MODULE 1

Power, Authority and Legitimacy

1.1. Power as a concept in Political Science

Politics refers to the distribution and exercise of power within a society, and polity refers to the political institution through
which power is distributed and exercised. In any society, decisions must be made regarding the allocation of resources and
other matters. Except perhaps in the simplest societies, specific people and often specific organizations make these decisions.
Depending on the society, they sometimes make these decisions solely to benefit themselves and other times make these
decisions to benefit the society as a whole. Regardless of who benefits, a central point is this: some individuals and groups
have more power than others. Because power is so essential to an understanding of politics, we begin our discussion of
politics with a discussion of power.

Power refers to the ability to have one’s will have carried out despite the resistance of others. Most of us have seen a striking
example of raw power when we are driving a car and see a police car in our rearview mirror. At that particular moment, the
driver of that car has enormous power over us. We make sure we strictly obey the speed limit and all other driving rules. If,
alas, the police car’s lights are flashing, we stop the car, as otherwise we may be in for even bigger trouble. When the officer
approaches our car, we ordinarily try to be as polite as possible and pray we do not get a ticket. When you were 16 and your
parents told you to be home by midnight or else, your arrival home by this curfew again illustrated the use of power, in this
case parental power. If a child in middle school gives her lunch to a bully who threatens her, that again is an example of the
use of power, or, in this case, the misuse of power.

1.1.1 Meaning of Power

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary Power is defined as;

(1): ability to act or produce an effect

(2): ability to get extra-base hits
(3): capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect
b: legal or official authority, capacity, or right
2 a: possession of control, authority, or influence over others
b: one having such power specifically : a sovereign state
c: a controlling group.

Power, in political science, is the capacity to influence, lead, dominate, or otherwise have an impact on the life and actions of
others in society. The concept of power encompasses, but is not limited to, the notion of authority. Unlike authority, which
implies legitimacy, power can be exercised illegitimately.

Among the most seminal Western modern thinkers to investigate the phenomenon of power was the German sociologist Max
Weber (1864–1920). According to Weber, “within a social relationship, power is any chance (regardless of the basis of this
chance) to carry through one’s own will (even against resistance).” Weber’s broad definition encompasses various types of
power, from persuasion to coercion. It also includes exercises of power grounded in a claim to legitimacy (authority, or
Herrschaft) and exercises based on no such normative claim. A violent mob, for example, certainly exercises power (Macht)
but not authority.

In the mid-20th century a debate emerged in the social sciences between two contrasting types of power theory: so-called
elitist (or power-elite) theories and pluralistic theories. Although both approaches were based on Weber’s conception of
power as the capacity to create a desired outcome within a social relationship, they differed on the question of the
distribution of power—i.e., on whether power is concentrated in the hands of a few (a small minority within a society) or
more widely shared among competing groups. Elitist theorists viewed power as the accumulated capital of an elite in
possession of society’s critical levers, or instruments of social control. Such levers could include political appointments,
mass media, large corporations, the military, and other examples of what the American sociologist C. Wright Mills (1916–
62) called the “strategic command posts of the social structure.” Other scholars, including the American political scientist
Robert A. Dahl (1915–2014), rejected this elitist conception of power as contrary to the reality characteristic of modern
democracies such as the United States, asserting instead a pluralistic or democratic conception of power as being more
widely shared. Although Dahl recognized that power is distributed unequally even in democracies, he claimed that it was not
monopolized but contested by a multitude of groups and political actors. The Weberian conception of power as agency, or
the capacity to impose one’s will (even in the face of resistance), although broad, does not address some dimensions of
power. First, it treats resistance as a counterforce that is somehow not itself a form of power. However, resistance can have a
significant social impact even when it is unable to prevail. Second, the Weberian conception does not explain how power

1
reproduces itself over time and becomes institutionalized. That oppressed populations often accept their oppression as a
natural or inevitable state of affairs can itself be seen as a form of power—sometimes called mystification, or the obscuring
of actual social dynamics—even though it does not express itself through the deliberate action or influence of any actor. This
condition, in which the dominance of a social actor or group is seen as the natural order of things, is also called hegemony by
scholars influenced by Marxism and in particular by the work of the Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937).
And third, the Weberian focus on agency does not address how one’s will and any will opposing it may themselves be
influenced by power relationships.

One of the most influential thinkers to depart from the Weberian conception of power was the French philosopher and
historian Michel Foucault (1926–84). His work expanded the theoretical boundaries of power to include the social
construction of thoughts, desires, identities, and truth, or knowledge. For Foucault, power and knowledge are closely
intertwined in modern society, as the power (or disciplinary) structures that underlie knowledge (e.g., the prison, the school,
the hospital, and the insane asylum) have all emerged from the modern effort to understand human nature. According to
Foucault, agents (those who impose their will) do not exist prior to or independently of the power-knowledge relationships
they engage in but are socially constructed by them.

In the study of international relations, power can be used as a point of comparison between states—as when one state is said
to have more or less power than another—or as a classification of a state’s political status in comparison with others—as
when one state is said to be a regional power, a great power, or a superpower.

1.1.1 Definition of power.

Power is one of the most dynamic, multi-dimensional and influential phenomenon in political science. Power is primary
motive of all the actors including state and various sections of the society. Power have multiple facades. Power can be
exercised at individual level or at societal level as well. However, despite being such a central and important phenomenon
there is no universal definition of power. Various thinkers and philosophers have given multiple definition of power
throwing light on its various dimensions.

1. Robert Dahl (first dimension).

Robert Dahl was a political scientist from USA and he conducted a survey to study power dynamics in New
Haven, Connecticut in USA. He authored a book on “Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City (1961).
Robert Dahl conducted a study of redevelopment and remodeling work carried out in New Haven. Dahl considered three
actors as an important ones for redevelopment and remodeling. First was Mayor of New Haven, second was his
administrators and third was Citizens Action Committee (CAC) consists of 50 citizens/elites or ‘notables’ as Dahl called
them, were the elites of the New Haven who had significant interest in the redevelopment and remodeling work. Dahl
observed in his study that Mayor of the New Haven and his administrative officer took most of the decisions. And their
proposals for redevelopment and remodeling the city were accepted by the Citizens Action Committee (CAC) i.e. elites of
the New Havens. Based on this study Dahl came to following conclusions.

Robert Dahl has defined power as, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not
otherwise do.” Robert Dahl primarily focused very visible dimension of power that an ability of actor to influence others to
obey his/her command. Robert Dahl’s definition of power is considered as first dimension of power. Dahl’s definition of
power primarily rests on the ability of an actor to impose his/her decisions on other actors. In this definition of power an
actor taking decision precedes imposing this decision on others. The actor’s exercise of power does not necessarily
legitimate i.e. legal but it could be illegal as well. An actor (A) will take a decision to secure his/her interest and if other
actors (B) are not complying then A will impose his/her decision on the B.

For an example, a professor (A) decided to conduct a surprise test to assess preparations of the students (B). However,
students do not want a professor (A) to conduct a test for variety of reasons. Professor (A) having power imposed his
decisions on students (B). Another example is, a robber (A) decided to rob an individual but a vigilant police officer (B)
thwart robber’s (A) plan by using his service revolver to ward of the robber. In this example a police officer (B) having legal
power to exercise physical force imposed his decision on robber’s (A) actions and forced him to change his decision.

