Introduction

The principle aim of this paper is to critically discuss the forms of authority, which government
officials and traditional leaders in Zambia possess. The essay will start by exploring key term
and then proceed to the main body before the conclusion is finally given.

Authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree to follow. People listen to
authority figures because they feel that these individuals are worthy of respect. Generally
speaking, people perceive the objectives and demands of an authority figure as reasonable and
beneficial, or true. Authority in general sense has unlimited functions. It is responsible for the
determination and execution of systemic goals. It performs the functions of coordination,
discipline, growth, and delegation. Systems attain pattern-maintenance, goal-attainment, tension
management, etc., through establishment of appropriate authorities (Arendt H, 2006).

Government official simply means any officer, employee or any other individual who is involved
or acting in an official capacity in public administration or government, through either election,
appointment, selection or employment (www.lawinsider.com)

Traditional leaders are authorities of traditional communities who derive their position of
authority from their customs and historic roots. The word ‘traditional’ has a historic meaning and
refers to something that originated in the past (Lutz & Linder, 2004). In Africa and particularly
Zambia, traditional leadership is often traced back to pre-colonial times (Ray, 2003).

Forms of Authority According to Max Weber

Not all authority figures are elected officials or government authorities. Besides formal offices,
authority can arise from tradition and personal qualities. Economist and sociologist Max Weber
realized this when he examined individual action as it relates to authority, as well as large-scale
structures of authority and how they relate to a society’s economy. Based on this work, Weber
developed a classification system for authority. His three types of authority are traditional
authority, charismatic authority and legal-rational authority (Weber, 1922).

Traditional Authority

As the name implies, traditional authority is power that is rooted in traditional, or long-standing,
beliefs and practices of a society. It exists and is assigned to particular individuals because of that
society’s customs and traditions. Individuals enjoy traditional authority for at least one of two
reasons. The first is inheritance, as certain individuals are granted traditional authority because
they are the children or other relatives of people who already exercise traditional authority. The
second reason individuals enjoy traditional authority is more religious: their societies believe
they are anointed by God or the gods, depending on the society’s religious beliefs, to lead their
society. Traditional authority is common in many preindustrial societies, where tradition and
custom are so important, but also in more modern monarchies, where a king, queen, or prince
enjoys power because she or he comes from a royal family (Coser, 1971).

Traditional authority is granted to individuals regardless of their qualifications. They do not have
to possess any special skills to receive and wield their authority, as their claim to it is based
solely on their bloodline or supposed divine designation. An individual granted traditional
authority can be intelligent or stupid, fair or arbitrary, and exciting or boring but receives the
authority just the same because of custom and tradition. As not all individuals granted traditional
authority are particularly well qualified to use it, societies governed by traditional authority
sometimes find that individuals bestowed it are not always up to the job (Coser, 1971).

Rational-Legal Authority

If traditional authority derives from custom and tradition, rational-legal authority derives from
law and is based on a belief in the legitimacy of a society’s laws and rules and in the right of
leaders to act under these rules to make decisions and set policy. This form of authority is a
hallmark of modern democracies, where power is given to people elected by voters, and the rules
for wielding that power are usually set forth in a constitution, a charter, or another written
document. Whereas traditional authority resides in an individual because of inheritance or divine
designation, rational-legal authority resides in the office that an individual fills, not in the
individual per se. For example, the authority of the president of the Republic of Zambia or the
United States of America thus resides in the office of the presidency, not in the individual who
happens to be president. When that individual leaves office, authority transfers to the next
president. This transfer is usually smooth and stable, and one of the marvels of democracy is that
officeholders are replaced in elections without revolutions having to be necessary (George,
1997).

Charismatic Authority

Charismatic authority stems from an individual’s extraordinary personal qualities and from that
individual’s hold over followers because of these qualities. Such charismatic individuals may
exercise authority over a whole society or only a specific group within a larger society. They can
exercise authority for good and for bad, as this brief list of charismatic leaders indicates: Joan of
Arc, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and
Buddha. Each of these individuals had extraordinary personal qualities that led their followers to
admire them and to follow their orders or requests for action (Lanoue, 1988).
Charismatic authority can reside in a person who came to a position of leadership because of
traditional or rational-legal authority. Over the centuries, several kings and queens of England
and other European nations were charismatic individuals as well while some were far from
charismatic (Ibid).

Weber emphasized that charismatic authority in its pure form (i.e., when authority resides in
someone solely because of the person’s charisma and not because the person also has traditional
or rational-legal authority) is less stable than traditional authority or rational-legal authority. The
reason for this is simple: once charismatic leaders die; their authority dies as well. Although a
charismatic leader’s example may continue to inspire people long after the leader dies, it is
difficult for another leader to come along and command people’s devotion as intensely. After the
deaths of all the charismatic leaders named in the preceding paragraph, no one came close to
replacing them in the hearts and minds of their followers (Weber, 1922).

Forms of Authority Government Officials and Traditional Leaders Posses in Zambia

With regard to Zambia, it should be kept in mind that here, as elsewhere in his work, Weber was
describing pure types; he was aware that in empirical reality mixtures will be found in the
legitimation of authority. Although presidential domination in third world countries is based on a
considerable extent on their charisma, elements of rational-legal authority remains in the citizens
of the countries (George 1997, Blau 1963).

