The ‘charismatic leader’ is a recurring topic within the literature on populist radical right parties (PRRPs), arguing that charisma is important for the success of these parties. However, most studies assess charismatic leadership only through the perception of the leaders' followers and make no statement on the leaders' perspectives and their role for party institutionalisation. This article compares the supply and the demand sides of charisma by drawing on interviews with the so-called charismatic leader of the Swiss People's Party (SVP) – Christoph Blocher – and local, regional and national party representatives. The article shows that assessing both perspectives contributes to a better understanding of charisma and its importance for internal leadership in institutionalised PRRPs. The case of the SVP further demonstrates that successful party institutionalisation and a strong internal organisational structure make the party's durability less dependent on the charismatic leader and could lead to efforts of depersonalisation. Der ‘charismatische Leader’ ist ein wiederkehrendes Thema in der Literatur über rechtspopulistische Parteien (PRRPs), wobei argumentiert wird, dass Charisma für den Erfolg dieser Parteien wichtig ist. In den meisten Studien werden charismatische Führungspersönlichkeiten nur aus der Sicht der Anhänger bewertet; hingegen werden keine Aussagen über die Perspektiven der Führungspersönlichkeiten und ihre Rolle für die Institutionalisierung der Partei formuliert. Dieser Artikel vergleicht die Angebots- und die Nachfrageseite von Charisma anhand von Interviews mit dem sogenannten charismatischen Führer der Schweizerischen Volkspartei (SVP) - Christoph Blocher - und lokalen, regionalen und nationalen Parteivertretern. Der Artikel zeigt, dass die Betrachtung beider Perspektiven zu einem besseren Verständnis von Charisma und seiner Bedeutung für die interne Führung in institutionalisierten PRRPs beiträgt. Der Fall der SVP zeigt zudem, dass eine erfolgreiche Institutionalisierung der Partei und eine starke interne Organisationsstruktur die Beständigkeit der Partei weniger von der charismatischen Führungspersönlichkeit abhängig macht und zu Bemühungen um Entpersonalisierung führen können. Le ‘leader charismatique’ est un thème récurrent dans la littérature sur les partis populistes de droite (PRRP), où l'on argumente que le charisme est important pour le succès de ces partis. Cependant, la plupart des études n'évaluent les leaders charismatiques que du point de vue des partisans et ne formulent pas de conclusion sur la perspective des leaders et leur rôle dans l'institutionnalisation du parti. Cet article compare l'offre et de la demande du charisme sur la base d'entretiens avec le soi-disant leader charismatique de l'Union démocratique du centre (UDC) - Christoph Blocher - et des représentants du parti. L'article démontre que l'examen des deux perspectives contribue à une meilleure compréhension du charisme et de son importance pour le leadership interne dans les PRRP institutionnalisés. Le cas de l'UDC montre en outre qu'une institutionnalisation du parti et une structure organisationnelle solide rendent la pérennité du parti moins dépendante du leader charismatique. Within the scholarly literature on populism, we find an ongoing debate about the significance of charismatic leadership in populist parties. Scholars often describe the ‘charismatic leader’ as an essential feature of these parties (Zaslove, 2004; Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008). Others identify charismatic leadership as a factor that facilitates rather than defines populism (Mudde, 2004) and highlight other aspects, such as the centralisation of power to maintain political strength (Heinisch & Mazzoleni, 2016). Connected to these discussions, researchers analyse the relevance of personalised leadership for the success of populist radical right parties (PRRPs). Mudde (2007) distinguishes between different personal leadership orientations, both influenced by charisma. External leadership denotes the leaders' capacity to ensure electoral success, whereas internal leadership indicates their ability to develop and institutionalise the party organisation. The focus of this study will be on this latter – and according to Mudde (2007) often underestimated – institutional orientation of charismatic leadership. As originally conceived by Max Weber (1978), charismatic leadership is an affective bond between a leader and his/her followers. Charismatic leaders are assumed to exhibit extraordinary qualities like personal authority (Pappas, 2016), a sense of mission (Eatwell, 2006) and rhetorical persuasion (Eatwell, 2018), which need to be perceived as such by the leaders' followers. Yet, by solely focusing on followers' perceptions, we potentially miss important insights. Wodak (2015) argues that one of the salient elements of charismatic right-wing leaders' success is their “well-crafted strategic performance on frontstage” (2015: 125). This raises the question