2. Bachrach and Baratz (second dimension).

Bachrach and Baratz provided a critique to the Robert Dahl’s definition of power. In their research article “Two Faces of
Power” Bachrach and Baratz coined a term “non-decision”.

According to the Bachrach and Baratz Dahl does not take into the account an important dimension of power i.e. non-
decision. They argue that Dahl did not pay attention to the fact that Mayor’s proposal for redevelopment and remodeling
were already influenced by the elites of the New Haven. Bachrach and Baratz argues that this ‘influence’ on the Mayor was

2
twofold. Firstly, mayor of New Havens was well aware that any proposal which is not in the interest of the New Haven elites
will likely to encounter a significant opposition and hence did not include any such proposal at all and secondly mayor
already took the elite’s interest into account before putting any proposal. Bachrach and Baratz states that is the primary
reason that none of the Mayor’s proposal were opposed by the Citizen’s Action Committee (CAC) and elites of New Haven.
This dimension of power, Bachrach and Baratz concludes, is another dimension of power, as ‘’non-decision”.

Bachrach and Baratz states that “power has two faces. First face is imposing an actor’s decisions on other actors to secure its
self-interest (Robert Dahl’s definition) and second face of the power is to ensure that any unfavorable decisions to an actor’s
interest will not even be considered at decision making process at all. This second face is called by the Bachrach and Baratz
as non-decision.”

Bachrach and Baratz does take into account the Robert Dahl’s definition of power and they agree with it. The only difference
is Bachrach and Baratz argues that power have another dimension, which Robert dahl misses, apart from simply imposing
one’s decision on others. Bachrach and Baratz argues that an influential actor will ensure that any proposal which is contrary
to their interest will not even put up for consideration for decision making at all. Bachrach and Baratz have underscore that
apart an ability impose your decision on others there is another more potent dimension of power exist in form of ‘non-
decision’.

For an example, super rich class of the society ensuring that an idea of wealth tax or inheritance tax, which will increase the
taxation imposed on super rich, does not even put up for any serious discussion in the form of a legislation in the national
parliament.

3. Steven Lukes’s (third dimension).

Steven Lukes in his seminal work originally published in 1974 titled “Power: A radical View” has provided third and
possibly the subtlest form of exercise of power. Steven Lukes agrees with Robert Dahl and Bachrach and Baratz but
proposes another dimension of power which was neglected by the previous two definitions. Steven Lukes argues that a
powerful actor will not only ensure that decision which are favorable to him/her will be imposed on others; and will prevent
any unfavorable decisions from even being considered but also will make sure that perception is created in a society wherein
that favorable decision for this actor will become a common sense and cherished wisdom in the society itself. By this
process this actor will spread those ideas and perception which will enable him/her to protect his/her interest without much
resistance from others. In common terms this is called as ‘nipping in bud.’ The powerful actor will not allow any idea,
perception which challenges his/her position to become dominant.

According to Steven Lukes, power is an ability of an actor to create such perception and propagate such ideas to ensure that
favorable decisions for the actor will become a common sense, cherished wisdom and common knowledge. These ideas and
perceptions will act as potent defense against any negative or unfavorable decision to be taken or even considered.

For an example, super rich class will create a perception or propagate an idea that taxing the super-rich is counterproductive
to the economy as it will hamper the employment generation. Another example is coffee producing companies propagating
an idea that caffeine is good for health.

4. Karl Marx:

Karl Marx, a German philosopher and thinker, propounded Communist ideology in his work ‘Das Capital’ (1867). Marxian
analysis was situated in the early 19 th C industrialization and workers’ abysmal conditions in Europe. Marx first hand
witnessed exploitation and oppression of workers and the way capitalists class reduced workers to the inhuman condition
and treated them as disposable products for their profiteering.

For Marx, working class i.e. proletariat transform raw material into finished product through their labor and value of the raw
material now converted into the finished product is increased. This value is called as surplus value, according to Marx,
belong to the labors but capitalist class due to its hold over capital usurp the surplus value i.e. profit depriving workers their
rightful wealth and making workers poorer. Marx employed famous dialectical analysis to the concept of power and
concluded that all the history of mankind is the history of class struggle i.e. have class exploiting the have nots and the
exploitation is primarily economic in nature.

Marx viewed power purely in terms of economics. Karl Marx treated all other types of powers like social, political etc.
subservient to the economic power. Marxian power is purely economic in nature. For Marx, economic power is the basis of
all other powers and all others powers are dependent on the economic power. Marx viewed culture, religion, societal
traditions as hidden forms of power structure to facilitate economic exploitation of the have nots. Hence he famously wrote
that ‘religion is the opium of the masses’.

3
Karl Marx considered state authority as a tool in the hands of the haves i.e. capitalists to control and exploit the have nots i.e.
workers. Marx advised all the workers to revolt against the capitalist class and state machinery to overthrow it in bloody
revolution. Eventually abolitioning the capital (exploitating) class and seizing control of the means of production. Karl Marx
predicted that state will eventually weather away as the primary purpose of the state’s existence will seize to exist.

5. Antonino Gramsci.

Antonino Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinkers and philosopher. He was imprisoned by the Italian government and in
prison he wrote his famous book ‘Prison Notebooks’ published in 1947 posthumously.

Gramsci analyzed Karl Marx’s ideology and response of the capitalist class in 20 th C in Europe. Gramsci distinguished
between ‘force’ and ‘consent’. Gramsci argued that state ensures hegemony i.e. control over power through the balance
between force and the consent for the rule. According the Gramsci state is divided into the primary actors first is the political
society i.e. state machinery and second is the civil society i.e. media, intellectuals, education institutions and the civil
society. Gramsci contended that political society uses force to perpetuate its rule by suppressing the dissent and disciplining
citizens by legal force. The civil society builds the consent among common citizens for the rule of the state through media
propaganda, influencing the education, culture, societal traditions in the society in favor of the rule by the state. Civil society
deploy culture, religion, race, caste, language, geography and any other form of idea to create favorable conditions for the
rule of political society i.e. state.

According the Gramsci civil society rescues states from the economic and social failures. Civil society softens the anger and
opposition of the citizens towards the state by spreading ideas, perceptions which are in favor of the state’s rule. Civil society
either indulges in the blaming other actors (e.g. external and internal enemies) for the economic and social failure of the state
or divert attention of the citizens by non-existent or imaginary issues, or make sure that citizens do not losses the confidence
in the state by invoking the patriotism, cultural and historical pride etc. State, on the other hand, uses disciplinary power to
ensure obligation from the citizens. Culture is the soft power and the economic is the hard power. According to the Gramsci
before the battle of force comes the battle of ideas. Gramsci states that ‘force’ and ‘consent’ were used by the state to control
the power i.e. hegemony.

