Power can be described as ‘concerning fact or actions’ whereas authority is described as ‘concerning right’ (Goodwin). A government’s authority rests on its legal validity and the people’s acknowledgement of political obligation which commands that they have loyalty to both the government and the laws. There are differences in the types of authority however. In a democratic country, authority is found within the constitution that gives legality to the law. However, in the Islamic republic, authority has a far greater bearing on religion and expresses the divine will of the Koran. So in a sense, power can be exercised in the short term and not necessarily agreed with, but in the long term, authority must be gained by adhering with the current cultures and political environment at the time.
There is an opinion that a government does not require authority and can exercise power alone. The faculty of having power can give an institution the right or the authority to use it. In a dictatorship it is arguable that the leader can have power without authority, as even though the people may disagree they are too fearful of what will happen if they do not obey the government at the time. Even though the stable political systems of the American and English institutions are legitimatised by authority, the emergency powers of the president in the American system and his ability to veto, which are not representative powers, show that there are still cases where power proves its ability without authority. This is similar to the non-consultation to the cabinet in British politics, the prime minister has the power to do this as leader of his government, but he is diminishing his authority if his party become disillusioned. John Major had a split party and lacked both power and authority but it was arguable that it was his small majority and bad leadership skills that made him lack authority; he still had the same power as previous prime ministers but could not implement the same changes that they could.
Negative power also proves that Prime Ministers can exercise power without the authority to do so. In the run up to the ’97 election, the Prime Minister put in a commission for electoral reform. However, this has been effectively blocked as there has never been a referendum for it. Bachrach and Baratz argued that decisions not made by politicians were just as important as those made and that those in power can marginalise an issue by ignoring it, this is clearly not a ‘right’ of the prime minister to go back on what he previously said but shows an example of how he has the power to not do something.
Generally, the state expects a monopoly on physical power, controls armies and does not allow private armies. In this way the state can exercise its will without facing a physical challenge, this certainly gives the state the power to impose its will and physically, the state does not require authority to make decisions as it cannot be opposed in this way. However, this does somewhat justify citizens to defend themselves with weapons if the state is deemed oppressive and ruthless. So, it is fair to say that although the government does not need authority to impose its will, a misuse of power will simply lead to rebellion and perhaps even civil war. Authority is important in keeping a peaceful state.
There is clearly a link between authority and representation. If a politician is elected then he clearly holds greater authority than someone who is simply appointed. Once elected, members of parliament have a popular mandate to ensure that policies in the parties manifesto are put into effect, in this way; they must exert their authority within the manifesto promises. However, elected politicians are more accountable for their actions than appointed ministers and in this way have a limited role as to what is acceptable and arguably have less authority than the appointed ministers.
In conclusion I would argue that authority and power are interlinked abstract concepts that have a heavy dependence on the political culture at the time and the stability of the government. Having power itself generates authority in many cases or the image of authority, which is often enough to operate under without experiencing a backlash. The legitimacy of power comes from whether it is representative of the majority wish and whether it adheres to the contemporary situation, for instance, authority may be given for a government to act more extremely when an event has allowed them to do so. In this way, I think that although you can have power without authority, this power will only be able to be exercised in the short term, in the long term it is necessary to have authority to exercise power, as this makes it legitimate and prevents an eventual uprising or overthrowing of the government.