of whether such leaders believe themselves in the idealist value of their charismatic qualities or if they are just well versed in making the followers believe in them. In addition, previous analyses provide only scarce information about the perception of ‘charismatic leaders’ in ‘converted’ (Mény & Surel, 2000: 260) or ‘insider-radicalised’ PRRPs (Heinisch & Mazzoleni, 2016). The majority of the literature focuses on the leader's role as the uncontested founding father of a charismatic populist right-wing party. Such examples include Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front (Front National), Filip Dewinter's Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang), or Umberto Bossi's Nothern League (Lega Nord) (Michel et al., 2020). But how do parties respond if a charismatic leader effectively takes over, personalises and converts an established and already routinised organisation (Kriesi, 2018: 10)? To stick with Wodak's (2015) metaphorical image, the first puzzle this study addresses is if and how audiences' perceptions of charismatic qualities differ from the self-reflected view of the performer in insider-radicalised parties. Another aspect examined is the linkage of charismatic leadership and party institutionalisation. The process of institutionalisation is a crucial factor for parties' organisational endurance. Harmel and Svåsand (2018: 6; 2019: 2) define it as a “process of acquiring the properties of a durable organisation which is valued in its own right and gaining the perceptions of others that it is such”. However, institutionalised parties could also face de-institutionalisation if they forgo routinisation of decision-making and develop features of charismatic parties (Harmel et al., 2018). This raises questions about the connection of charisma, personalisation and party organisation. Whereas Panebianco (1988: 144) argues that “charisma is intrinsically unstable, and is sooner or later eliminated by routine administrative needs”, previously routinised parties may undergo processes of de-institutionalisation if they become associated with a charismatic leader. To re-institutionalise, a party needs to depersonalise, implying a routinisation of decision-making and value infusion that departs from the dominant leadership (Harmel & Svåsand, 2019). To date, however, we lack information about such processes within converted mainstream parties and how they affect representatives' opinions on charismatic leaders. Therefore, the second puzzle to solve is to what extent current perceptions of charismatic qualities depend on institutionalisation processes in insider-radicalised parties (Panebianco, 1988; Weyland, 2001; Heinisch & Mazzoleni, 2016). To assess these two conundra, the article focuses on the main PRRP in Switzerland and its de facto leader Christoph Blocher. In the academic literature, the Swiss Peoples' Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP) is not only described as one of the strongest PRRPs in Western Europe (Bernhard, 2017; Stockemer, 2018), but as a converted party “led by a charismatic entrepreneur” (Albertazzi, 2009: 6) – a successful, wealthy businessman who uses his financial resources to achieve his political goals while being seen as a man of the people (Skenderovic, 2009; Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2015). Nevertheless, Mazzoleni and Rossini (2016) question the influence of Blocher's charisma on the party's success and highlight his role in organisational developments after entering the national party leadership. Unlike other party leaders, Blocher was not the founding father of the SVP and was never the party's elected president. The ‘old SVP’ was a historically rooted party created in 1971 through the merger of the former Party of Farmers, Traders and Citizens (Bauern-, Gewerbe- und Bürgerpartei, BGB) and the Democratic Party. Yet, Blocher's charismatic influence was instrumental in radicalising and personalising what became the ‘new SVP’, professionalising its organisational structure, moving its ideology further to the right and increasing its vote share (Mazzoleni & Rossini, 2016). Focusing on internal leadership and institutionalisation in the SVP allows us to explore the different perceptions of charismatic qualities between a leader and his followers within a successful PRRP. To address the research questions, I draw upon 34 interviews11 The author conducted all interviews in French and Swiss German. The interviews were fully transcribed and then translated into English by the author. with local, regional and national party representatives from three different cantonal branches (Zurich, Bern and Geneva). Blocher's view on the nature of charismatic leadership is based on an interview conducted in October 2020.22 Interview transcripts originating from all interviews are deposited with the UK Data Service (https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/) and are available from April 2022. Although not representative of all insider-radicalised