For an example, British colonial state used ‘force’ and ‘consent’ to continue their rule in India. Britishers used ‘force’ to
suppress the 1857 struggle of the Indians to reclaim their land and used ‘consent’ to convince the Indians that British rule
was inevitable. British rule started distorting the history of the India to justify their rule. British tried to convince the Indians
that their rich heritage and glory was futile and they needed the British rule for civilization. Aryan Invasion Theory was
invented to ensure that Indians would hate their own heritage and culture. Further, Britishers started dividing the Indian on
the basis of caste and language to secure the consent of their colonial rule.

6. Hannah Ardent.

Hannah Ardent was a German philosopher and thinker and threw light on very important dimension of the power which was
continuously neglected by the other philosophers and thinkers i.e. human angle.

Hannah Ardent defined power as a “capacity to act in concert for a public-political purpose.” For Ardent its human creation
and not the product of some mechanical force. Primary dimension of the power which was highlighted by Ardent was to
engage collectively by humans. Power for Ardent was a product of collective action and it rests on persuasion. For any actor
to wield a power it was necessary to pursue other humans to act in tandem to achieve the common goal.

According to Hannah Ardent power requires thee medium of speech to pursue and convince the collective group to act in
concert. The potential of power rests with the collective group and for power to exercised it needs public space. Public space
is crucial for any actor to engage in firstly pursuing and convincing the collective group of common goal to invite the concert
action. Power, according to the Hannah Ardent, is realized when actors gather together for collective action.

For an example, Adolf Hitler in 1920s and 1930s, used his excellent communication skills and series of public campaigns for
over a 12 years to pursue and convince the Germans that Jews were responsible for the Germany’s defeat in the first world
war. Hitler instilled false race superiority and condemned Jews as inferior race. This persuasion and conviction by the Hitler
led to the great and devastating collective action by the Germany in form of initiating the second world war, holocaust (mass
killings of the Jews) and great devastation.

7. Michal Foucault.

Michal Foucault, a French historians and philosopher and revolutionized the conceptual analysis of the power. Foucault
primarily focused on the disciplinary aspect of the power. Foucault argues that Power to determine the ‘normalcy’ i.e. decide
which behavior is ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’. By knowing, Foucault argues, you control. Foucault stated that common citizens

4
internalize these norms which leads to the disciplinary control of the society. Foucault further argues that by normalizing the
behavior, passing of the judgment citizens are controlled. Any citizen who does not fit into this ‘normal’ behavior is
punished.

For an example, in 18th and 19th C USA any citizen opposing the racial discrimination was considered as a ‘deviant’ behavior
and course correction even punishment was awarded. The then USA president Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and
waged a civil war against the southern states of USA, known as confederates, who opposed abolition of slavery. This
eventually led to the Lincoln’s assassination by the confederate sympathizer John Booth in 1865. This is the power of
normalizing the behavior i.e. normalizing the slavery and racisim.

1.1.2 Exercise of political power and role of the Government in decision

making.

1. Legislative power: to enact laws. Laws are enacted to cater the needs of the society. E.g. Abolition of zamindari and
schedule IX, juvenile justice act 9amendment) 2013.

2. Economic power: to tax the society and to reward. GST (indirect and direct taxation). Reservation, welfare schemes.

3. Social (including religion, culture) power: to encourage or discontinue the social practices. E.g. allowed same sex relation,
abolition of untouchability, women entry in Shabarimala.

4. Disciplinary (police & military) power: To use physical coercion. To arrest, to kill, to punish, to control behavior. IPC
144.

5. Foreign policy: to establish a friendly relation with foreign countries. E.g. Nepal and Nehru, Pakistan war, 1965 and
USSR. China and Modi.

6. Judicial Power: Adjudicate and settle the disputes. It is binding.

Government in decision making.

Government is making series of decisions for variety of purposes.

• To abide by the society/people’s will: This is done by the government to respond to the demands of the society.
This results in law making and policy decision to solve the problems. For example, government enacting laws to
give reservation to the socio-economic backward community. Government initiating policy decision to transfer
subsidy money into the account of the needy famers.

• To influence society/people’s will: Government increasing the fine on the minor traffic violation to instil traffic
discipline.

• To manipulate society/people’s will: Chinese government restricting the flow of the information to manipulate
public opinion and set the suitable narrative for communist party of China.

1.1.3 External influences on Exercise of Political Power

(Role of Interests groups, Lobbying as a technique, Examples from India and the USA)

Meaning and definition and of the interest groups.

Meaning: State (government) wields legitimate power in any country. State has a dedicated system whose sole purpose is to
exercise the power i.e. state apparatus/ civil servants. State has a power to allocate its resources through laws and policies.
Such laws and policies have a significant impact on the society that state governs. This makes state and its machinery most
potent force in any given society it governs.

In modern states representative form of indirect democracy has evolved where citizens elect their representative to the
national legislature by universal adult franchise. In this form of democracy political parties have emerged to contest the
election and exercise the power. Political parties contest election, put up candidates for elections and try to form a
government. Such government is headed by the political executives i.e. prime minister and council of ministers. Civil
servants (IAS, IPS officers) are appointed by the state to aid and assist the political executives. These two classes, i.e.
political executives and civil servants have direct and internal influence on the state (government).

5
However, considering that state (government) has such an enormous power to influence the society it governs other actors in
the society (e.g. business groups, citizen’s organizations etc.) try to influence the state authorities by various means for
certain favours. These actors are called as interest groups.

Definition: Interest groups can be defined as “any association of individuals or organizations, usually formally organized,
that, on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favour”. For an example,
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI) is an interest group consisted by the businesspersons and traders.
FICCI’s primary purpose is to influence the government laws and policies in their favour.

All interest groups share a desire to affect government policy to benefit themselves or their causes. Their goal could be a
policy that exclusively benefits group members or one segment of society (e.g., government subsidies for farmers) or a
policy that advances a broader public purpose (e.g., improving air quality). They attempt to achieve their goals by lobbying
—that is, by attempting to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain policy outcomes in their favour.

Types of interests and interest groups:

Interests and interest groups in all types of political systems can be placed broadly in five categories: economic interests,
cause groups, public interests, private and public institutional interests, and non-associational groups and interests.

a) Economic interest groups are ubiquitous and the most prominent in all countries. There primary role is to
influence the economic power of the government. These groups focuses laws and policies on taxation, loans,
subsidies, economic bail outs, welfare schemes, wages (salaries) etc. There are several different kinds of economic
interests: business groups (focuses on taxation loans, bailouts) labour groups like trade unions (focuses on
minimum wages, salaries, pensions) farmers groups (focuses on subsidies and low interest loans).
b) Cause groups are those that represent a segment of society but whose primary purpose is noneconomic and
usually focused on promoting a particular cause or value. This category is wide-ranging, including religious
organizations (focusing on promoting their own religion), human rights organizations (promoting women’s rights
or children’s rights etc.), educational organization (focusing on spreading education etc.) Some cause groups are
single-issue groups, focusing very narrowly on their issue to the exclusion of all others—such as those favouring
or opposing the reservation demands for Maratha caste in Maharashtra—though most cause groups are more
broadly based.
c) Public Interest groups: These interest groups promote issues of general public concern (e.g., environmental
protection, human rights, and consumer rights). These interest groups works for the betterment of entire society
and are not limited to the one section of the society or one cause. For example, Rotary club in India. Rotary club
focuses on education, health, environmental protection etc.
d) Private and public institutional interests; these interest groups constitute another important category. These
interest groups are not membership groups but private organizations for an example Rashtriya Swaymsevak Sangh
(RSS) or think tanks such as Vivekananda Foundation in Delhi. Public entities such as government departments
(trade union of workers in Indian railways) also form an interest groups. They do attempt to affect public policy in
their favour.
e) Non-associational groups: These groups often have an important influence. Such interests lack a formal
organization or permanent structure. They include spontaneous protest movements formed in reaction to a
particular policy or event and informal groups of citizens and officials of public or private organizations. For
example, candle march and protests after Nirbhaya Gang rape case in Delhi in 2013.