The founding political figures in Zambia for example, just like in many parts of Africa possessed
charismatic form of authority. According to Weber (1978), followers of charismatic leaders tend
to show complete personal devotion to them or their authority based on the leader’s convictions,
courage or idealized vision of the future. This ‘complete devotion’ has also led followers to
assign messianic or savior status to charismatic leaders. Thus, it is not uncommon for founding
leaders of national liberation or independence movements to be labelled messiahs or God-given
leaders. The first generation of African nationalist leaders, such as Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia,
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, were revered figures, assigned larger
than life status as the ‘saviors’ of their countries from colonial rule (Apter, 1968 Breuilly, 2011).

In Zambia, at the height of the one-party state, Kenneth Kaunda was likened to God on earth.
There was, for example, a common dictum among members of the governing United National
Independence Party (UNIP) that ‘In heaven, it is God in charge; on earth, it is Kaunda.’ In this
sense, charisma rests not so much in the relevant individual’s recognition of the qualities that
others find exceptional but ‘in the perceivers of that charisma that is, in the society, rather than in
the personality of the object of their adulation’ (Kershaw, 1998).
Furthermore, Frederick Chiluba for instance emerged from the Zambian trade union movement,
which he had led continuously for more than 15 years, starting in 1974 soon after president
Kaunda declared the country a one-party state (Sishuwa, 2011). Fiery and eloquent, Chiluba’s
magnetism was palpable during the subsequent campaign against the one-party state and
Kaunda. He had a dominant personality and excited the imagination of thousands of followers
with his fearless attack on Kaunda and promises of a better Zambia after UNIP’s ouster. Chiluba
defeated Kaunda and UNIP in elections held in October 1991, with an overwhelming majority of
almost 75 percent of the national vote. In office, Chiluba creatively used religion to legitimize his
rule. For example, when assuming office, he declared Zambia a Christian nation in order to boost
his support among evangelical Christians (Clifford, 1998; Phiri, 2003).

As regards traditional leaders in Zambia, they possess traditional authority which is mainly based
on traditions of the past. Groups under this structure feel that their guidance is based on the
sanctity of age-old custom and influence. Unlike legal or rational authority, traditional authority
is not governed by codified rules, but is usually inherited with custom and historical ties.
Traditional authority has existed around the world since the beginning of documented time.
There are about 72 distinct traditional ethnic groups in Zambia among them are the Bemba, Lozi,
Tonga, Lenje, Soli and Chewa, that are subjects of various traditional leaders such as the Mwata
Kazembe (Bemba), Senior Chief Mukuni (Lenje), and Bunda Bunda (Soli). Each ethnic group
(tribe) is led by its own traditional leader. Ascension by traditional rulers to the throne
(chieftaincy) is by inheritance and lineage (Ibid).

Many government officials in Zambia possess rational- legal authority as enshrined in the
Zambian Constitution and Acts of Parliament. For instance, according to the Zambian
Constitution (2016), article 68 and 70 spells out the Election and composition of National
Assembly and Qualifications and disqualifications of Members of Parliament thereby creating
rational- legal authority. Notwithstanding the foregoing and as earlier stated, there is an overlap
of the forms of authority in Zambia and the world over. For example, traditional leaders such as
chiefs possess traditional authority by virtue of customs or tribe and may hold rational- legal
authority by virtue of them being a member of the House of Chiefs, a body established by law
(Act of Parliament). Article 165 establishes the institution and article 169 prescribes their
functions (the Constitution of Zambia, 2016).

In conclusion, legitimate authority (sometimes just called authority), Weber said, is power whose
use is considered just and appropriate by those over whom the power is exercised. In short, if a
society approves of the exercise of power in a particular way, then that power is also legitimate
authority. In Zambia, government officials and traditional leaders may possess authority in
different forms as espoused by Max Weber. Authority may be based on rational grounds and
anchored in impersonal rules that have been legally enacted or contractually established. This
type is rational-legal authority, which has increasingly come to characterize hierarchical relations
in modern society. Traditional authority, on the other hand, which predominates in pre-modern
societies, is based on belief in the sanctity of tradition, of “the eternal yesterday.” It is not
codified in impersonal rules but inheres in particular persons who may either inherit it or be
invested with it by a higher authority and these are similar to what is being experienced in
Zambia today. Charismatic authority, finally, rests on the appeal of leaders who claim allegiance
because of their extraordinary virtuosity, whether ethical, heroic, or religious.

References

Adamolekun, L. 1985. Political leadership in sub-saharan Africa: from giants to dwarfs.

International Political Science Review, 9(2): 103-105.

Arendt H (2006) ‘What Is Authority?’ In between Past and Future: Eight Essays in Political
Thought. London: Penguin Books.

Blau, P. M. (1963). “Critical remarks on Weber’s theory of authority”. The American Political
Science Review, 57 (2): 305-316.

Clifford, P. 1998. Chiluba’s Christian nation: Christianity as a factor in Zambian politics, 1991-
1996. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 13(3): 363-381.

Coser, L. A. (1971). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hatch, J.C. 1976. Two African statesmen: Kaunda of Zambia and Nyerere of Tanzania. London:
Secker and Warburg

George, D. A. R. (1997). “Self-management and ideology”, Review of Political Economy, 9 (1):

51-62.

Phiri, I.A. 2003. President Frederick J.T. Chiluba of Zambia: the Christian nation and democracy.
Journal of Religion in Africa, 33(4): 401-428

Spencer, M. E. (1970). “Weber on legitimate norms and authority”. The British Journal of
Sociology, 21 (2): 123-134.

The Constitution (Amendment Act) No. 2 of 2016.

Weber, M. (1958). “The three types of legitimate rule”. Berkeley Publications in Society and
Institutions, 4 (1): 1-11. Translated by Hans Gerth.

www.lawinsider.com