PRRPs, the SVP serves as an intriguing case study through which to explore charisma-related developments in this party family. I argue that such a comparative assessment of the supply and demand side of charisma provides a more nuanced understanding of internal leadership and party institutionalisation in PRRPs. Structured along established charismatic key characteristics, the article offers a profound insight into a leader's own view on charismatic authority as compared to followers' perceptions. To the best of my knowledge, no such study exists at present. The article proceeds as follows: in sections two and three, I discuss how the literature characterises charismatic leadership and party institutionalisation, respectively. In the fourth section, I present the SVP as a case study for an insider-radicalised PRRP with a specific focus on Christoph Blocher's leadership in the context of the party's trajectory of institutionalisation. In the same section, I present the hypotheses based on the previously introduced theoretical approaches. I then discuss the results indicating that both the representatives and the leader demonstrate an ambivalent perception of Blocher's charismatic leadership, albeit with a different focus on charismatic features. In addition, I argue that party institutionalisation and a strong internal organisation provide a structure that make the SVP's durability much less dependent on charismatic leadership. In the final section, I propose avenues for future research. To analyse whether and how charismatic perceptions differ between the populist leader and their followers within an institutionalised PRRP (Panebianco, 1988), we first need conceptual clarity over ‘charismatic leadership’. Charisma is a contested concept, and with a focus on PRRPs, Mudde (2007) identifies the vagueness of the term ‘charismatic leader’ as a key problem. Eatwell (2006) outlines several theoretical approaches to why a charismatic leader may have appeal. These theories include structural crises, cultural legitimation, political facilitation, such as the support from a party organisation, and various psychological approaches to explain charismatic leadership. However, Eatwell further argues that, considering charismatic bonds between leaders and followers, theories of charisma have not evolved much since Max Weber's (1978) theoretical conceptualisation. This sentiment is echoed by Pappas (2016: 2), who labels Weber's theoretical approach the “obligatory point of departure”. In its most basic theoretical understanding, deriving from Weber's approach, charisma entails a leader's set of extraordinary qualities. These qualities need then to be recognised by those subject to charismatic appeals, thereby creating a charismatic bond (Weber, 1978: 242). However, Weber thought it would be difficult to sustain such a bond and the followers' support because a leader would have to constantly prove his extraordinary qualities. Similarly, Tucker (1970) notes that, depending on the political culture, a leader's charismatic authority does not exclude the possibility of the followers disagreeing or contesting his extraordinary qualities. Alluding to Weber's concept, Willner and Willner (1965) emphasise that personal charisma and authority are not inherent. They agree that a charismatic leader has the capacity to inspire due to their ability to focus on common grievances and interests of a segment of the population. But essentially, “it is not so much what the leader is but how he is regarded by those subject to his authority that is decisive for the validity of charisma” (Willner & Willner, 1965: 79). A leader needs to have his authority validated by others. Somewhat irrespective of the plethora of available theories, the literature on PRRPs often connects charismatic leadership to a vaguely defined set of superior qualities. Some authors have argued that charisma is an intrinsic quality and therefore a characteristic of populist leaders themselves (Canovan, 1999). They use charisma to establish intense connections with their followers to compensate for unstable support within weakly organised structures (Weyland, 2001). These works vaguely describe how invaluable charismatic populist leaders are for their personalised party's success (Zaslove, 2004), how well they communicate and connect with citizens (De Lange & Art, 2011) or to what extent they dominate their party (Heinisch & Mazzoleni, 2016). In these works, charisma is either not convincingly theorised or treated as an innate feature that makes populist leaders appealing and successful. Viviani (2017) criticises these approaches by constituting the differences between the conceptual cores of populism and charisma. The populist leader claims to be “one of the people”, whereas charisma attributes superior qualities to the leader and puts him “above the people” (Viviani, 2017: 296). Related to theories on charisma is the issue of conceptualisation. Pappas (2016: 1, 3–5) states that political charisma should be viewed