Department of Political Science & Sociology

POL101: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

Power, Authority & Legitimacy

DR. KAZI N.H. HAQUE

Asst Professor (Part-time)
PSS, NSU

Lecture 2
LEARNING OBJECTIVES

➢ Evaluate the several explanations of political power

➢ Justify the claim that political science may be considered a
science
➢ Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of several
theoretical approaches to political science
➢ Contrast normative theories of politics to political science
Power & Politics (Schmitter and Blecher 2021)

◼ Politics is a (if not the) quintessential human

activity.
◼ Human beings have, even when just hunting and
gathering, had to do so in a social context.
◼ Have had to coordinate their efforts and, therefore,
to make decisions about what, how and how much
to produce and how to distribute it.
◼ Compelled them to attempt to resolve the
inevitable conflicts of interest and sentiment that
this requires.
◼ All things not so-called “Pareto Optimal” – i.e.,
benefitted everyone without harming anyone –
Hence politics
Power (Schmitter and Blecher 2021)
◼ Power is what we commonly call this process – the capacity to make others do what we want
them to do which they would not otherwise wish or choose to do.
◼ It always has at least “two faces.”
◼ The one that is easier to observe and eventually to measure involves coercion – the use or
threat of physical force to bring about an intended outcome.
◼ The second is much less visible and, hence, potentially more insidious. It involves the
multifarious ways in which the powerful manipulate the knowledge, preferences and patterns of
thought of the less powerful in order to convince them to conform “voluntarily” to the “legitimate”
demands of those in power.
◼ Gramsci (1971): Dominio e Direzione (Coersion and Consent)
◼ The study of politics is dedicated to making sense of both the above – and any of the other –
faces of power.
Politics (Schmitter and Blecher 2021)

◼ What we think of as politics rests on the exercise (or the threat of the exercise) of power and
the resistance to it.
◼ What is also unique to human beings is their capacity to “domesticate” this activity by
inserting conditions that serve to channel the actions and reactions of agents according to
mutually agreed upon rules, norms and/or reliably applied practices.
◼ Power Asymmetries: Power, in turn, rests on the uneven distribution of resources and
returns among human beings living within a given unit (usually a demarcated geographic
space whose definition itself may become contest.
Power, Authority & Legitimacy: Weber, 1978 (Best 2002)

◼ Distinction between power as authority and power as coercion.

◼ For Weber, authority is the legitimate use of power. Individuals
accept and act upon orders that are given to them because they
believe that to do so is right.
◼ In coercion, on the other hand, others force people into an action,
often by the threat of violence, and this is always regarded as
illegitimate.
◼ Three types of legitimate rule: Charismatic authority, Legitimate
authority and Rational Legal authority
Power: Giddens, 1990 (Best 2002)
◼For Anthony Giddens, ‘power’ is a fundamental concept in the social
sciences. By ‘power’ Giddens means ‘transformative capacity’; in other
words, the ability to make a difference in the world.
◼We all carry out social actions, so it follows that we all have power. However,
the amount of power an individual has is related to ‘resources’. Giddens
outlines two distinct types of resources: Allocative resources – control over
physical things such as owning a factory, and Authoritative resources –
control over the activities of people; for example, by being high up in an
organisation like the civil service.
◼All social systems are viewed as ‘power systems’, and usually this means
that they are involved in the ‘institutional mediation of power’ (Giddens 1985:
9). By this, Giddens means that institutions, such as schools, attempt to
control the lives of individual people by the use of rules, which become
deeply embedded in our everyday lives.
◼All types of rule rest upon the mediation of power by the society institutions,
and the modern state has become capable of influencing some of the most
private and personal characteristics of our everyday lives
Charismatic Authority (Weber 1978, In: Best 2002)

◼ It is concerned with how a political order can be maintained by the force of a leader’s
personality
◼ Often such leaders will be seen as having supernatural powers or qualities.
◼ In Weber’s own words: “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or
exemplary character of an individual person and of the normative pattern or order revealed
or ordained by him” (Weber, 1978: 215)
◼ EXERCISE: Let us hear 5 examples of charismatic authority? Then explain why these
examples are charismatic following Weber’s (1978) above-mentioned criteria.
Traditional Authority (Weber 1978, In: Best 2002)

