q OF 1 Acquisition iy : >’ of Knowledge POLITICAL ORGANIZATION Banos AND TRIBES Bands and tribes are considered as the simplest political systems. They are often perceived to be “acephalous” or without a well-defined system ot leadership. A band is typically formed by several families living together based on marriage ties, common descendants, friendship affiliations, and members usually have a common interest, or enemy. Thus, the main source of integration is kinship either by blood or affinity. The power structure within 4 bandis less hierarchical as member families are seen to be equal and there is no class differentiation based on wealth. Status, if present, is a function of age (elders are accorded respect) or of gender. There is evidence thathave high omen there ef influence in bands th jorage’s tos there ).while men tend to enn lat are considered pedestrian ands whose livelhoous g Up having more leadership role: in gs where {00d is pr #Pend on hunting, o , ean in Produced by cam ana 98 pastoralistagricultural Informal leadership is accorded to wend ne aNd the status of informal leadership formal process of an election. Th eimal PFOCESS. An infor 'e small size of a band enables this relatively it al leader does not possess absolute political ower, and could not compel oth ers and can , making is often done by consensus. only give advice. Decision As bands increase in size, the tendency for conflict increases, which lead to the band splitting along family lines. This process is known, - “band fissioning.” Eventually, this could lead to some leaving the band to form their own, which is referred to as “social velocity” Evidence suggests that while food scarcity can be a trigger for conflict, what usually leads to fissioning and eventual break-up is the presence of social discord that the informal leadership system could no longer contain. At present, there is practically no band that remains intact. Aband that survives fissioning and social velocity, even as it experiences increasing population and a shift from a foraging and hunting community, to one where there is now a presence of multiple communities engaged in pastoral or horticultural forms of livelihood, eventually becomes a tribe. Atribe is still considered an acephalous political system, even if it is more complex than a band. This complexity results from the fact that the source of integration is no longer simply by informal forms of leadership presiding to govern kinship ties or friendship, but by a more elaborate way of organizing to settle conflicts to prevent the society from breaking apart. The manner by which tribes are organized is through the Presence of pantribal associations, oF what anthropologists refer to as “sodalities.’ These come in the form ‘of councils or tribal elders. It was noticed that the emergence of more complex wayS of organizing a tribe eventually reo the eventual displacement of women leaders. This is also partly ave we es from foraging to agricultural forms of ivetnoad which even in ba lier were seen to naturally give men re peda ee Tribes are often headed by 2 oer, A village headman derives hig role does not have absolute political POWeTition, coupled with an abblity to forg, P ing a senior position, cot “0 8 ott authority tO ee vomain egalitarian, where families and gray" to obey him. 8 arg a ically equal, even those of the headin i litically and econom! I, ¢ * considered Pet seen as economically self-sufficient and are larger and " Tribes fod than bands. However, contact with modern societies jeq to : ae al collapse of tribal systems as tribes were unable to Maintain they evel traditional political systems. ChieroMs Bands and tribes are characterized by the relatively informal Politica) structures that rule them. A chiefdom, on the other hand, is defined ag 4 political organization that is more defined. In a chiefdom, formal leadership exists and authority rests solely on the members of a select family. jt is composed of a number of communities that is ruled by a permanent paramount chief coming from this elite family. Power is thus inherited in chiefdoms. The social structure in chiefdoms. is hierarchical. Social classes exist and are differentiated according to the level of their power in relation to the permanent ruler. However, class mobility can exist. It usually happens when ‘one performs an extraordinary task or achievement. Furthermore, social Status is affected by marriage, age, and sex. Chiefdoms can either be simple or complex. A simple chiefdomis characterized by acentral village or community ruled by a single family. A number of smaller communities surround this smaller community, with each being headed by a Subsidiary leader subservient to the central ruler. __ Acomplex chiefdomis composed of several simple chiefdoms ruled bya single paramount chief residing ina single Paramount center. This is a highly ructured and hierarchical political s i | ystem charact stem where the elites demand tributes in the fort piraysbaimarde fr rom the commoners to a system that is called a “tributary system.” Lesse" amen!iti Was Punctuat . ENT ope tha eetzations, what enone calapse Out of the 0 hei som. habits, and ethniciyss & common history, language, factions, a1 ne oa become outa Groups are conscious of their identity mi - collectively referred to as nations, ‘mous and unified. These groups are scholars refer to nations as either “imagined” or “abstract . act.” Benedict Anderson consi 7 ae rations can exist as a state tee nation as imagined in the sense that . : - |, where the material expressions seen in actual residence in a physical territory becomes sect ondary to the common imagined connections emanating from a common history and identity. Thus even if people may be scattered in different places, they have this self- consciousness that they belong to a particular nationality, as what is typical ofnations in diaspora. Filipinos, for example, live in several parts of the world but remain conscious of their being Filipinos. Paul James considers a nation as abstract. He argues that a nation is objectively impersonal even if each individual is able to identify with others. This argument however may not be true for Filipinos, as Filipinos identify strongly with other Filipinos, especially when they are in other countries. Anation, despite its being historically constituted and having a common sense of identification among its members, as well as the consciousness of having the potential to be autonomous, nevertheless does not possess political sovereignty. As such, it remains a political entity that does not possess the status of being recognized as an independent political entity. A state, on the other hand, is a political unit consisting of a government that has sovereignty presiding over a group of people and a welrdefined territory, It is thus the highest form of political organization. wet ma a State sovereign is its capacity to maintain order a ae eont member tthe “as - is an and that it is recognized by other ste Ose a otate are referred to as Community of states. The people thal its citizens. When the citizens of a state b Called a nation-state. long to only one nation, such state isany states that Govern peop)... there are ™ 0 are conscious OF their be,,, it that However, the reality is 1 5 and wh B who have different cultural ise sithin states. THIS BECOMES a Probe, tions wis nai here a dominant Qroup distinct. Thus they become ally, and wl or ji treated unequi Miseriminatory practices. The case, when these nations are to n rules the state and subjects the vans in the US are examnes orth Native Hawal of the American Indians or ine ate pros in Mindanao are techricay be argued ne they have a di of this. It can pan thin the Philippine state solid ne a ave sin cultura ieentty and history. Hence, clearly the Philipp! Ot be ed as a nation-state. orrne ‘discrimination of nations within states is an offshoot a the ese of many states toward nation building. By cultivating a clonal identr fal ism which may establish a common and homogenous Natio! y, like f groups may not take into i bols, a national language and national symbols, F ; consideration the existence of the unique cultural attributes of other national groupings. This leads to discrimination, and in some instance, it could lead to forced integration into the culture of the dominant national identity and even to actual genocide. POLITICAL LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY The task of organizing a political community requires the existence of leaders. Leaders, in order to be effective, need to possess authority that is considered legitimate by the members of the community. Autiority vis-A-vis LEGITIMACY / Authorityis the power to make binding decisions and issue commands. It is necessary for a leader to possess authority. What makes authority binding lection, or when one is perceived to of qualifications, Hence, for authority gitimate, be undeserving of power due to lack to be binding and Stable, it must be leWEBER AND THE TYPES oF LeGiTIMATE AUTHORITY | Max Weber Wentiies three types of authority based on the source of peirlegitimacy. There Is traditional authority whose legitimacy is derived from yellestablished customs, habits, and social structures. Monarchical rule or the rule of elites in a chiefdom are examples of leadership systems that have ditional authority. Then there is charismatic authority whose legitimacy emanates from the charisma of the individual, which for some can be seen as a “gift of grace,” or the possession of “gravitas” or an authority derived from a “higher power such as those that are associated with the divine right of kings. The possession of this charisma enables one to be accorded authority despite of the absence of cultural or even legal justification. In some instances, charismatic authority is even able to negate the standards provided by culture and tradition, or by laws. Religious leaders, or even popular icons such as movie actors, are examples of people who may end up possessing charismatic authority. Then there is rational-legal or bureaucratic authority. This kind of authority draws its legitimacy from formal rules promulgated by the state through its fundamental and implementing laws. This is the most dominant way of legitimizing authority in modern states, and this is from where government officials draw their power.