as a categorical term of the either–or type; either a populist leader embodies certain criteria and is charismatic or not. He then postulates two criteria as conditions to classify a leader as charismatic. The first is the nature of rulership, which denotes if a leader exercises personal authority within the party organisation. Second is the aims of rule, which describe how charismatic leaders affect democratic structures by radically transforming well-established institutional orders. Employing a less dichotomous approach, Eatwell (2018) provides a more extensive categorisation to measure charismatic leadership. An idealistic sense of a mission is the essential feature and the core Weberian defining trait of charismatic leaders (Eatwell, 2002). Related to a charismatic leader's mission are their perceived extraordinary powers or qualities, which set them apart from ordinary political leaders. Those qualities include: great confidence and personal (media) presence; symbiotic hierarchy, which means their self-presentation as ordinary people; and a Manichean demonisation, which represents a targeting of internal and external enemies (Eatwell, 2006). Some authors highlight authority as the most important charismatic trait. Willner and Willner describe charisma as “a leader's capacity to elicit from a following deference, devotion, and awe toward himself as the source of authority” (1965: 79). Other scholars emphasise the populist leader's rhetorical skills, claiming that populist leaders simplify political issues, align themselves with the people and rely on an emotional presentation of their mission (Manucci, 2017). Several authors emphasise that party institutionalisation is a complex concept and there is a lack of clarity about the components it involves (Randall & Svåsand, 2002; Mazzoleni & Rossini, 2016). In his early definition, Janda (1980: 19) argued that an institutionalised party “exists as a social organisation apart from its momentary leaders, and demonstrates recurring patterns of behaviour valued by those who identify with it”. Another commonly used approach is Panebianco's (1988) integrated theory of institutionalisation. He describes institutionalised parties as externally autonomous and with a certain level of internal ‘systemness’ – the interdependence of different sectors (Panebianco, 1988: 55). An institutionalised party, according to this definition, is largely independent from its environment and offers complex and coherent working structures (Randall & Svåsand, 2002). For this study, I draw on Harmel, Svåsand and Mjelde's (2018) contemporary framework and treat institutionalisation as a multidimensional concept consisting of internal and external institutionalisation and objective durability. Internal institutionalisation refers to intra-party processes (value infusion, routinisation) by which the party behaves according to its own values and regular procedures apart from its momentary leader. External institutionalisation denotes the society's perceptions of the party's ability to last. Objective durability then refers to a party's ability to persist through critical periods. Related to this conceptualisation, de-institutionalisation refers to “processes of reversal from indicators of institutionalisation” (Harmel et al., 2018: 6). Echoing these theoretical approaches, some populism scholars proclaim that charismatic leadership and party institutionalisation are somewhat incompatible (Mudde, 2007). In this view, personalisation in PRRPs is an obstacle to institutionalisation (Harmel & Svåsand, 2019: 3). Other scholars argue that PRRPs are most successful if charismatic leadership is coupled with a centralised party structure (Betz, 1998; Zaslove, 2004). This organisational structure transfers control to the charismatic leader, but at some point, they may still become a liability to the party organisation if it seeks to constrain the charismatic leader's influence (Panebianco, 1988). To assess perceptions of charismatic leadership, attention has to be paid to variations in party types. De Lange and Art (2011) argue that charismatic entrepreneurial parties with founder-leaders, such as the Dutch Partij Voor de Vrijheid (PVV) can institutionalise due to the populist leader's strong external leadership skills. They are able to respond to political issues and to attract external support by presenting a “united front, epitomised by a single leader” (Eatwell, 2006: 154). However, these leaders often lack the ability to organise the party internally. Equally, Pedahzur and Brichta (2002) argue that hard charismatic PRRPs, such as the French Front National can institutionalise, provided they receive enough electoral support and participate in governments. Nevertheless, they agree that after institutionalisation, such parties are more vulnerable if they are incapable of routinising the leader's charisma. In this context, Harmel, Svåsand and Mjelde (2018) compare the charismatic Progress Parties in Norway and Denmark and find that the Danish