Milšović type of authority is charismatic. Yugoslavia lost their adored leader Tito, which left in a vulnerable state and lost hope. “His death was a major catastrophe, like an earthquake or a flood.” (Drakulić, 126), Tito’s death brought grief to the people of Yugoslavia, because …show more content…
His people saw him as a father figure that is guiding them. “He was the father, and we are the children.” (Fuller) Sihanouk, as a king, made sure that he had moral integrity when he ruled the people, which made them like him so much. King Sihanouk achieved an accomplishment that really earned the trust and respect of Cambodians; he gave them independence from France in a peaceful manner. (Fuller) In Fuller’s article, he describes what sets the Cambodian royal family apart from Britain and Thailand; what sets them apart is that they are not wealthy. The fact they aren’t wealthy makes them on the same level as the people and makes them easier to be respected and more likeable. King Sihanouk’s types of authority are Charismatic and Traditional. He was charismatic because he gave this feeling to the people that he is not just an authority figure, but he deeply cares about them. This type of ruling makes the people feel as though their interest is being looked after which makes King Sihanouk so likable. He indicates that he cares about them, which gives him the view of a fatherly figure. King Sihanouk’s second type of authority is Traditionalist. Sihanouk is part of a royal family in Cambodia and the role of being the head of state was passed down. Sihanouk is very well respected among the