POLITICAL AUTHORITY

 AUTHORITY
-Power that people accept as right
 POWER
-The ability to influence or control the behavior of people
 POLITICAL
-Of, relating to, or dealing to with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or state
Therefore
 POLITICAL AUTHORITY
-Is the power of the government to enact laws and control the behavior of the people
Authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree to follow according to
specific procedures. People listen to authority figures because they feel that these individuals
are worthy of respect, or because they are in a position that inherently carries a degree of
respect. Generally speaking, people perceive the objectives and demands of an authority figure
as reasonable, legitimate, beneficial, or true.

Political authority is a distinct form of authority by contrast, for example, with

parental or divine authority, in that it is, historically at least, attached to the
power of governments and their various extensions (such as the laws, officials,
courts, the police etc.). Political authority is also a variety of the larger category
of practical authority (which includes parental and divine authority). A practical
authority is an authority that gives us reasons for action by contrast with a
theoretical authority, such as a knowledgeable friend or an expert, who gives us
reasons for beliefs.

Specifically, political authority is the power held by a political entity to require

action and claim obedience to its rules. This power can be either de facto or de
jure (normative). De facto political authority is the actual ability of a political
entity to rule and be obeyed. De jure or normative political authority is the
moral power, or right, of a political entity to claim obedience to its laws...

Michael Heumer has just published an interesting book on this question:  The Problem of
Political Authority. His answer is no.
Political authority, as he defines it, is the right of the government to coerce conformity to its rule
and the duty had by those subject to the government to obey. He points out that what
governments do would obviously be grotesquely immoral if you or I did it and asks what makes it
OK for governments. Consider for example that if I police the neighbourhood and lock up thieves
and vandals and demand money from you for the cost of this service we would call it kidnapping
and extortion but if the government does it it is called the criminal justice system and taxation. It
can’t just be that we got together and agreed to do it because a conspiracy to kidnap and extort is
even worse.
I haven’t got very far with the book yet so I’m not going to try to say much more now, but I think
he has set it up with the right question: The very foundation of government is coercion. Coercion
 is wrong, systematic coercion is wronger and systematic coercion with killing is wrongest. There
is therefore the heaviest possible burden of proof on those who would justify government.
Political philosophers have generally been far too sanguine in their belief that they have satisfied
that burden. I look forward to his analyses of their arguments.

THE DEMOCRATIC STATE