Progress Party de-institutionalised due to internal disputes at the leadership level, whereas the Norwegian Party did not suffer the same fate. What these studies have in common is the often-assumed improbability of charismatic leadership once these charismatic (or entrepreneurial) parties are institutionalised. However, they disagree on the combination of the leader's charismatic features and perceptions, and the extent to which they are instrumental or impedimental for PRRPs' organisational transformation (Weber, 1978; Pedahzur & Brichta, 2002; Mudde, 2007). In addition, most case studies focus on parties founded by a distinct leader, whereas the SVP existed as a weakly established conservative party before Blocher's appearance and involvement. Most scholarship analysing PRRPs regards Christoph Blocher as a charismatic leader (Mazzoleni, 2008; Albertazzi, 2009), although some authors also question his charismatic appeal (McDonnell, 2016; Pappas, 2016; Eatwell, 2018). Blocher's role, however, goes beyond leading as he introduced new forms of personalised leadership and party organisation within Switzerland. Bornschier and Helbling (2005) note that the Swiss political landscape has rarely been personality-centric. One exception is Christoph Blocher, former party president of the Zurich SVP, long-time National Councillor, and former Federal Councillor, who is known throughout Switzerland. Unlike most other politicians, he personifies both the SVP and its rise and political change since the late 1980s and early 1990s (Stockemer, 2018). In fact, after Blocher became involved, “the new SVP was built in a decisive way around its leader” (Mazzoleni, 2015). However, it is worth noting that Blocher himself refuses to be called a populist, claiming that unlike a populist, he does not opportunistically adapt his programme to the respective audience (Furrer & Neff, 2017). He also reiterated this view in our interview. The SVP was founded in 1971 as a decentralised, conservative, rural agrarian party but underwent a shift towards a populist right-wing ideology and achieved national territorial penetration (Mazzoleni & Rossini, 2016). After his election as president of the SVP in Zurich in 1977, a post he held until 2003, Blocher transformed the SVP into a successful PRRP and was the driving force behind the party's programmatic shift and new organisational structures (Mazzoleni, 2015). According to Albertazzi and McDonnell (2015: 55–56), Blocher's strategy aimed to make the party more efficient, ideologically coherent and electorally appealing. The new SVP created a “winning formula” (Mazzoleni, 2008), which focused on nationalism and traditional Swiss values, market-friendly policies and anti-establishment narratives. In terms of organisation, the SVP increased its territorial extensiveness, intensiveness and centralisation to reduce the autonomy of cantonal branches. These strategies resulted in continuous electoral gains from the mid-1990s to 2007, with the SVP becoming the largest party in the Swiss parliament. However, Blocher's agenda of institutionalising and nationalising the party (Mazzoleni & Skenderovic, 2007) was coupled with certain elements of internal de-institutionalisation. While the SVP's systemness and reification substantially increased, the party's value infusion and decision-making became strongly connected to Blocher's own mission, financial resources and authority. As such, Blocher personalised the SVP and created his own brand of Swiss right-wing politics (Mazzoleni & Rossini, 2016: 84). This development became a paramount example of how agency affects structure (Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008). Following the SVP's electoral success, Blocher was elected to the Federal Council in 2003, only to be replaced four years later, thereby stirring internal frictions (Mazzoleni & Skenderovic, 2007). Blocher's replacement with a more moderate SVP member, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf of the Grisons SVP branch, resulted in a major internal crisis for the party. Just in the previous year, the SVP had tried to benefit from Blocher's charismatic appeal – the so-called Blocher effect (Kriesi et al., 2005) – by completely personalising its national election campaign with the slogan ‘Support Blocher! Vote SVP’ (Mazzoleni, 2015). Thus, Blocher's non-election constituted a major blow to his image as the true leader of the party and the SVP's efforts of more personalisation (Church, 2008). Blocher's defeat led to the “third phase in the SVP's evolution” (Mazzoleni & Rossini, 2016). The party experienced a brief period of growing external de-institutionalisation when it threatened to withdraw into ‘opposition’ and non-cooperation with governmental parties for about a year (Vatter & Church, 2009). This strategy – although short-lived – ran counter to the party's external reification and the Swiss tradition of concordance. Internally, the SVP faced increasing factionalism between different cantonal branches