1. POLITICAL 2.

AUTHORITY AND
ORGANIZATION LEGITIMACY
A. BANDS A. AUTHORIY VIS-À-VIS LEGITIMACY
B. TRIBES B. TYPES OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY
C. CHIEFDOMS • TRADITIONAL
D. STATES
• CHARISMATIC
• RATIONAL
 POLITICAL
ORGANIZATION
 Bands and Tribes
Bands and tribes are considered as
the simplest political systems. They are
often perceived to be “acephalous” or
without a well-defined system of
leadership.
BAND
A band is typically formed by several
families living together based on marriage ties,
common descendants, friendship affiliations,
and members usually have a common interest,
or enemy. Thus, the main source of
integration is kinship either blood or affinity.
The power structure within a band is less
hierarchical as member families are seen to be
equal and there is no class differentiation
 There is evidence that women have
higher influence in bands that are
considered pedestrian-foragers
(gatherers), while men tend to end up
having more leadership roles in bands
whose livelihoods depend on hunting,
or in pastoralist-agricultural bands
where food is produced by cultivating
the land.
 Informal leadership is accorded to members
who possess certain skills and knowledge such as
the gift of memory, hunting or healing skills, or
those other special ability. For example, being a
gifted speaker can elevate a band member to the
status of being an informal leader. In any event,
accession to the status of informal leadership is
reached by consensus rather than by a formal
process of election. The small size of band
enables this relatively informal process. An
informal leader does not possess absolute
 As the bands increase in size, the
tendency for conflict increases, which
lead to the band splitting along family
lines. This process is known as “band
fissioning”. Eventually, this could
lead to some leaving the band to form
their own, which is referred as “social
velocity”.
 Evidence suggests that while food
scarcity can be a trigger for
conflict, what usually leads to
fissioning and eventual break-up is
the presence of social discord that
the informal leadership could no
longer contain. At present, there is
practically no band that remains
INUIT (Eskimo)
Dobe Jo/hoansi (!KUNG)
 TRIBE
A band that survives fissioning and social velocity,
even as it experiences increasing population and a shift
from a foraging and hunting community, to one where
there I now a presence of multiple communities
engaged in pastoral or horticultural forms of
livelihood, eventually becomes a tribe.
A tribe is still considered an acephalous political
system, even if it is more complex than a band. This
complexity results from the fact that the source of
integration is no longer simply by informal forms of
 The manner by which tribes are
organized is through the presence of
pantribal associations, or what
anthropologists refer to as sodalites. These
come in the form of councils of tribal
leaders. It was noticed that the emergence
of more complex ways of organizing a tribe
eventually led to the eventual displacement
of women leaders. This is also partly due to
the shift from foraging to agricultural forms
 Headman of the village
Tribe are often of Rusirani Juari
headed by a village
headman, even
though such a role
does not have
absolute political
power. A village
headman derives
his authority from
having a senior
 Most tribes remain egalitarian, where
families and groups are considered
politically and economically equal, even
those of headmen. Tribes are also seen
economically self-sufficient and are larger
and more integrated than bands.
However, contact with modern societies
led to eventual collapse of tribal systems as
tribes were unable to maintain their
SAMBIA
 CHIEFDOM
A chiefdom is defined as a political
organization that more defined. It is a form of
hierarchical organization in non-industrial
societies usually based on kinship, and in which
formal leadership is monopolized by the
legitimate senior members of select families or
'houses'. These elites form a political-ideological
aristocracy relative to the general group. A
chiefdom is led by a highly ranked incumbent of
 SIMPLE CHIEFDOM
It is characterized by a central village or
community ruled by a single family. A
number of smaller communities surround
this smaller community, with each being
headed by a subsidiary leader subservient
to the central ruler.
 COMPLEX CHIEFDOM
It is composed of several simple chiefdoms
ruled by a single paramount chief residing in a
single paramount center. This is a highly structured
and hierarchical political system characterized by a
class system where the elites demand tributes in the
form of agricultural crops and produce from the
commoner to a system that is called “tributary
system”.
 Lesser chief are then obliged to give
tribute to the paramount chief. In return,
the paramount chief carries out rituals and
performs functions over which he has sole
authority, such as the conduct of symbolic
redistribution of material goods, and the
awarding of titles and other symbolic
rewards.
Research shows that chiefdoms are
highly unstable and are prone to cycles of
TROBIANDERS OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
 NATIONS AND STATES
The advent of modernity has made the process
of consolidating different individuals into one
political community more difficult and complex. The
expansion of chiefdoms was punctuated by their
collapse. Out of the breakdown of political
organizations, what emerged was the presence of
groups of people that shared a common history,
language, traditions, customs, habits and ethnicity.
 Benedict Anderson considers a
nation as “IMAGINED”
Benedict Anderson considers a
nation as “IMAGINED” in the sense
that nations can exist as a state of
mind, where the material expressions
seen in actual residence in a physical
territory becomes secondary to the
common imagined connections
emanating from a common history
and identity. Thus even if people may
be scattered in different places, they
have this self-consciousness that they
 Paul James considers a nation as
“ABSTRACT”
Paul James
considers a nation as
“ABSTRACT”. He
argues that a nation is
objectively impersonal
even if each individual
is able to identify with
others. This argument
however may not be
true for Filipinos, as
Filipino identify
 NATION

