Authority

Definition:
The power or right to give orders and enforce obedience, the power to
influence others based on recognised knowledge or expertise. According to
Maclver “By authority we mean the established right within any social order to
determine policies, to pronounce judgments or relevant issues and to settle
controversies or, more broadly, to act as leader or guide to other men” (The
Web of Government).
“Authority is the right to rule. It exists when subordinates acknowledge the
right of superiors to give orders. Authority is more than voluntary compliance”.

Weber’s Classification of Authority:

Max Weber has classified authority on the basis of legitimacy Authority’s claim
to do something and to demand allegiance from the citizens are based on
arguments which Weber calls legitimacy. Needless to say that Weber uses the
term legitimacy in the light of greater and wider perspective. There are three
types of authority. The first is traditional authority. Second is charismatic
authority and the third is legal-rational authority.

Traditional Authority:
The first type of authority is called traditional authority because authority is
based on customs and traditions which are long established. That is, people of
a community show respect to a particular authority on the ground that their
forefathers did the same and naturally they cannot violate the tradition. In
earlier epochs authority existed and received obedience from the citizens. The
tradition continues. The authority, in this way is sanctioned by the tradition. An
aspect of the traditional authority is that there is no legal sanction behind such
authority. Simple customs, traditions and conventions have made the authority
legitimate. The records of the activities of the traditional authority are to be
found in the pages of history. Weber says that in ancient time and even in
middle Ages in many political systems the traditional authority existed. There
was also traditional authority in tribal societies of all countries. This was due to
the fact that political system in its present form did not develop in the tribal
societies. But this did not adversely affect the functioning or management of
tribal societies or political systems of earlier epochs. In hereditary social and
political systems, the traditional authority exists. In many countries of Africa (or
West Asia) there are hereditary systems or dynastic rulers. The son or daughter
of a ruler becomes ruler. The rulers of the hereditary system have built up the
tradition and that tradition continues. The governing system of Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and Morocco provide the examples of traditional authority and
hereditary system.

Charismatic Authority:
Charismatic authority is Weber’s second type of legitimate authority. People
obey the authority or show allegiance mainly due to the charisma possessed by
the authority. An individual creates tremendous impact upon the mind of the
people by dint of his personality or charisma. Not all individuals or men holding
power possess such type of personality or charisma. If we open the pages of
history we shall find that few leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon,
Ayatollah Khomeini, and Fidel Castro possessed the charismatic power. The
charisma is so powerful that people do not go into the legal aspects of the
power. With the help of charisma the authority exercises power and people
accept it. Charismatic authority is not always supported by law. Charisma is a
special quality or gift of God. Sometimes charisma and legality are to be find a
single person. For example, de Gaulle of France, Margaret Thatcher of Britain
had exceptional qualities to influence people. Nehru of India had the same
qualities. But all these persons came to power through legal and constitutional
means. Not in reality it is not always clear who is simply a charismatic authority
and legal or constitutional authority. This is specially correct if we consider the
regimes of Hitler and Mussolini. Hitler, Mussolini and even to some extent de
Gaulle forcefully seized political power and they remained in power with the
help of charisma.

Legal-Rational Authority:
Weber’s final classification is legal-rational authority. In almost all the modern
states this type of authority is generally found. It is legal because the formal
authority is supported by existing laws of the constitution. It is rational on the
ground that the posts and positions are clearly defined by law. Power and duty
are also clearly stated Rational-legal authority is the explicit form of a right to
give orders and to have been obeyed. The core idea of the legal-rational
authority is the holder of the authority has the right to issue orders or to take
decisions and also the authority (sanctioned by law) to implement them. When
the authority is challenged by rebellion or recalcitrant elements the authority
has the power/ability to take legal action. Everything is cloaked with legality. An
important aspect of legal-rational authority is—it cannot do anything or take
any decision on its own accord. Whatever the authority wants to do it must
have legal sanction. Legal-rational authority can be called a type of limited form
of government. John Locke contemplated such type of government. Late on
legal- rational authority laid the foundation of liberal form of government. The
government cannot whimsically interfere with the freedom of citizens. The
central theme of the legal-rational authority is law and rationality is the vital
points. There is no place of whims and the rationality in such authority.