Common characteristics and the importance of interest groups

1. Non-political: Most interest groups are not formed for political purposes. They usually develop to promote
programs and disseminate information to enhance the professional, business, social, or avocational interests of
their members. They try to influence the society in their favour or sometimes simply trying to convey to the larger
society that such problems exists. Interest groups also recruit citizens, run awareness campaigns, train citizens into
the complexities of the situations.
2. Political: But many such interest groups enter the political arena when they believe there is no other way to protect
their interests or because they want to secure government funding. When they become enmeshed in the political
sphere, they have one overriding goal: to gain favourable outcomes from public policy decisions. Interest groups in
most democracies are also a source of financial support for election campaigns. In the United States the
development of political action committees (PACs) after World War II was geared to providing money to
candidates running for public office. In western Europe, campaign funding is provided by many interest groups,
particularly trade unions for social democratic parties as in Sweden and Germany. In addition to financial
resources, members of interest groups are important resources for grassroots campaigning, such as operating

6
 telephone banks to call prospective voters, canvassing neighbourhoods door-to-door, and organizing get-out-the-
vote efforts on election day.

Lobbying as a technique:

Meaning: Lobbying is attempting to influence legislators to support or oppose a particular issue or piece of legislation and is
allowed for nonprofits within certain parameters. Lobbying involves working to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to
gain favorable policy outcomes. In order to accomplish their goals, interest groups develop a strategy or plan of action and
execute it through specific tactics. The particular strategies developed and the specific tactics used, however, vary widely
both among and within political systems.

Techniques:

1. Direct lobbying is communication with a legislator, legislative staff or legislative body, or any covered executive branch
or other government employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation. The communication refers to a specific
piece of legislation and expresses a view on that legislation. Direct Lobbying techniques are used by the “Insider” groups—
those older and more traditional business, labor, and professional groups with extensive resources, including money and
established access to public officials—are more able to pursue “insider tactics,” utilizing their close friends and associates in
government to promote their goals, and generally have many more options available to them. For an example, corporate
groups funding the election campaign of the political parties in return of political favors.

2. Grassroots Lobbying is an attempt to influence specific legislation by encouraging the public to contact legislators about
that legislation. This technique is used by the outsider groups who tend to be newer and sometimes promote radical causes;
they usually lack key contacts with policy makers and major financial resources, and they often focus their energy on
grassroots efforts, which may include letter writing or Internet campaigns or public demonstrations to gain media coverage
(insider groups may also use such methods). A communication constitutes grassroots lobbying if it refers to specific
legislation, reflects a view on that specific legislation and encourages the recipient of the communication to take lobbying
action. This type of communication is known as a Call To Action. For an example, reservation demand of Maratha caste
holding fast-onto-death and demonstrations to force the government to yield to their demand.

1.1.4. Theories of Power- Elite theory and Marxist theory of Power (Specified)

Elite theory of Power.

Classical Elite Theory of power argues that all societies are divided into two main groups the ruling and the ruled. Elite
theory rejected the Marxist ideas and argues that even in Marxist society power will be concentrated in hands of few. It was
propounded by two Italian sociologists Pareto and Mosca. Vilfredo Pareto (Italian thinker) and Gaetano Mosca argued that
the political power always lies in the hands of small elite. Both Pareto and Mosca believed that personal qualities are basis of
power.

1. Vilfredo Pareto and Circulation of elites.

According to the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto all societies are divided into two main groups which are a Elites-Ruling
minority and the Non Elites-The Ruled. According to Pareto, there is a ruling minority and the ruled majority and this
situation of elite rule is inevitable. If the proletarian revolution occurs, it will merely result in the replacement of one ruling
elite by the other. Elites rule over the masses of people because they are dominated by non-rational forces and lack rational
capacities. This is the reason that the masses are unlikely to be a revolutionary force. Social change occurs when the elite
begins to degenerate and is replaced by a new elite, derived from the non-governing elite or higher elements of the masses.
All elites tend to become decadent. They decay in quality and lose their vigor as they become complacent. In this situation,
the other elites seize the power.

He claimed in his Mind and Society, 1935 that personal qualities separate the rulers and the ruled and they are the same at all
times. Elites rule over the masses of people because they are dominated by non-rational forces and lack rational capacities.
This is the reason that the masses are unlikely to be a revolutionary force. Social change occurs when the elite begins to
degenerate and is replaced by a new elite, derived from the non-governing elite or higher elements of the masses. All elites
tend to become decadent. They decay in quality and lose their vigor as they become complacent. In this situation, the other
elites seize the power.

7
According to Pareto, there are two types of governing elite based on their Personal-Psychological qualities, which are lions
and foxes (he borrowed this concept from Niccolo Machiavelli).

(i) Residues of combination – Fox. Fox elites are cunning, diplomatic and are able to mingle with the people easily.
People of first group work on the principle of maximum gains and so are very selfish. Fox elites’ rules in time of peace.

(ii) Residues of Group Persistence – Lion. Lion elites are brave, visionary, strong leaders but they lack cunningness and
diplomatic skills. Lions also cannot mingle with the people easily. The second group puts lot of thrust on stability in the
system. They are idealistic, therefore neither they are selfish nor believe in the immediate gain. Lion elites rules in the time
of crisis.

Circulation of elites:

Each type of elite lacks the qualities of its counterpart, qualities which are essential to retain the power in the long run. For
example, an elite group of lions holds the power at times of crisis. Lion elites successfully steer the country out of this crisis
by the virtue of their bravery, vision and strong leadership. This results in peaceful environment in the society. Since Lion
elites do not mix up with people easily and lack the imagination and cunningness necessary to maintain its rule and they
recruit foxes from among the masses, who grow stronger over the time and ultimately replace the lions as the rulers. Fox
elites are too selfish and cunning and averse to taking strong decisions. This leads to the society descends into the variety of
social and economic problems. Since Fox elites cannot take brave decisions they recruit Lion elites who overpowers them
replace fox elites as rules. This process which Pareto calls “circulation of elites” and he believes history is a never-ending
circulation elites. For him state is a tool in the hands of the ruling elite. He saw modern democracies as merely another form
of elite domination. He even saw the modern democracies as just another form of elite domination. He is, however, criticized
for not making distinction among various forms of rules like dictatorship, democracy, fascism, and communism.