◼ It is concerned with how a political order can be maintained by the constant reference to
customs, traditions and conventions.
◼ In Weber’s (1978) own words, this type of authority is “resting on an established belief in the
sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under rule”
(1978: 215).
Rational Legal Authority (Weber 1978, In: Best 2002)

◼ It is concerned with how a political order is regarded as legal in the eyes of the population.
◼ In Weber’s own words, this form of authority is “resting on a belief in the legality of enacted
rules and the right of that elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands” (1978:
215).
◼ A structure for making decisions and the legitimacy of the structure is maintained by
reference to a legal code.
◼ Basis of the legal code – Natural Law: A normative order, a form of non-religious morality
Rational Legal Authority: Bureaucracy (Weber 1978, In: Best 2002)

◼ Modern government inevitably means government by bureaucracy: the politicians are seen to run
the country; however, the implementation and interpretation of political decisions is carried out by
the civil service
◼ Two types of bureaucracy: The first one is built upon ‘consent’, whereby rules emerge through a
process of agreement. The second one is ‘punishment centred’ and is clearly based upon the
imposition of rules as an end in itself.
◼ Ideal types of bureaucracy according to Weber: Hierarchy, System of abstract rules, Without
friendship or favour, Fixed number of recorded duties (Predictability), Qualifications based
recruitment (Meritocracy).
◼ The significance of Weber’s ideal type spread far beyond the narrow study of political organisations.
◼ Weber made the very large claim that because of the process of rationalisation spreading into all
areas of social life, all organisations in all areas of social life appear to be bureaucratic in nature.
Rational Legal Authority: Bureaucracy (Weber 1978, In: Best 2002)

◼ Weber emphasised on bureaucracy to be always balanced with an assertive political

leadership and a strong parliament.
◼ Total Institutions (Goffman 1962): People entering these institutions are subjected to ‘rituals
of degradation’ in which both the staff and the inmates attempt to destroy the individual self
of the newcomer (E.g. Armies, boarding schools, prisons, mental hospitals and leper
colonies).
Authority (Sennett 1993, In: Best 2002)

◼ Psychological (Freudian) approach to authority

◼ In sharp contrast to Weber, Sennett argues that authority need not be legitimate in the eyes of the
population.
◼ Authority is associated by Sennett with several qualities: Assurance, Superior Judgement, the Ability
to Impose Discipline, Capacity to Inspire Fear etc
◼ Authority is both an ‘emotional connection’ between people and at the same time, a ‘constraint’ upon
people: Emotional bonds often mesh people together against their own personal or financial benefit.
◼ Bonds of rejection: Disobedient Dependence, Idealised Substitution, The Fantasy of Disappearance
Legitimacy

◼ Descriptive and Normative Concepts of Legitimacy

◼ Examples of the Descriptive: Weber’s classification of legitimate political authority (Weber
1978)
◼ Examples of the Normative: Rawls (1993), Ripstein (2004)
◼ Normative legitimacy: Justification of coercive political power
◼ Normative legitimacy: Justification of political authority
Legitimacy: Dynamics

◼ Shared expectations in a relation of power.

◼ Rules are accepted voluntarily by those who are ruled.
◼ Pre-established and mutually acceptable rules.
◼ Actors (agents) should know what they are and what their individual roles are.
◼ The exercise of authority is “systemic” …… embedded in a collectivity that is sufficiently
interdependent and mutually trustful.
Legitimacy: Sources

◼ Personal, Cultural, Systemic, Strategic

◼ Individuals are unique judges of legitimacy: Family socialisation, moral sentiment and
personal ethic of responsibility
◼ Most of the exchanges in modern politics are between organisations: Rely upon and
reproduce norms of prudence, legal propriety and “best practice” that transcend individual
preferences and even national borders
◼ Consent
◼ Beneficial consequences
◼ Public reason and democratic approval
Legitimacy: Functions

◼ Justification of political authority

◼ Justifying power and creating political authority
◼ Political obligations