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.

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 by 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 based on wealth. Status, if present,
is a function of age (elders are accorded respect) or of
gender. There is evidence that
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.

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 by 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 based on wealth. Status, if present, is
a function of age (elders are accorded respect) or of gender.

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.
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 is
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 thand a band. The complexity
results from the fact that the source of integration is no
longer simply by informal forms of leadership presiding
to govern kinship ties or friendship, but by a more
elaborate way of organizing to settle conflicts to prevent
the society from breaking apart.
Authority from having a senior position,
coupled with an ability to force others to
obey him. Most tribes remain egalitarian,
where families and groups are considered
politically and economically equal, even
those of the headmen. Tribes are also seen
as economically self-sufficient and are
larger and more integrated than bands.
However, contact with modern societies led
to the eventual collapse of tribal systems as
tribes were unable to maintain their
traditional political systems.
Examples:
CHIEFDOMS

Bands and tribes are characterized by the relatively informal

political structures that rule them. A chiefdom, on the other hand,
is defined as a political organization that is more defined. In a
chiefdom, formal leadership exists and authority rests solely on the
members of a select family. It is composed of a number of
communities that is ruled by a permanent paramount chief coming
from this elite family. Power is thus inherited in chiefdoms.

The social structure in chiefdoms is hierarchical. Social classes exist

and are differentiated according to the level of their power in
relation to the permanent ruler. However, class mobility can exist.
It usually happens when one performs an extraordinary task or
achievement. Furthermore, social status is affected by marriage,
age, and sex.
Chiefdoms can either be simple or complex.

A simple chiefdom 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.

A complex chiefdom 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
commoners to a system that is called a “tributary system.” Lesser chiefs 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 disintegration and reintegration.
Examples:
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. These groups are conscious of
their identity and of their potential to become autonomous and unified. These groups
are collectively referred to as nations.

Scholars refer to nations as either “imagined” or “abstract.”

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 belong to a particular nationality,
as what is typical of nations in diaspora. Filipinos, for example, live in several parts of
the world but remain conscious of their being Filipinos.
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 Filipinos identify
strongly with other Filipinos, especially when they are in other countries.

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

A state, on the other hand, is a political unit consisting of a government that

has sovereignty presiding over a group of people and a well-defined territory.
It is thus the highest form of political organization. What makes a state
sovereign is its capacity to maintain order within its territorial boundaries,
and that it is recognized by other states as an independent member of the
community of states
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 becomes a problem when these
nations are treated unequally, and where a dominant group or nation rules the
state and subjects them to discriminatory practices. The cases of the American
Indians or the Native Hawaiians in the US are examples of this. 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 considered as a nation-
state.

The discrimination of nations within states is an offshoot of the desire of many

states toward nation building. By cultivating a sense of nationalism which may
establish a common and homogenous national identity, like a national language
and national symbols, groups may not take into consideration the existence of
the unique cultural attributes of other national groupings. This leads to
discrimination, and in some instance, it could lead to forced integration into
the culture of the dominant national identity and even to actual genocide.colle
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
undeserving 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. There is traditional authority whose 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. Then there is charismatic authority whose 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 divine 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 is even 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. Then there is 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