2. Gaetano Mosca.

Gaetmo Mosca in his ‘The Ruling Class, 1939’ like Pareto believed that a minority rule is inevitable, but unlike Pareto he
didn’t believe that qualities of elite remain same all the time and in all the societies.

Basic to Mosca’s thought was the conviction that only the substitution of scientific truth (such as the doctrine of “ruling
class”) for “metaphysical abstractions” (such as the democratic myth) would make it possible to purify and to heal political
practice. His faith in the redeeming power of political science appears to have been fostered by the prevailing cultural
atmosphere of his youth. At that time, in Italy as elsewhere, positivist philosophy was dominant, and Mosca believed he
could transfer its inductive method from the study of nature to the study of human society.

Whatever the form of government, power is always in the hands of an organized minority, the “ruling class,” which has
authority over the majority by virtue both of certain characteristics that vary according to the epoch and the situation and of
the power derived from organization per se. In accordance with human nature, however, this ruling class always tries to
justify its rule by a moral or legal principle, the “political formula,” which, however abstract, must be consonant with the
conception of life of the community that is governed. The concept of the political formula not only makes Mosca’s theory a
powerful tool for interpreting historical reality, in that the formula presumably reveals that reality, but also constitutes a
reaffirmation of the value of consensus in the organization of the state.

3. Robert Michel and iron law of oligarchy.

Robert Michels spelled out the iron law of oligarchy in the first decade of the 20th century. He did a brilliant comparative
study of European socialist parties that drew extensively on his own experiences in the German Socialist Party. He was
influenced by Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy as well as by Vilfredo Pareto’s and Gaetano Mosca’s theories of elite
rule.

Robert Michel argues that in any organization including democratic organization rise of oligarchy (a small group of people
having control of a country or organization) is inevitable. This inevitable rise of oligarchy in the any organization is called as
“iron law of oligarchy’ by the Robert Michel. Michel argued that this oligarchy existed because of the competent leadership,
centralized authority, and the division of tasks within a professional bureaucracy. These organizational imperatives
necessarily gave rise to a caste of leaders whose superior knowledge, skills, and status, when combined with their
hierarchical control of key organizational resources such as internal communication and training, would allow them to
dominate the broader membership and to domesticate dissenting groups. According to the Michel, in any democratic
organization and democratic society iron law of oligarchy will dominate and eventually reduce the democratic nature of that
organization and society. The iron law became a central theme in the study of organized labor, political parties, and pluralist
democracy in the postwar era. Much of this scholarship basically confirmed Michels’s arguments.

8
4. C. W. Mills:

The power elite theory, in short, claims that a single elite, not a multiplicity of competing groups, decides the life-and-death
issues for the nation as a whole, leaving relatively minor matters for the middle level and almost nothing for the common
person. It thus paints a dark picture.

Characteristics of the Power Elite

According to C. Wright Mills the governing elite in the United States draws its members from three areas:

(1) the highest political leaders including the president and a handful of key cabinet members and close advisers;

(2) major corporate owners and directors; and

(3) high-ranking military officers.

Even though these individuals constitute a close-knit group, they are not part of a conspiracy that secretly manipulates events
in their own selfish interest. For the most part, the elite respects civil liberties, follows established constitutional principles,
and operates openly and peacefully. It is not a dictatorship; it does not rely on terror, a secret police, or midnight arrests to
get its way. It does not have to, as we will see.

Nor is its membership closed, although many members have enjoyed a head start in life by virtue of their being born into
prominent families. Nevertheless, those who work hard, enjoy good luck, and demonstrate a willingness to adopt elite values
do find it possible to work into higher circles from below.

If the elite does not derive its power from repression or inheritance, from where does its strength come? Basically it comes
from control of the highest positions in the political and business hierarchy and from shared values and beliefs.

Top Command Posts.

In the first place, the elite occupies what Mills terms the top command posts of society. These positions give their holders
enormous authority over not just governmental, but financial, educational, social, civic, and cultural institutions as well. A
small group is able to take fundamental actions that touch everyone. Decisions made in the boardrooms of large corporations
and banks affect the rates of inflation and employment. As a group, then, this ruling triumvirate of politicians, corporate
executives, and military officers has, by virtue of the positions they hold, unprecedented authority to make decisions of
national and international consequence. But the mere occupancy of these command posts does not fully explain the
effectiveness of their power. Of equal significance is their common outlook on life and their ability and willingness to act
harmoniously on basic issues.

Shared Attitudes and Beliefs.

According to Mills these power elites have an agreement on a world view. This world view is a set of values, beliefs, and
attitudes that shapes the elite's perceptions of government and prevents deep divisions from arising.

Members of the elite agree on the basic outlines of the free enterprise system including profits, private property, the unequal
and concentrated distribution of wealth, and the sanctity of private economic power. They take gigantism in the world of
commerce for granted. More important, they are united in their belief that the primary responsibility of government is to
maintain a favorable climate for business. Other governmental responsibilities, such as social welfare and concern for the
environment, are secondary to that task.

Participants in the elite tend to read the same newspapers, join the same clubs, live in the same neighborhoods, send their
children to the same schools (usually private and the ones they themselves attended), and belong to the same churches and
charities. They work and play together, employ one another, and intermarry. They share, in a word, a life-style that brings
them together in mutually reinforcing contact.

Co-opting:

Power elites are primarily form the dominant section of the society. Power elites are, in USA, white, male, Christians.
However, in order to appear democratic and inclusive these power elites do co-opt marginalized communities like Blacks,
women. However, Mills argues that any member of these power elites are, including Black and women, do share Power
elite’s world views. Often these black and women members have very less or nominal power and their presence only have
political purpose to ward off the criticism and make the group appear more democratic and inclusive.

Marxist theory of Power.

9
Karl Marx, a German philosopher and thinker, propounded Communist ideology in his work ‘Das Capital’ (1867). Marxian
analysis was situated in the early 19th C industrialization and workers’ abysmal conditions in Europe. Marx first hand
witnessed exploitation and oppression of workers and the way capitalists class reduced workers to the inhuman condition
and treated them as disposable products for their profiteering.

For Marx, working class i.e. proletariat transform raw material into finished product through their labor and value of the raw
material now converted into the finished product is increased. This value is called as surplus value, according to Marx,
belong to the labors but capitalist class due to its hold over capital usurp the surplus value i.e. profit depriving workers their
rightful wealth and making workers poorer. Marx employed famous dialectical analysis to the concept of power and
concluded that all the history of mankind is the history of class struggle i.e. have class exploiting the have nots and the
exploitation is primarily economic in nature.

Marx viewed power purely in terms of economics. Karl Marx treated all other types of powers like social, political etc.
subservient to the economic power. Marxian power is purely economic in nature. For Marx, economic power is the basis of
all other powers and all others powers are dependent on the economic power. Marx viewed culture, religion, societal
traditions as hidden forms of power structure to facilitate economic exploitation of the have nots. Hence he famously wrote
that ‘religion is the opium of the masses’.

