Meaning:
The word authority is derived from the Latin words; auctor‟ and
„auctoritas‟ . An auctor is an
Originator of promoter of some order, pronouncement or whatever.
When an action has been authorized there is some person or set of persons from whom the authority to do it derives.
According to Carl Friedrich, an authority is the embodiment of reason and depends on the capacity of reasoned elaboration.
Authority regulates behaviour mainly by speech and words, not force. The term essentially indicates the people who are considered to have the right to make announcements or announce decisions.
Authority implies not only that someone with the capacity to reasoned elaboration has the right to issue regulations and make final pronouncements. It also implies that someone has the right to receive obedience.
McIver defines authority as the power to command obedience.
Simon interprets it as the Power to make decision which guides the action of others. Authority is legitimate exercise of power.
Characteristics of Authority:-
Legitimacy: Legitimacy determines the effectiveness and acceptance of authority.
Dominance: Authority is the capacity of the individual to command others. An individual or group which possesses authority, exercises dominance over others. Authority is command of seniors to their juniors which is accepted by them.
Accountability: The individual or the group which possesses authority is also answerable to some higher authority. In a democracy, responsibility or accountability is an important characteristic of authority.
Types of Authority:-
Authority can be classified into many ways depends upon its sources and location.
Traditional, Charismatic, and Legal- Rational Authority
Max Weber describes three types of political authority as per their sources: traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. When the power to issue commands emerges from the source of customs and traditions such authority he named traditional authority. The right to rule which is based on the leadership qualities of the ruler is called as charismatic authority. When such rule is legitimized by the legal-constitutional framework Weber called it legal rational authority.
De Jure and De Facto Authority
R. S. peters distinguish between two senses of authority‟. Person may possess an authority as a right to do so or he may have it without that also. In first sense it is called the „de jure’ authority and in second sense it is called as ‘de facto’ authority.
In ’de jure’ sense legal or traditional rules make it possible for auctor to exercise his right to pass commands or orders or directions, i.e. to be „in authority‟. De jure authority pre-supposes a system of rules which determine who shall be the auctor, that is who shall be those who with reasoned elaboration, shall take decisions, make pronouncements, issue commands and perform certain acts.
In certain cases authority can be exercised by persons without backing for legal or traditional rules. And in such cases even person who are legally entitled to pass orders can be overruled by the person who is legally not authorized to do so. But still people or followers accept such commands and defer the commands of legally entitled person. In such sense authority is „de facto’ which derives from personal characteristics of the auctor. Thus the right to give orders is distinct from the ability to secure obedience to them.
A person exercises de facto authority with others in virtue of certain personal qualities. He does not need to resort to force, threats, bribes or the like. He does not need to justify saying that a particular course of action, should be adopted in the way a man who lacked his authority might have to. He can secure in those with whom he has authority the conviction that something ought to be done by giving it his personal support and does not need to argue a case in detail. People takes orders from him even though, he has no right to their obedience. They do so because they recognize certain qualities in him and not because he has a gun, is in a position of command , or whatever. As Peters puts it, „there is something about him which people recognize in virtue of which they do what he says simply because he says it‟.
Such account of de facto authority resembles the Weber‟s account of charismatic authority. It seems to be based on some mysterious element of personal qualities which is very difficult to prove and
recognize. But it defers from Weber on the point that Weber was too preoccupied with highly special figures like Jesus and Napoleon to explain the Charisma and Peter‟s account of de facto authority even recognizes the influence of quite ordinary people like doctors, solicitors and even teachers in class room as masters in their own specialized fields whatever limited they are.
LEGITIMACY
Meaning:
Legitimacy in simple sense is derivative of legitimate which means allowed by the law or rules or something which is able to be defended with reasoning. In political sense it is the property that a regime‟s procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable to its subjects. Legitimacy is an important ingredient of authority along with power. Legitimacy of a rule or decision implies that the members of society treat that rule or decision as beneficial to society as well as to themselves. So they willingly tend to abide by it. Use of force or coercion or sanctions may be resorted to only when legitimacy fails to work. Legitimacy is based on respect and willing compliance.
Political science is indebted to Max Weber for application of the term in the manner that Legitimacy constituted the basis of very real differences in the way power was exercised. Liberal thinking requires justification of power. It does not take authority granted or something invincible. In Weberian description there are three broad grounds for exercising authority, based on: tradition, charisma, and rational legal authority. All three depends on certain belief in the legality of enacted rules and right of those in positions of authority to issue commands. Weber advocated that in modern democratic societies with prevalence of rule of law obedience is owed not to a traditionally sanctioned person or a charismatically qualified leader, but to the legally established impersonal order. It extends to the persons occupying a public office by virtue of the legality of their commands. He demonstrated limitations over such authority when he stated that such authority is confined to the scope of the office and cannot be used in capricious of self- interested way.
S. M. Lipset raises the concept to different height when he discussed the capacity of the political system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society. He underlined the acceptance of the political system by the plural fabric of the society. He argues that Western nations have had to face three difficult and potentially destabilizing issue: the place of the church of various religions within the nations; the admission of the working class to full
economic and political rights; the continuing struggle over the distribution of the national income.
In this sense presently globalization poses further challenges to the legitimacy of the political system in general. Those groups who claim certain specific identities do not accept the legitimacy of the territorial boundaries of the nation-states. Quebecs in Canada, dissolution of Yugoslavia, and dissent in Northern Ireland are few of many examples that markedly emphasise this phenomena. In other way the issue of legitimacy also arises in relation to new types of political formation such as European Union which is struggling to meet the legitimacy criteria on political front among the population of its member nations.
The importance of Legitimacy can be emphasized in the words that the ability to issue commands which are seen as binding because they are legitimate is one of the central pillars of a stable political order.
Types of Legitimacy
David Easton refers to three types of legitimacy; ideological legitimacy, structural legitimacy , and personal legitimacy.
Ideological legitimacy is based on the moral convictions about the validity of the regime and incumbents of authority. When the source of legitimacy is the ideology prevailing in the society, it is called ideological legitimacy.
Structural legitimacy is based on an independent belief in the validity of the structure and norms and incumbents of the authority.
Personal legitimacy is based on the belief in the validity of the incumbents of authority roles to the authority roles themselves. The belief in the validity of authorities is based on their personal qualities.
QUESTIONS
1) Discuss the meaning and types of power?
2) Define authority and discuss its nature?
3) What are different types of authority?
4) Define legitimacy. What are the grounds of legitimacy?
5) Examine the relationship between power, authority and legitimacy?