22 That succession is unique, since Joshua dies
without establishing succession and without leaving clues regarding the struc-
ture of permanent institutions.
The arrival at full anarcho-theocracy, however, and the embrace of the inter-
regnum on the part of its supporters, sharpens what Buber calls the “paradox of
theocracy.” This paradox consists in the fact that “the highest commitment ac-
cording to its nature knows no compulsion,” that it applies in all its “existential
depth” on both individual and general levels. For the individual, it is possible at