Karl Marx considered state authority as a tool in the hands of the haves i.e. capitalists to control and exploit the have nots i.e.
workers. Marx advised all the workers to revolt against the capitalist class and state machinery to overthrow it in bloody
revolution. Eventually abolitioning the capital (exploitating) class and seizing control of the means of production. Karl Marx
predicted that state will eventually weather away as the primary purpose of the state’s existence will seize to exist.

Antonino Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinkers and philosopher. He was imprisoned by the Italian government and in
prison he wrote his famous book ‘Prison Notebooks’ published in 1947 posthumously.

Gramsci analyzed Karl Marx’s ideology and response of the capitalist class in 20th C in Europe. Gramsci distinguished
between ‘force’ and ‘consent’. Gramsci argued that state ensures hegemony i.e. control over power through the balance
between force and the consent for the rule. According the Gramsci state is divided into the primary actors first is the political
society i.e. state machinery and second is the civil society i.e. media, intellectuals, education institutions and the civil
society. Gramsci contended that political society uses force to perpetuate its rule by suppressing the dissent and disciplining
citizens by legal force. The civil society builds the consent among common citizens for the rule of the state through media
propaganda, influencing the education, culture, societal traditions in the society in favor of the rule by the state. Civil society
deploy culture, religion, race, caste, language, geography and any other form of idea to create favorable conditions for the
rule of political society i.e. state.

According the Gramsci civil society rescues states from the economic and social failures. Civil society softens the anger and
opposition of the citizens towards the state by spreading ideas, perceptions which are in favor of the state’s rule. Civil society
either indulges in the blaming other actors (e.g. external and internal enemies) for the economic and social failure of the state
or divert attention of the citizens by non-existent or imaginary issues, or make sure that citizens do not losses the confidence
in the state by invoking the patriotism, cultural and historical pride etc. State, on the other hand, uses disciplinary power to
ensure obligation from the citizens. Culture is the soft power and the economic is the hard power. According to the Gramsci
before the battle of force comes the battle of ideas. Gramsci states that ‘force’ and ‘consent’ were used by the state to control
the power i.e. hegemony.

For an example, British colonial state used ‘force’ and ‘consent’ to continue their rule in India. Britishers used ‘force’ to
suppress the 1857 struggle of the Indians to reclaim their land and used ‘consent’ to convince the Indians that British rule
was inevitable. British rule started distorting the history of the India to justify their rule. British tried to convince the Indians
that their rich heritage and glory was futile and they needed the British rule for civilization. Aryan Invasion Theory was
invented to ensure that Indians would hate their own heritage and culture. Further, Britishers started dividing the Indian on
the basis of caste and language to secure the consent of their colonial rule.

1.2 Authority as a Concept in Political Science

Power, as discussed in previous sections is the most dynamic phenomenon of political science. We discussed various
definition of power throwing light on various complex dimensions. In this section, we are discussing when exercise of power
is justified? It means when and why power is legal and recognized by the people over which it has been exercised. A power
which is legal and recognized by the people is called as an ‘authority’.

1.2.1 Meaning and Features of Authority - De jure and De facto Authority

10
De facto is defined as any position or practice that exists in reality. De facto refers to something factual and happens often.
The ‘de facto’ authority is referred to as the recognition that is based on ‘a fact’. De facto authority is not officially
recognized by laws but is practised in a mass. The approaches that are put forward by de facto are genuine but not mentioned
in the law. For an example, a terrorist wielding a gun will coerce citizens to obey his commands. Possession of the gun gives
a terrorist a power, however, such power is not legally recognized nor it is for the benefit of the society. Hence this is called
as ‘de facto’ authority.

De jure comes from a Latin word that refers to the meanings like legitimate, lawful, or abided by the law. The recognition of
De jure is legal and permanent which cannot be denied. Hence ‘de jure’ authority is legal in nature. It is exercised by
following the proper procedure of law. For an example, an army person capturing the terrorist by using his gun is a perfect
example of ‘de jure’ authority. Army person has legally recognized duty to protect the country and he is exercise his power
to ensure that a terrorist who is killing common citizens is neutralized.

There are, however, certain situation where an authority can be ‘de facto’ and ‘de jure’ as well. Any exercise of power which
is recognized by the fact i.e. it can coerce the others and that exercise of power is recognized by the law is a perfect example
of an authority which is ‘de facto’ and ‘de jure’ as well. For an example, a traffic police controlling the vehicular movement
on the road and punishing those who are not obeying his orders is the best example of ‘de facto’ and ‘de jure’ authority. This
traffic police have ‘de facto’ authority as his authority is recognized by the vehicle drivers and he is able to coerce them into
following certain behaviour. Similarly, this traffic police have legal recognition to control the traffic hence he has ‘de jure’
authority as well.

The difference between de facto and de jure can be important in cases where one group of people has been disadvantaged or
disparaged and legal action depends on determining whether the treatment was conducted unofficially, in a de facto manner,
or via sanctioned prejudice, de jure. In such cases, de facto practices can be harder to successfully challenge. This has been
particularly true of racial desegregation in the United States. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court
held that public school systems could not have separate educational facilities for white and Black students. However, in
subsequent years’ various policies were undertaken that while not explicitly promoting segregation (de jure) still had that
effect (de facto). This was the central issue of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), which involved segregated schools in Detroit and
its suburbs. At the time Detroit was predominantly Black, while the surrounding suburbs were largely white. According to
critics this racial disparity was achieved, in part, through unfair housing policies, such as redlining, that discriminated against
Blacks. With Black students having been prevented from living in suburban school districts, the school district boundaries, it
was argued, promoted segregation. A lower court agreed, and a plan was devised to bus Detroit students to the suburbs. The
Supreme Court, however, overruled the proposal, declaring that there was “no showing of significant violation” by the
suburban school districts. To some observers, this decision endorsed de facto segregation.

The delineation between the two terms is also at issue in the regulation of international trade. In 2000 the World Trade
Organization (WTO) reviewed a complaint concerning the importation of automotive products into Canada. At issue was the
country’s tax laws which granted reduced fees and duties to the United States and Mexico. Japan and the European Union
questioned whether the tax disadvantaged certain imported products while privileging others. Also at issue was whether any
privilege was de facto, conferred as a by-product of the law, or de jure, applied through intentionally discriminatory practice.
The WTO held that there was de facto discrimination, and Canada was forced to adjust its policies on the importation of
automotive products.

De facto may also be used in situations where no official law (de jure) exists. A notable example is a language widely
spoken in a country and used by the government to conduct business though the country has no official language; e.g.,
English is the de facto official language of the United States. De facto may also refer to long-term domestic partnerships
where no formal legal agreement was entered into but all the other prerequisites of marriage have been met (a “de facto
marriage”).

1.2.2 Max Webber’s Classification of Authority.

Max Webber, was a German sociologist and political economist in 19th C who is best known for his thesis of the “Protestant
ethic,” relating Protestantism to capitalism, and for his ideas on bureaucracy. Max Webber, classified the authority in three
types. This classification of an authority was based on the peculiar features of that particular authority. These are 1.
Traditional, 2. Rational-legal, 3. Charismatic.

1. 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

11
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 (discussed shortly), where a
king, queen, or prince enjoys power because she or he comes from a royal family.

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.

