	Popkin’s rational choice theory has a complicated relationship to the idea that individuals do play a significant role in bringing about political change. On one hand, the theory seems to actually emphasize the importance of individual actors in bringing about change. People who are more easily convinced to join a revolution, people who are willing to put the ultimate benefit of an oppressed group on a higher plane than immediate harm to oneself or one’s family, will be the ones who “make” revolution. On the other hand, the theory could be interpreted as another structural theory. It reduces the complex motivations behind any action to a simple cost-benefit analysis of sorts the results of which may be similar from person to person. Putting aside the problematic suggestion that an individual knows what is in his or her best interest at a given time, the theory seems to discount much of what makes people tick, particularly in times of revolution. Traits like idealism or righteousness may skew one’s decision in favor of revolution. More importantly, though, the rational choice theory overlooks the drive of certain people to become heroes or their own personal reasons for propagating revolution. Motivations are often more complex than Popkin represents. But the people who are willing to stick their necks out before a revolution has enough support to reach critical mass and succeed are those who drive a revolution. These people make their decisions on an individual level, and when the group of revolutionaries is still small, each individual is an actor with a direct influence on the course of the revolution. If any one person were to not become involved with the revolution, it is true that they may be quickly replaced—or it may take longer to find someone else to support the revolution, and the revolution could be quashed in the interim.
	Max Weber’s theory of charisma has a similarly complicated relationship. At first Weber seems to condone the ability of the influential individual to effect change. Charisma is one of those qualities that certain individuals exhibit which allows them to hold influence in the course of revolution. But when Weber goes on to explain the eventual course of an influential leader, he re-orients that leader in a purely structural perspective, and negates the capacity of people to act outside of the bounds of what may be structurally prescribed. Weber considers that one of these charismatic leaders will inevitably either die (which of course can’t be debated) or lose glamour, and thus be forced to take measures to counteract this and maintain power. The alternatives Weber provides are that the leader must either instate a personalistic, traditionalist style of rule or else promote bureaucracy to keep the state going. However, this is a false dichotomy that fails to account for individual choice. While none of the revolutions looked at in this course have yet taken this path, it is entirely possible that a revolutionary, a “charismatic leader” of Weber’s mold, might simply step down following the revolution, if that leader were of a special enough type to give up their own personal power in favor of a righteous state. When Weber fails to acknowledge other possibilities, he casts the leader in a structural role that is too rigid to account for the full spectrum of human variation.