A nation, despite its being

historically constituted and
having a common sense of
identification among its
members, as well as the
consciousness of having thee
potential to be autonomous,
nevertheless do not possess
political sovereignty. As such, it
remains a political entity that
does not possess the status of
being recognized as an
 STATE

A state is apolitical
unit consisting of a
government that has
sovereignty presiding over
a group of people and a
well-defined territory and
is thus the highest form of
political organization.
 NATION-STATE

When the
citizens of a state
belong to only one
nation, such state.
 However, the reality is that there are
many states that govern peoples who have
different cultural identities and who are
conscious of their being distinct. Thus
they become nations within states. This
become a problem when these nations are
treated unequally, and where a dominant
group or nation rules the state and
 It can also be argued that the Moros in
Mindanao are technically considered as a
nation within the Philippine state since
they have a distinct cultural identity and
history. Hence, clearly the Philippines
could not be consider as a nation-estate.
 1. The elements of State and Nation are
different:

The State has four elements—population, territory, government, and

sovereignty. In the absence of even one element, a State cannot be really a State. A
state is always characterise by all these four elements. On the contrary, a nation is a
group of people who have a strong sense of unity and common consciousness.
Common territory, common race, common religion, common language,
common history, common culture and common political aspirations are the
elements which help the formation of a nation, and yet none of these is an
absolutely essential element. The elements which go to build a nation keep on
changing.
 2. State is a Political Organization while Nation
is a social, cultural, psychological, emotional and
political unity:
The State is a political organization which fulfills the
security and welfare needs of its people. It is concerned with
external human actions. It is a legal entity. On the other hand,
a Nation is a united unit of population which is full of
emotional, spiritual and psychological bonds. A nation has
little to do with the physical needs of the people.
 3. Possession of a Definite Territory is
essential for the State but not for a Nation:
It is essential for each State to possess a fixed territory. It is
the physical element of the State. State is a territorial entity. But for
a nation territory is not an essential requirement. A nation can
survive even without a fixed territory. Love of a common
motherland acts as a source of unity. For example, before 1948 the
Jews were a nation even though they had no fixed territory of their
own. When, in 1948, they secured a definite and defined territory,
they established the State of Israel.
 4. Sovereignty is essential for State but not
for Nation:
Sovereignty is an essential element of the State. It is the soul of the State. In the
absence of sovereignty, the State loses its existence. It is the element of sovereignty
which makes the state different from all other associations of the people. It is not
essential for a nation to possess sovereignty.
The basic requirement of a nation is the strong bonds of emotional unity
among its people which develop due to several common social cultural elements.
Before 1947, India was a nation but not a State because it did not have sovereignty.
(State = Nation + Sovereignty).
After her independence in 1947, India became a State because after the end of
British imperial rule it became a sovereign entity. However, each nation always
aspires to be sovereign and independent of the control of every other nation.
 5. Nation can be wider than the State:

The State is limited to a fixed territory. Its boundaries can increase

or decrease but the process of change is always very complex.
However a nation may or may not remain within the bounds of a
fixed territory. Nation is a community based on common ethnicity,
history and traditions and aspirations.
Obviously its boundaries can easily extend beyond the boundaries
of the State. For example in a way the French nation extends even to
Belgium, Switzerland and Italy because people in these countries
belong to the same race to which the French claim to belong.
 6. There can be two or more Nationalities
living in one State:
There can be two or more than two nations within a single
State. Before the First World War, Austria and Hungary were
one State, but two different nations. Most of the modern
states are multinational states.
 7. Nation is more stable than State:

A nation is more stable than the State. When sovereignty

ends, the State dies, but not the nation. A nation can survive
even without sovereignty. For example, after their defeat in the
World War II, both Germany and Japan lost their sovereign
statuses and outside powers began to control them. They
ceased to exist as States. But as nations they continued to live
as nations, which after some months regained their sovereign
statuses and became sovereign independent states.
 8. A State can be created while a Nation is
always the result of evolution:
A State can be created with the conscious endeavors of the people.
Physical elements play an important role in the birth of a State. For example,
after the Second World War, Germany got divided into two separate states
West Germany and East Germany. But Germans remained emotionally as one
nation.
Ultimately in Oct., 1990 the Germans again got united into a single state.
In 1947 Pakistan was created out of India as a separate State. A nation is a
unity of the people which emerges slowly and steadily. No special efforts go
into the making of a nation.
 9. The State uses police power (force) for
preserving its unity and integrity, the Nation is
bound by strong cultural and historical links:
State has police power. Those who dare to disobey it are punished by the state. A
nation does not have police power or force or coercive power. It is backed by moral,
emotional and spiritual power. A nation survives on the power of sense of unity of the
people. A nation appeals, the State orders; a nation persuades, a States coerces; and a
nation boycotts, the State punishes. State is a political organization, while the nation is a
unity.
State and nation do not have the same boundaries, and yet there is a tendency for a
nation and state to be one. Most of the nations today stand organized into different
states. Most of the modern States are multinational States. The modern state is called a
nation-state because all the (nationalities) living in one state stand integrated into one
nation.
 A state continuously pursues the objective of national-
integration. The State tries to secure this objective by securing
a willing blending of the majority nationality and all the
minority nationalities, through collective living, sharing of all
the ups and the downs in common and development of strong
emotional, spiritual and psychological bonds. Unity in
diversity or more really, unity in plurality stands accepted as
the guiding principle by all the modern civilized multinational
states like India, USA, Russia, China, Britain and others.
 POLITICAL
LEGITIMACY AND
AUTHORITY
 The task of organizing a political
community requires the existence of
leaders. Leaders, in order to be effective,
need to possess authority that is considered
legitimate by the members of the
community.
 AUTHORITY VIS-À-VIS LEGITIMACY
AUTHORITY-is the power to make binding decisions and
issue commands. It is necessary for a leader to possess
authority. What makes authority binding and worthy of
obedience is its legitimacy.
LEGITIMACY- is a moral and ethical concept that bestows
one who possesses power the right to exercise such power
since such is perceived to be justified and proper.
 Legitimacy is not automatically acquired just
because one has authority. This occurs when the
authority was obtained through improper means
such as through violence or when one commits
cheating in an election, or when one is perceived
to be understanding of power due to lack of
qualifications. Hence, for authority to be binding
and stable, it must be legitimate.
WEBER AND THE TYPES OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

Max Weber identifies three types of

authority based on the source of their
legitimacy, the traditional authority, the
charismatic authority and the rational legal
authority.
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY

Legitimacy is derived from well-established

customs, habits, and social structures. Monarchical
rule or the rule of elites in a chiefdom are
examples of leadership systems that have
traditional authority.
CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY
Legitimacy emanates from the charisma of
the individual, which for some can be seen as
a “gift of grace”, or the possession of
“gravitas” or an authority derived from a
“higher power”, such as those that are
associated with the right of Kings.
 The possession of this charisma enables one to be
accorded authority despite of the absence of cultural or
even legal justification. In some instances, charismatic
authority even is able to negate the standards provided
by culture and tradition, or by laws. Religious leaders, or
even popular icons such as movie actors, are examples of
people who may end up possessing charismatic authority.
 RATIONAL-LEGAL OR BUREAUCRATIC
AUTHORITY
This kind of authority draws its legitimacy
from formal rules promulgated by the state
through its fundamental and implementing
laws. This is the most dominant way of
legitimizing authority in modern states, and
this is from where government officials draw
their power.
 Self-Confident
 Inspirational
 Articulate
 Revolutionary
 Supportive