INTRODUCTION:

In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing law or regime as an authority. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which, a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential elite.

The term “authority” refers to an abstract concept with both sociological and psychological components. As a child born of a myriad of different social situations which have some rough similarities, no easy definition exists. Of particular concern throughout the literature on the topic is the entanglement of the concepts of authority, power, and legitimacy. This is a concern not only in the abstract (by which I mean that scholars discuss and disagree on how the three are entangled), but also in the concrete because scholars themselves are often guilty of entangling them. One is defined as a function of the other and vice-versa until the reader doesn’t know where to turn anymore for help.

What is power for use in politics, and does this power legitimise the authority of a Government?

Power, in political contexts, is the ability to persuade others to do something, even if they don’t want to do it.

This could take two forms, either through discussion, so that the people cooperate for reasons which are given to them, or through a form of coercion; they are forced into doing what somebody wants.

RELATION BETWEEN POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

In politics Power gets used to implement a decision. The role of Power becomes most effective when Power does not remain a source of coercion. In-fact after getting legitimized it becomes Authority. Means the stability of Authority depends upon legitimacy.

So in short Authority is a quality or capacity of a person, institution, rule or order which becomes important in defining whether Authority is correct or authentic, so that people can follow the rules and regulation without any hesitation.

Because of the use of Authority official Governmental policies, rules and regulations get accepted in the society. Authority has two main components: Power and Legitimacy.

Legitimacy of a rule or a decision signifies the fact that people reckon the decision as fruitful and in welfare of the society. Thus they are always ready to follow the rule or decision. Demonstration of Power does not become necessary as long as Legitimacy is attached to Power. It only comes out as a symbol. Like a judge with his black gown or a policeman with his uniform. Just like beauty lies in the eyes of beholder, Legitimacy lies in the eyes of beholder.

There is no question, that without Power it will be very difficult to implement the official decision as well as rules, but only by the fear of punishment or by the coercion authority may not prove successful as far as long term benefits are concerned. In fact such a step becomes tyranny and works as a catalyst for the rebellion.

The able use of Power always gets support from legitimacy. Most of the society follows the rules on the basis of legitimacy therefore using Power does not become necessary all the time. No one will follow the rule or a regulation if the legitimacy of that rule is ruined irrespective of the Power of Authority

When we talk about authority, it is not the earthly type that we are addressing. Earthly authority relies upon worldly law, or the amount of military troops one has, or power seized or given by others. Worldly authority can be acquired by inheritance, wealth, or even notoriety but not spiritual authority. Authority that is spiritual in scope is given to us by God and operates according to His laws. Spiritual authority like worldly authority must have the power to act in order for authority to be genuine. Worldly authority is not authentic if the one who possesses it doesn't also posses the power to enforcement his will. We would say that this one is just a figure head that possesses no real power. This is why we must not just speak about authority but also power.

DEMOCRATIC USE OF POWER

In a democracy as well as in a dictatorship, both forms are used by political parties to get what they want. They use persuasion to order to get themselves into power, using the campaigns and speeches to convince the public to agree with them how to run the country, but also use coercion when people step out of line, with the use of threats, sanctions, and, if necessary, force.

However, the concept of power in political contexts is also tied in with that of authority and legitimacy, as power without authority is likely to be short-lived, and the idea of authority without power is meaningless. This is because those over whom power is being exorcised are very likely to rebel against the state if they fail to recognize authority, legitimacy or power as having moral justification.

AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

Although authority traditionally is described as legitimised power, it could be possible, though, to recognize a person as an authority without them having power, though this person would have to be persuasively powerful.

By simply being voted into office, not even necessarily having any knowledge of what they are doing or how to govern, a person could be said to have a great deal of power, both persuasively and coercively by merely being ‘in authority’ (meaning somebody having a mere position of power, as opposed to being an authority, which is a group or individual who has expertise on a subject).

JOHN LOCKE’S VIEW

The Enlightenment-era British social theoretician John Locke said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent: “The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed.” The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said, “Legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the government’s part that it has a right to govern, and with some recognition by the governed of that right.” The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy also “involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society.” The American political theorist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir; so long as the water is at a given level, political stability is maintained, if it falls below the required level, political legitimacy is endangered.

In moral philosophy, the term “legitimacy” often is positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors’ institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government.

In law, “legitimacy” is distinguished from “legality” (see color of law), to establish that a government action can be legal whilst not being legitimate, e.g. a police search without proper warrant; conversely, a government action can be legitimate without being legal, e.g. a pre-emptive war, a military junta. An example of such matters arises when legitimate institutions clash in a constitutional crisis. Conceptually, “legitimacy” also applies to apolitical authorities, e,g, the Marxist philosophic and politico-economic challenge of capitalism as form of social organization, and government.