and disapproval of Blocher's leadership, yet the party proved its objective durability (Harmel & Svåsand, 2019). The SVP secured Blocher's return, strengthened its central office, changed statutes to expel disloyal cantonal branches and sharpened its ideological profile (Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2015). It survived the internal crises and remained the biggest party in Switzerland. While the SVP lost seats between 2007 and 2011, the party increased its voter share by 2.8 percentage points in 2015 and – despite a 3.8 percentage point loss – remains the strongest party with 25.6% in 2019. Although the charismatic leader had lost some power and the nimbus of invincibility, the party organisation remained strong (Mazzoleni & Rossini, 2016), and the SVP experienced internal and external re-institutionalisation. This process was also exemplified by the SVP's return to the federal government in 2008 and 2015. A few years later, Blocher eventually retired from the National Council and all national leadership committees and, as he turned 80 years old in 2020, he announced his voluntary withdrawal from party politics, stating that younger people should be in charge (Müller, 2020). The looming retreat as the party's powerful figurehead raises questions on how party representatives perceive the leader's charismatic influence compared to Blocher himself and in what form the SVP manages to exist distinct from its retiring charismatic leader (Janda, 1980). Addressing the first puzzle on different perceptions of charismatic leadership in insider-radicalised parties, I juxtapose Weber's (1978) theoretical approach on charismatic bonds, in which the extraordinary qualities are recognised by followers with assumptions that charismatic qualities are an intrinsic feature of charismatic leaders in PRRPs (Canovan, 1999; Weyland, 2001; Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008). I assume that Blocher is prone to emphasise the idealist nature of his leadership qualities in his fight for the people and their positive effect on the party's ideological cohesion and organisational strength, whereas the perception of his followers is likely to be more ambivalent based on the SVP's origins as a converted mainstream party, intra-party factionalism and present electoral and programmatic expectations (Tucker, 1970; Mazzoleni & Rossini, 2016). Keeping in mind that Blocher was not the founder-leader of the SVP, I state the following hypothesis: H1: The populist leader's self-reflective view on his charismatic qualities is likely to be less ambivalent compared to the perception of his followers in insider-radicalised parties. Secondly, and following from this first assumption, I suggest that another reason affecting these perceptions is rooted in the party's level of institutionalisation. Charismatic leadership can contribute to the consolidation of a party, but it may also delay its further development (Willner & Willner, 1965). Blocher managed to radicalise and centralise the SVP. The improvements he achieved in the 1990s were instrumental to ensuring the party's current objective durability (Harmel & Svåsand, 2019). I therefore assume that Blocher's combined charismatic and organisational leadership created a level of internal and external party institutionalisation that became strong enough to persist without him. In addition, Blocher's current, less dominant position within the party may prompt his followers to challenge his authority and actively disassociate themselves from his commanding influence (Weber, 1978). Based on the presented linkages on charisma and institutionalisation, I formulate my second hypothesis: H2: If a charismatic leader achieves strong institutionalisation of an insider-radicalised party, it makes the party more likely to persist beyond his charismatic leadership. As outlined in the previous section, I assess the supply and demand sides of charismatic leadership within the SVP. Research for this paper is based on original data collected as part of a larger study to assess organisational models in PRRPs. I conducted structured elite interviews with 34 SVP representatives (26 men, 8 women) in the Cantons of Zurich, Bern, and Geneva operating at different organisational levels, ranging from presidents of local sections to cantonal parliamentarians and National Councillors.33 See Appendix for the full list of interviewees (anonymised). To guarantee their anonymity, I indicated a number for each political representative (PR), their political position,44 L = local representative, R = regional representative, N = national representative. and the Canton (e.g. PR21, L, Geneva). Due to the small sample size and virtual impossibility of obtaining a random sample, I used a purposive sampling strategy (McDonnell, 2016) to ensure inclusion of representatives operating at various organisational levels. The choice of cantonal branches is justified by the role they played for the SVP's political development (Kriesi et al., 2005). The