Authority may appear in some other forms also, such as:

National and international
In relation to organs of government, namely, executive, legislative and judicial
Constitutional or statutory
National, regional or local
Political or administrative
Single, plural, corporate, commission or board form
Economic, social, religious, technical
Formal or informal
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. Communication, decision-making,
improvision of procedure and evaluation are the means and methods by which
systems operate and persist over time. Legitimate power is the basis of
authority of an organization. Authority does not indicate superiority of an
individual. He is only a living symbol of mechanism. This is the ‘magic of
government’ that enables a man to command, even if he is less intelligent, less
able, and below average than his subordinates. Orders given by man in
authority have to be carried out. In formal organisation, authority is rationally
distributed among various persons making up the hierarchy of an organisation.
But an informal organisation can also have authority, authority-positions, and
authority-persons or authorities. Formal organisations, therefore, often try that
informal organisations either do not grow or if they are unavoidable or
required at all, they are kept within bounds.

Legitimacy
Definition:
Power, influence and authority can be effective only if they are legitimate. The
role of coercion in political relations has diminished with the growth of culture
and civilization. Coercive power is now regarded primitive and brutal. The word
‘legitimacy’ has been derived from the Latin world ‘legitimas’. During the
middle ages it was called ‘legitimitas’ which in English language was
interpreted as ‘lawful’. Cicero used the word ‘legitimum’ to denote the power
constituted by law. Later on the word ‘legitimacy’ was used for traditional
procedures, constitutional principles and adoption to traditions. At still later a
stage the element of ‘consent’ was added to its meaning. Consent was
considered the essence of legitimate rule. In the modern age it was Max Weber
to first enunciate the concept of ‘legitimacy’ as a universal concept. According
to him, legitimacy is based in ‘belief’ and gets obedience from the people.
Power is effective only if it is legitimate. Undoubtedly, power has the right to
use coercion but that is not its chief element. Power should be based on
legitimacy otherwise it would invite trouble and may prove ineffective.

Sources of Legitimacy:
Tradition:
Legitimacy may rest on an established belief in the sanction of immemorial
traditions and on the need to obey leaders who exercise the authority
according to the traditions.

Exceptional Personal Qualities:

Legitimacy may secondly be based on “devotion to the specific and exceptional
sanctity, or exemplary character of an individual person.”

Legality:
Legitimacy may rest on the belief that power is wielded in a way that is legal.
What is done legally is regarded as legitimate.

Types of Legitimacy:
Ideological legitimacy:
When the source of legitimacy is the ideology prevailing in the society, it is
termed as ideological legitimacy. A political system is in fact an articulated set
of ideals, ends and purposes which help the members to interpret the past
explain the present and provide a vision for the future. The ideology portrays
the aims and states the objectives of the political system. These aims and
objectives have the potential as they constitute a set of ethically infused ideals
to capture the imagination of the people. They inspire men to action as they
are related to their success.

Structural legitimacy:
The principles which lead the members in a particular system to accept as
legitimate, contribute to the validation of structures and norms of the regime.
Every system has set goals according to which authority is exercised and
political power is wielded. This basis of validation is termed as structural
legitimacy.

Personal legitimacy:
If the behaviour and personality of those at the help of affairs is of dominating
importance and if the members consider these authorities as trust-worthy this
is known as personal legitimacy. David Easton is of the view that a large class of
leaders, regardless of any inner conviction of being called, or outer recognition
as such by followers, manage to build up a belief in their legitimacy. A political
system can face a crisis if its legitimate position is in peril. The crisis of this
nature brings change in the existing social system as well. A crisis of legitimacy
is thus a crisis of change. In the words of Lipset “…………In general even when
the political system is reasonably effective if at any time the status of major
conservative groups is threatened or if access to politics is divided to emerging
groups at crucial periods the system of legitimacy will remain in question. On
the other hand a breakdown of effectiveness repeatedly or for a long period
will endanger even a legitimate system’s stability.”