Gadi Eisenkot

Security as Authority

This essay is part of a broader inquiry into leadership after the exhaustion of charisma. It examines how contemporary democracies, confronted with permanent insecurity and political fragmentation, increasingly turn to professional authority as a substitute for both charisma and vision. The case of Gadi Eisenkot offers a clear example of this tendency.

Who is Gadi Eisenkot?

Gadi Eisenkot is a former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, a position he held from 2015 to 2019. Over a military career spanning four decades, he became known for restraint, professionalism, and a preference for measured use of force. After leaving the military, Eisenkot entered politics, positioning himself as a serious, sober alternative to both charismatic populism and overt ideological radicalism.

To readers unfamiliar with Israel, Eisenkot represents a recognizable democratic figure: the senior security professional who transitions into political life at a moment of crisis. His authority does not derive from rhetorical flair or party machinery, but from credibility accumulated through institutional service.

This background is central to understanding the kind of leadership Eisenkot embodies.

The Post-Charismatic Challenge

As discussed throughout this series, the decline of charismatic leadership has not eliminated the need for authority. In societies marked by fear, instability, and institutional fatigue, leadership must still command trust. The question is where that authority comes from once charisma is no longer credible.

One common response is to transfer authority from politics to expertise. In security-focused societies, this often means elevating military professionalism into a political virtue. Eisenkot’s leadership emerges precisely at this juncture.

Security as Political Authority

Eisenkot’s authority rests on seriousness rather than inspiration. He speaks sparingly, avoids theatrical language, and presents himself as a custodian of institutional responsibility. His public presence conveys discipline, restraint, and reliability—qualities that stand in sharp contrast to performative leadership.

In a political environment saturated with rhetoric and polarization, this posture carries significant weight. Security expertise becomes a form of moral capital. The leader is trusted not because he promises a future, but because he appears capable of preventing catastrophe.

Eisenkot thus exemplifies a post-charismatic model of leadership in which authority is derived from professional competence and ethical restraint rather than from vision or mobilization. Politics becomes an extension of security management.

The Limits of Security Authority

Yet this form of leadership has intrinsic limits.

Security expertise can stabilize, but it cannot substitute for political imagination. When authority is grounded primarily in military credibility, politics risks being reduced to threat management. Questions of civic identity, diplomacy, and long-term purpose are filtered through a security lens that prioritizes risk avoidance over transformation.

Eisenkot’s restraint, while valuable, also constrains political articulation. His leadership resists excess, but it does not redefine direction. Authority is preserved, yet horizons remain narrow.

This is not a failure of character or intention. It is a structural limitation of security-based authority in democratic politics. Professional seriousness can prevent deterioration, but it cannot alone generate a renewed political project.

Why Eisenkot Matters Beyond Israel

Eisenkot’s case reflects a broader democratic pattern. In moments of prolonged crisis, societies often turn to figures whose legitimacy derives from expertise rather than imagination. Military leaders, technocrats, and institutional custodians are asked to govern precisely because they promise continuity and restraint.

Across democracies, this produces leadership that is credible but cautious, authoritative but constrained. Security becomes a stand-in for politics, and stability replaces vision as the highest value.

Eisenkot illustrates both the strength and the limit of this response. He embodies a leadership capable of containing excess and commanding trust, yet unable to move politics beyond the horizon of security itself.

In the context of this series, Eisenkot clarifies a crucial point: when charisma recedes and style proves insufficient, authority often migrates to security. But authority without political imagination cannot, by itself, renew democratic life.

Part of the series Leadership After Charisma
(See the introduction: “Leadership After Charisma — Why these essays”)