Distinguish between and give brief examples of, the exercise of Power, Authority and Legitimacy.

The third and final face of power that Lukes has coined is power as thought control. This is power as the ability to influence another by shaping what he or she thinks wants or needs (Lukes, 1974). This third dimension is ideological in nature, it is power expressed as ‘’ideological indoctrination” or “psychological control” (Heywood, 2002:11). This ‘face’ is the power to manipulate what people think they want, by making people think they want or consent to something which in actual fact may be harmful to their interests. An example of this would be the ability of the advertising industry to remove pressure for stiffer consumer-protection laws by persuading consumers that their interests had already been looked after by business (in the form of, for example, ‘planet-friendly products).

Authority can most simply be defined as ‘legitimate power’. Whereas power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others, authority is the right to do so. In politics authority is often used together with the term ‘power’. Authority is based on an acknowledgment duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or manipulation (Heywood, 2002:5). Therefore authority is power covered in legitimacy or rightfulness.

“It is impossible to explore the meaning of political authority in the past and present without considering Weber’s three pure types of ‘authority’: traditional, legal-rational and charismatic” (Carter, 1979:26).German sociologist Max Weber divided authority into three types. The first type of authority discussed by Weber is traditional authority, this rule according to Weber means “a social order based on immemorial custom in which status and the rights of the leader are also defined by custom” (Carter, 1979:27). When power passes from one generation to another then it is known as traditional authority. One example of this is the British monarchy; it has authority as they are the head of state which has been passed down through tradition for the past thousand years.

The second type of authority is legal-rational authority; it is this form of which links authority to a clearly and legally defined set of rules. In Weber’s view, legal-rational authority is the typical form of authority operating in most modern states (Heywood, 2002:212). In the legal-rational type all the rules are written down and clearly stated. Heywood points out that the advantage of this form of authority over both traditional and charismatic authority, is that, as it is attached to an office rather than a person, it is far less likely to be abused or to give rise to injustice (Heywood, 2002:213)

The third form of authority is charismatic authority. This form of authority is based on the power of an individual’s personality. Here, the charisma of the individual or the leader plays an important role. Charismatic authority operated entirely through the capacity of a leader to make a direct and personal appeal to followers as a kind of hero or saint. Thatcher and Blair undoubtedly gained authority through their personal qualities; however this did not amount to charismatic legitimacy. Mussolini, Hitler and Fidel Castro are more appropriate examples.

The term legitimacy broadly means rightfulness. Legitimacy is the acceptance of a governing regime or system of rule as authority. The exercise of power needs to be combined with authority, and authority needs to have acceptance of those being ruled, that is therefore legitimacy.  Some scholars have suggested that power can only be said to be legitimate if three conditions are fulfilled. First, power must be exercised according to established rules, whether these are embodied in formal legal codes or in informal conventions. Second, these rules must be justified in terms of the shared beliefs of the government and the governed. Third, legitimacy must be demonstrated by an expression of consent on the part of the governed (Heywood, 2002:213). For example a government’s authority is said to be legitimate because it is given the right to rule by the electorate.

 

Bibliography

Carter, A. (1979): Authority and Democracy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

Heywood, A. (2002): Politics, 2nd edition. Palgrave, Hampshire

Lukes, S. (1974): Power: a Radical View. Macmillan, London