SALIENT FEATURES OF POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

Power is the ability, whether personal or social, to get things done either to enforce one’s own will or to enforce the collective will of some group over others. Legitimacy is a socially constructed and psychologically accepted right to exercise power. A person can have legitimacy but no actual power (the legitimate king might reside in exile, destitute and forgotten). A person can have actual power but not legitimacy (the usurper who exiled the king and appropriates the symbols of office).

Here, now, we begin to approach an understanding of what authority is because in all social situations a person is treated as an authority only when they have both power and legitimacy. We might consider, for example, the phrase uttered so often when someone intrudes into our business in order to give commands: “You have no authority here.”

What does that mean? It might mean that the person has no legitimate claim to be heard or heeded. It might mean that the person has no social power he has not the ability to enforce his will over the objections of others. Or, it might be both. In any event, both must be present for authority to exist (socially) and be acknowledged (psychologically).

This is still not quite enough, however, because it defines authority a bit too closely to the concepts of legitimacy and power. When a person has authority over others, it means something a bit more than simply that they have a right to exercise existing power. The missing ingredient is psychological the previously mentioned but not explicated issue of acknowledgment. Both power and legitimacy are social in that they exist in the interplay between two or more humans. Yet what goes on in the mind of person when he acknowledges the authority of another?

It isn’t simply that he accepts the factual existence of power or legitimacy; rather, it’s also that he accepts that an authority figure is justified in making a decision without also explaining the reason for that decision and persuading others to accept that the decision was reached properly. The importance of this is not too difficult to see.

EXERCISING AUTHORITY

If I have authority over you, I can expect that when I make a decision you will go along with that decision, even if I don’t take the time to explain it to you and persuade you that it is indeed right. In turn, your acceptance of me as an authority implies that you have already agreed to be persuaded, implicitly, and won’t demand explicit explanations and reasons.

Once I begin to explain my reasoning process and get you to agree that my conclusion was the proper one, and then you have reached your own decision. When you act, it won’t be because of me enforcing my will over you, nor will it have anything to do with the legitimacy of my power. Instead, it will simply be you exercising your will for your own reasons.

Consider the appropriate example of a priest as a religious authority over a congregation. This priest has the legitimate social power to see that his will and that of and his superiors is enforced over the membership of the congregation. More than this, however, we must understand that those members have implicitly accepted that the priest does not need to patiently reason with each one of them in turn in order to get them to independently agree to the decisions in question.

Why doesn’t the priest explain everything? There can be many reasons — perhaps members of the congregation lack the sophisticated training necessary in order to understand them, or maybe there just isn’t enough time. What’s important is that the priest could explain things, but doesn’t authority means not having to explain everything but being able to wield legitimate power anyway.

Only in a community of infinitely rational individuals with an infinite amount of time would it be possible for everything to be fully explained all of the time. In the real world, however, we must rely upon authority figures to make decisions for us. As a part of this, we invest them with the power and legitimacy necessary to cause those decisions to be meaningful and relevant.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, political power is legitimised authority, because this means that they have been accepted by the state and have the states permission to govern over them, which is most certainly the power which politicians crave.

This is because being in such a commanding role, they would have coercive control over the state by controlling certain systems, such as the police force to a certain extent, and persuasive control by simply being a figure in such a highly regarded position that some people who be persuaded by the feeling of trust and respect they felt towards a person in such an esteemed position as that.

If this is true, then this person would also of course have legitimate authority, as people have submitted to them, through the process of voting, or even by just not rebelling against them. And as soon as somebody has gained legitimate authority, they have most certain power.

REFERENCES:

· Political theory and Organization, L.S. Rathore and S.A.H. Haqqi

· Comparative politics, J.C. Johari

· Kumar, Jeevan, Mr, Acad, Political Science, India: Economy and Society, The Gandhian Perspective

· Ashcraft, Richard (ed.): John Locke: Critical Assessments (p. 524). London: Routledge, 1991

· Sternberger, Dolf: "Legitimacy" in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (ed. D.L. Sills) Vol. 9 (p. 244). New York: Macmillan, 1968

· Lipset, Seymour Martin: Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (2nd ed.) (p. 64). London: Heinemann, 1983

· Dahl, Robert A. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (pp. 124–188). New Haven (Connecticut) and London: Yale University Press, 1971

Received on 01.09.2011 Accepted on 28.10.2011

Asian J. Management 2(4): Oct.-Dec., 2011 page 204-206