2. 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 fill, not in the individual per se. The authority of the president of the United States 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. We might not have voted for the
person who wins the presidency, but we accept that person’s authority as our president when he (so far it has always been a
“he”) assumes office.

Rational-legal authority helps ensure an orderly transfer of power in a time of crisis. When John F. Kennedy was
assassinated in 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson was immediately sworn in as the next president. When Richard Nixon
resigned his office in disgrace in 1974 because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal, Vice President Gerald Ford
(who himself had become vice president after Spiro Agnew resigned because of financial corruption) became president.
Because the U.S. Constitution provided for the transfer of power when the presidency was vacant, and because U.S. leaders
and members of the public accept the authority of the Constitution on these and so many other matters, the transfer of power
in 1963 and 1974 was smooth and orderly.

3. 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.

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). A few U.S. presidents—Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy,
Reagan, and, for all his faults, even Clinton—also were charismatic, and much of their popularity stemmed from various
personal qualities that attracted the public and sometimes even the press. Ronald Reagan, for example, was often called “the
Teflon president,” because he was so loved by much of the public that accusations of ineptitude or malfeasance did not stick
to him (Lanoue, 1988).

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.

Because charismatic leaders recognize that their eventual death may well undermine the nation or because they represent,
they often designate a replacement leader, who they hope will also have charismatic qualities. This new leader may be a

12
grown child of the charismatic leader or someone else the leader knows and trusts. The danger, of course, is that any new
leaders will lack sufficient charisma to have their authority accepted by the followers of the original charismatic leader. For
this reason, Weber recognized that charismatic authority ultimately becomes more stable when it is evolving into traditional
or rational-legal authority. Transformation into traditional authority can happen when charismatic leaders’ authority becomes
accepted as residing in their bloodlines, so that their authority passes to their children and then to their grandchildren.
Transformation into rational-legal authority occurs when a society ruled by a charismatic leader develops the rules and
bureaucratic structures that we associate with a government. Weber used the term routinization of charisma to refer to the
transformation of charismatic authority in either of these ways.

1.2.3. Comparative Study – Power and Authority (Specified).

Power as a phenomenon poses a significant and important question as who should exercise power and on the whose behalf?
In other words, when an exercise of power is justified and when the exercise of power is not justified? Understand this with
an example, a terrorist and police personnel, both wielding a gun, have exercised the power i.e. coerce citizens to obey their
command. But the question remains as to whether exercise of power by both actors is legitimate i.e. do both these actors
have a justification to exercise the power? If yes on what grounds? And if not then who has a justification and why? This
question of justification of power is of central importance in any form of government (whether democracy or monarchy).

Power in its raw form can be exercised by any actor but not every exercise of power is justified. In any society power is
exercised by variety of actors for variety of powers. An individual for economic, social, political and cultural purposes and to
secure its own survival and interest exercise power s/he possess. An individual, for his/her survival and to secure interest,
can work hard e.g. farming. This kind of exercise of power by an individual and others in any given society will lead to the
democratic and civilized society. However, this same individual for his/her survival and to secure interest, can loot or murder
others. This kind of exercise of power by an individual and others in any given society will lead to the anarchy and very
violent society. The initiation of any civilized society is to solve two primary questions; first is who can exercise power and
second when such exercise of power is justified.

For any power to be justified it requires legitimacy. A legitimate power is recognized by law and by those on whom such
power is exercised. Legitimacy alone can justify the exercise of the power. Once the power is legitimate that power becomes
an authority. An authority is a legal and moral exercise of power. Authority creates an obligation on part of the citizens
towards the state. Obligation creates certain duties which are mandatory in nature. For an example, a traffic police have a
legitimate power i.e. authority to control the traffic and punish the violators. This authority creates a duty on any citizen
while driving on the road to follow the command of the traffic police and pay fines if punished.

An authority, however, is not blanket license to exercise the power. Any authority has two important conditions: firstly, it
must be lawful (within the confinements of law) and secondly it must be for the benefit of the society. It should be
understood in detail. The first condition of authority must be in confinements of law means that every authority is subject to
certain procedures and limitations while exercise of the power. For an example, it is illegal for traffic police to physically
assault the drivers while ensuring compliance. The second condition means that any authority must be exercised for the
benefit of the society. For an example, on duty ambulances and fire fighter vehicles are exempted from the traffic rule. This
is to benefit the society as both these vehicles are designed to save lives of the citizens hence they are exempted from the
traffic rules while on duty. The second condition takes primacy over the first condition. It means that any law must be for the
benefit of the society. Any law which is not benefiting societal interest then it will be declared null void. For an example, if a
law empowered the traffic police to use his/her service revolver to shoot to kill any traffic violators. This law is not in the
benefit if the society as firstly the punishment is disproportionate to the crime, second the crime is not proven in the court,
thirdly, violator was not given any opportunity to present his side and lastly it gives excessive power in the hands of traffic
police who are bound to misuse it. Therefore, this law will be declared null void as it is against the interest of the society.
This two important condition creates an equilibrium which balances the state authority on one hand and the citizen’s duty on
the other hand. Therefore, understanding the authority and legitimacy becomes vital for the students of political science.

It is important to understand how power and authority inter relation manifest in any form of the government. In monarchical
form of government monarch or king was the one who exercised the power. Divine right theory especial in Europe, which
hailed king or monarch as divine heir, proclaimed any exercise of power by king and monarch is justified. This divine right
theory leads to the autocratic and exploitative reign of monarchs or king who were authoritative and extremely unjust. This
development was primarily in Europe. For an example, Ivan the Terrible a Russian monarch (1533-1584) brought havocs on
the Russia people to support his expansions and to consolidate his power. It is estimated by some historians that Ivan killed
as much of 30% of the population. Hence the name Ivan the Terrible. This kind of uncontrolled power was possible in the
monarchy as power was concentrated in the hands of monarch and secondly any power of monarch was justified without any
limitations. This corruption of power and extreme societal sufferings gradually led to the development of democracy.
Democracy, in Europe, was a reaction to the uncontrolled power of monarchy. Democracy was a mechanism to shift the

13
power centre from the one individual i.e. monarch/king and centred the power in the people and for the welfare of the
people.

In democratic form of government society, by contractual process, established state to govern itself. The main justification of
power exercised by the state in democratic form of government is such power is exercised for the welfare of society itself.
State was established by the society with a contract. This contractual document between society and state is called as a
constitution. Constitution is framed by the society to enumerates certain tenet’s and principles’ which justify the exercise of
power of the state over society. These tenets and principles decides the limitation of the state authority and any law or/and
any action of the state which violate these tenets and principles are declared null and void. For an example, Indian society
framed constitution in 1946 to 1950 and enumerated certain tenets and principles by which state’s authority was limited.
These tenets and principles are in the Preamble. These are state should be sovereign, socialist, democratic, secular and
republic. Further, every citizen is entitled of equality, justice, liberty and fraternity. These tenets and principles sets limits on
the authority of the state and provides a test to understand when state’s exercise of power is justified. For an example, Indian
state cannot shake off its secular character as this will violates the constitution. For an example, state cannot impose taxes on
religion lines. On the other hand, Indian state cannot violate thee equality of the citizen except to protect the society. For an
example, state cannot arrest any individual for no reason. However, state can imprison a convicted murderer to secure the
interest of the society.

