There are many different concepts of power, authority, and legitimacy. In political science, these concepts are often used interchangeably, but there are some important distinctions between them.
Authority is the legitimate or socially recognized right to exercise power. It can be formal, such as the authority of a government or corporation, or it can be informal, such as the authority of a religious leader.
Power is the ability to influence others, either through coercion or persuasion. It can be physical, such as the power to use force, or it can be social, such as the power to persuade others through rhetoric.
Legitimacy is the belief that a particular authority is legitimate, or has the right to exercise power. This can be based on tradition, as with the legitimacy of a monarchy, or it can be based on popular consent, as with the legitimacy of a democratically-elected government.
The concepts of power, authority, and legitimacy are often intertwined, but it is important to understand the distinctions between them.
Conflicts throughout history tend to have similar power struggles even if the times, people, and places are different. To study and understand these phenomena better, theorists developed explanations based on three key topics – authority, legitimacy, and power.
The concept of authority is closely linked to that of legitimacy. In order for an authority to be legitimate, it must be recognized by those over whom it is exercised. This recognition may be based on a number of factors, such as tradition, law orforce.
Power, on the other hand, is the ability of an individual or group to influence the behavior of others. This can be done through a number of means, such as coercion, persuasion or manipulation.
The concepts of power, authority and legitimacy are often intertwined, and it can be difficult to disentangle them. However, understanding these concepts is essential to understanding politics.
Stirk and Weigall (1995) discuss the importance of authority in any political structure. Authority, put simply, is the right to give orders that citizens are then bound to obey due to the fact that said commands come from a just source. Plato would argue that asking what justice is fairitates questioning what form of state is idealistic.
Aristotle believed in an alternative concept of justice to that of Plato. Where Plato saw a harmonious state being achieved by each class playing its part, Aristotle thought this was only possible when each person did what they were good at. (Aristotle, Politics: 350BC)
In order for authority to issue commands that are binding, the concept of legitimacy is integral. Without legitimacy, orders would not be obeyed and authority would erode. Max Weber defined three types of legitimation which are still relevant today.
The first is traditionalism where obedience is given due to custom or habit. This usually happens in societies where there has been little change over time.
The second is rational-legal authority which is based on bureaucratic rules and laws. This type of authority is typified by modern democracies.
The last form, charismatic authority, is based on the personal qualities of an individual leader.
(Weber, 1978)
All forms of authority need some kind of power in order to issue commands and be obeyed, but what is power?
Power can best be defined as the ability of one person or group to get another person or group to do something that they would not otherwise do. (Dahl, 1957:202)
There are two main types of power, firstly there is coercive power which works through force or the threat of force and secondly there is non-coercive power which works through persuasion or manipulation. (Dahl, 1957:203)
The concept of authority is essential to any political order as it provides a way of issuing commands that are binding. The legitimacy of the authority is what gives the commands their weight and enables them to be obeyed. Power is what allows the authority to issue these commands in the first place.
Platos conclusion was that the state functions best when society is reordered morally. According to Plato, in order for people to be their best selves and society to operate perfectly, we must return things back to the way they ought to be. However, this idea is greatly contrasted by Thomas Hobbes perspective. He felt that Platos view was unrealistic and instead argued that the key solution to living peacefully (rather than living under a state of nature which he saw as negative) was creating a political structure where one person held all authoritative power.
Hobbes felt that an individuals right to rule came about as a result of a social contract being agreed upon by the people. This was in contrast to Platos belief that some people were just born into leadership and it was their natural place. Furthermore, Hobbes theorized that the key reason for this social contract was self-preservation (Stirk and Weigall, 1995:12).
It is interesting to note that both philosophers share the belief that morality is a key factor in the governance of society. Plato believed that a moral reordering of society was necessary for perfect governance, while Hobbes believed that a social contract based on self-preservation was necessary to escape the state of nature.
Keep in mind that there is no one definition of legitimacy that everyone agrees on. With that in mind, we can try to answer the question: why should people obey the government? Afterward, we can think about under which conditions obedience is guaranteed and authority is legitimate.
There are a number of reasons that have been put forward to explain the legitimacy of authority.
The first reason is obedience to tradition or custom. In this case, the authority is legitimate because it has always existed and people have always obeyed it. This type of legitimacy does not require any justification as it is seen as a natural part of life. The second reason for legitimacy is rational-legal authority. Here, the authority is based on formal rules and procedures that are seen as fair and reasonable. People obey this kind of authority because they believe that it is just and legitimate.
The third reason for legitimacy is charismatic authority which is based on the personal charm and charisma of the leader. People follow this kind of authority because they believe in the leader’s vision and believe that he or she can achieve great things.
The fourth reason is a combination of all three of the above-mentioned reasons. This is known as ‘mixed legitimacy’ and it is often seen in societies where there is a change taking place, such as a revolution.
It is important to note that all four of these reasons for legitimacy are based on the consent of the people. If the people do not consent to the authority then it cannot be legitimate.
There are also a number of different types of authority that can be distinguished. The first type is legal-rational authority which is based on rules and regulations. The second type is traditional authority which is based on custom and tradition. The third type is charismatic authority which is based on the personal attributes of the leader. The fourth type is a combination of the first three, known as ‘mixed authority’.
Each of these types of authority has its own advantages and disadvantages. Legal-rational authority is seen as being fair and just, but it can be inflexible and slow to respond to change. Traditional authority is seen as being stable and efficient, but it can be oppressive and resistant to change. Charismatic authority is seen as being dynamic and inspiring, but it can be unstable and unreliable. Mixed authority is seen as being able to combine the best of all three types, but it can be difficult to achieve and maintain.
Ultimately, the concept of legitimacy is a complex one that does not have a single, universally accepted definition. However, what is important to note is that legitimacy is based on the consent of the people and that there are a variety of different types of authority that can be distinguished.