Legitimacy (political) - Wikipedia
power over each other, meaning the most violent would win difference between power and authority. ▻ Power Legitimacy is the basis of stable government. Keep in mind these terms are subject to much debate in the academic community . That being said, I tend to think of them this way: Power is the ability to do. In their relation to power, authority and legitimacy are complexly intertwined. Some scholars have defined authority as some kind of power, for example 'formal .
Obviously, the robber has no authority to rob you — certainly no law has been passed or decree issued which declares that robbers may rob victims of their wallets. Equally as obvious, he has no legitimacy for his action. Indeed, the whole of human civilisation shows that robbery and theft are to be considered bad things, ones which have no moral or ethical support in religious codes, philosophical schools, or royal policies. This robber is exercising power, but nothing else.
- On Power, Authority, and Legitimacy
- Relation between Power, Authority and Legitimacy
Now on to authority. Imagine that you are driving across the country, and therefore are carrying a large amount of cash on your person for incidental spending and so forth. You may be able to get it back after going through a lengthy court battle which will cost you five times as much as the cash was worth.
Most people, simply relying on common sense and ingrained fundamental principles of justice nearly as old as humanity itself, would observe that this is a grossly unjust, and therefore illegitimate, action on the part of the police officer. Imagine a king against whom a group of rebels revolted with the intent of overthrowing the royal government.
They fail and are arrested, and the king decrees their execution, which takes place the next morning. In this situation, all three concepts are in play. The king, of course, has the physical power to execute them — he tells the headchopper to do his thing and he does it. Here, however, we find that the king also has legitimacy for his action. He is not merely relying on raw power or statutory legality. He also has the further backing of longstanding human tradition.
Kings rule by sovereign authority, and this has been the case for much of humanity and for most of human history. Even non-monarchical systems have still implicitly recognised this fact in their adoption of elements of executive power accompanied by lese majeste into their own constitutions.
This legitimacy transcends mere law — a society does not need to pass a law each time a king is to rule, the king rules because doing so is natural and morally rather than merely legally prescriptive.
In the Christian realm, this legitimacy is enhanced even further — a right understanding of Genesis 9: Nigeria QUESTION The relationship between the Concepts of Power, Authority and Legitimacy is believed by many scholars to be interwoven or in some cases even overlapping as the case may bedepending on the context or situation or condition or even circumstance.
Prior to the modern day study of political science, an even earlier scholar hold such thoughts and believes. Though to the layman, these three 3 essential parts or aspects of every society seems ordinarily the same, but a scholarly look at these attributes in a conceptual form shows that; in as much as there are similarities, there are more disparities.
In political science, Concepts are essentially integral in the study of every field or aspect. Concepts in simple terms refer to a general idea derived or inferred from specific instance or occurrences.
Relation between Power, Authority and Legitimacy | Doon Youth Centre
While discussing the Concepts of Power, Authority and Legitimacy separately, one realises that, hardly can you talk of one of them digestively, without venturing on the others. At the end of your study, you will realise that they are linked like a WEB: POWER Power is the ability of a person to face or influence others to do what they would otherwise not have done. It is usually accompanied by the threat of sanctions.
Power in any political system is in the hands of few people who use it either to reward or punish the people as they deem fit. Generally, in politics and social science, power is the ability to influence the behaviour of people. In the corporate environment, Power is often expressed as upward or downward. When a company exerts upward Power, it is the subordinates who influence the Decision of the leader.
Therefore, each party should try to maximize and consolidate its power. The use of power need not involve coercion force or the threat of force at one extreme. Most of the recent sociological debate on power revolves around the issue of the enabling nature of power. A radical view where he discourses the dimension of power. Thurs, power can be seen as various forms of constraint on human action, but also as that which makes action possible, although in a limited scope.
Power affects more than personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and governments.
Simon defines authority as being in power. According to Michaels, in the Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, authority is the capacity, innate or acquired for exercising ascendancy over a group. Other scientists argue that authority is not a capacity but a relationship. It is power that is sanctioned and institutionalized.
Wikipedia the Encyclopaedia quoted several scholars with different definitions of the concept. Thus; The word authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command.
A third normative criterion was added by Vivien Schmidtwho analyzes legitimacy also in terms of what she calls throughput, i. Negative and positive legitimacy[ edit ] Abulof distinguishes between negative political legitimacy NPLwhich is about the object of legitimation answering what is legitimateand positive political legitimacy PPLwhich is about the source of legitimation answering who is the 'legitimator'.
From the NPL perspective, political legitimacy emanates from appropriate actions; from a PPL perspective, it emanates from appropriate actors. In the social contract tradition, Hobbes and Locke focused on NPL stressing security and liberty, respectivelywhile Rousseau focused more on PPL "the people" as the legitimator.
Arguably, political stability depends on both forms of legitimacy. But policies that aim at re- constructing legitimacy by improving the service delivery or 'output' of a state often only respond to shared needs. Instrumental legitimacy is very much based on the perceived effectiveness of service delivery. Conversely, substantive legitimacy is a more abstract normative judgment, which is underpinned by shared values. If a person believes that an entity has the right to exercise social control, he or she may also accept personal disadvantages.
Max Weber proposed that societies behave cyclically in governing themselves with different types of governmental legitimacy. That democracy was unnecessary for establishing legitimacy, a condition that can be established with codified laws, customs, and cultural principles, not by means of popular suffrage.
That a society might decide to revert from the legitimate government of a rational—legal authority to the charismatic government of a leader; e. Mattei Dogan The French political scientist Mattei Dogan 's contemporary interpretation of Weber's types of political legitimacy traditional, charismatic, legal-rational proposes that they are conceptually insufficient to comprehend the complex relationships that constitute a legitimate political system in the twenty-first century.