This section dealt with the relation between power and authority from the prism of legitimacy. Power which is legitimate
called an authority. Legitimacy flows from two conditions that power must be legal and second it must be thee for the
benefit of the society. This legitimation of power compelled state (mainly form of government) to undergo the
transformation from monarchical government to the democratic form of government.

See the diagram below. Power when becomes legitimate then it is called an authority.

1.3 Sources – How is Power legalized?

Legalization of power award legitimacy to it and turn that power into an authority. Legalization of power is formal
recognition and acceptance of power by the society. The legalization of power means formal law is passed to recognized the
power as lawful. Legalization of power is final outcome. Prior to the legalization of power people accepts and recognized the
power. Once people accepts and recognize a power it is converted into a law. For an example, people accepted the fact that
dowry was inhuman tradition hence it must be banned and such law was passed. People’s acceptance and recognition is
central to the legalization of power. On the other hand, a legalized power might not be accepted and recognized by the
people. In this case people will protest against such law. For an example, Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was met with
strong opposition. Eventually, government put those laws in cold storage.

There are three main sources of legalization of power. They are traditions, charisma and constitution. Understand the process
of legalization of power. It is as below.

In any society certain traditions bestow recognition and acceptance of power by the society. Traditions are entrenched in any
society which governs the society. Traditions expect certain behaviour from people. Such traditions often create a power
centre. A power centre which is expected to ensure that these traditions are followed. As the traditions have historical
consent i.e. these traditions are being followed for generations, these universally accepted. For an example, Jat Panchayat’s
originally formed to govern the life of that particular Jat (i.e. caste). These Jat Panchayats are very powerful in controlling
the behaviour of the citizens as these are recognized by the people on whom such power is exercised. In democratic form of
government, such traditions at times have been accepted by the law. For an example, it is legally recognized that religious
institutions can administer their own premises. Another example of traditions is British monarch who is traditional authority
and has been legalized. Monarchy is another very important example of traditions providing recognition and acceptance of
the power and hence legalizing it.

In democratic form of government, the power is legalised through the constitution i.e. consent of the governed. The
constitution is framed with the consent of the governed and state has to abide by the constitution. Constitution delimit the
state’s authority and ensures that ultimate goal of state’s power is to secure welfare of the society.

This legalization of power works at three levels. At first level; laws enacted by the state and actions of the state has to abide
the limitations set by the constitution. For an example, Indian state (i.e. government) cannot enact a law which will violate
the freedom of speech and expression of an individual without reason. However, Indian state can restrict citizen’s freedom of
speech and expression if such expression is endangering the public morality and against the public decency.

14
 At second level; judiciary ensure compliance by the state vis-à-vis constitution. A citizen has a legal recourse to seek justice
if any law or/and any action of the state is against the constitution. Judiciary will declare such law or/action as ultra vires and
unconstitutional. For an example, if a citizen is arrested without any reason then that citizen can approach judiciary citing the
same. Judiciary will set that citizens free and may even award him/her compensation or punish errant state actors (i.e. a
rogue police officer).

At third and final level; state’s ability to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution itself. In other words, state
cannot amend the constitution in such manner that basic structure of the constitution will be altered hence defeating the very
soul of the democracy. For an example, if Indian state cannot abolish the federal structure of constitution without
compromising the soul of the constitution defeating the very purpose of it.

Charisma of an individual is another very important way of legalizing the power. Charisma can be defined as ‘powerful
personal quality which attracts people’. Charisma of a leader ensure that people accept and recognized the power. People get
attracted to the charism and put their trust on the leader. This trust gets converted to the legalization of power. For an
example, a charismatic leader like Adolf Hitler passed Marshal law and nullified constitution and established a dictatorship.

1.4. Legitimacy - Concept and Relevance of Legitimacy in the Exercise of Political Power.

Concept of Legitimacy: Legitimacy basically means ‘acceptance and recognition of power by those on whom such power is
exercised.’ This acceptance and recognition flows from various sources. These sources could be charisma of a leader,
traditions or constitution. Any rule of a leader might be accepted and recognized by the people due to the charisma of that
leader or it could be because that leader’s rule is based on traditions or/and such rule is legal. (it is same as Max Weber’s
classification of authority). In democratic form of government legitimacy flows from the fact that a government is elected
and is functioning within the limits of the constitution. In monarchy a kings’ legitimacy flows from his royal lineage. At
times expertise and experience could also act as a source of legitimacy. For an example, a highly experienced medical
practioners’ advice is recognized and accepted by the people due to the subject expertise of that medical practioners.

There are two sub-types of legitimacy first is descriptive and second is normative legitimacy. A descriptive concept is purely
based on the belief and perception of the people. People believe that this power is good for them. This belief and perception
legitimize the power. For an example, former President of USA Donald Trump ran an emotional campaign promising USA
to be great again. Donald Trump convinced people that he is an excellent businessman and he make every American rich.
Common people believed it and this legalized the power of Donald Trump by electing him to the USA president.

On the other hand, normative form of legitimacy is primarily based on power to deliver certain outcomes and fulfil certain
promises in society. Normative concept provides legitimacy to the power only when certain yardsticks are followed. The
power’s fulfilment of promises and deliver certain outcomes bestow legitimacy to the power. For an example, in recently
concluded election in Madhya Pradesh BJP made certain promises that before elections and delivered those promises. These
promises were mainly welfare schemes targeting certain sections of the society like women and lower class and lower caste.
These fulfilments of promises and delivery of outcome elected BJP to the power with resounding majority.

Relevance of Legitimacy in the Exercise of Political Power: Legitimacy transform power into an authority and an authority
creates an obligation on the part of a citizen. (This is already being explained in previous section 1.2.3. Power and Authority
A comparative analysis). Hence legitimacy is relevant in exercise of power as it creates an obligation on citizens towards
authority.

Legitimacy, however, is vulnerable to manipulation and trickery. A power can manufacture the consent, use distortion and
deception, spread outright lies and systematic propaganda.

Descriptive legitimacy is susceptible to various manipulations and trickery. People’s belief and perception can be
manufactured by propaganda, spreading outright lies and distortion and deception. For manufacturing the consent of people
history of the country, identity of the people is manipulated. Artificial faultiness and imaginary conflicts are created to divide
the society manufacture a consent. Outright lies, distortion and deception are spread to tweak the public opinion. For an
example, British rule in India distorted and the Indian civilizational history to convince Indian people that British rule was
necessary for India as India was backward and uncivilized. Outright lies such as Aryan Invasion Theory was invented,
artificial faultiness and imaginary conflicts on the line of caste and religion were imposed on the Indian society.

Normative legitimacy, on the other hand, is less susceptible to such manipulation and trickery. In normative legitimacy,
however, a promise and outcome also could be manipulated. A power can ensure that favourable promises and outcomes
were set. For an example, a promise of cutting taxes on wealthy class will ensure employment for common people. However,
this outcome is not benefiting the large number of people but select few. This way even a normative legitimacy also can be
manipulated.

15