Authority:- meaning, explanation with examples #authority
Authority
The authority
is known as that power which is legitimized in nature. Power is known as
ability to influence others behaviour; Authority is the right to influence other’s
behaviour.
Nature of Authority:
“The right or the capacity or both to have proposals or prescriptions or
instructions accepted without recourse to persuasion, bargaining or force”. As
per the Oxford Dictionary of Politics- The term in the Authority means:- the power or right to give orders and enforce
obedience, the power to influence others based on recognised knowledge or
expertise.
R. S. Peters’ definition is: “Authority is derived from the Latin
word auctor. … An auctor is he who
brings about the existence of any object or promotes the increase or prosperity
of it whether he first originates it, or by his efforts gives greater
permanence or continuance to it”
In the opinion of MacIver “By authority we mean the
established right within any social order to determine policies, to pronounce
judgments or relevant issues and to settle controversies or, more broadly, to
act as leader or guide to other men”.
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.
Weber’s
Classification of Authority:
Max Weber, the doyen of sociology, has classified authority
on the basis of legitimacy Authority’s claim to do something and to demand
allegiance from the citizens are based on arguments which Weber calls
legitimacy. Needless to say that Weber uses the term legitimacy in the light of
greater and wider perspective.
There are three types of authority. The first is traditional authority. Second
is charismatic authority and the third is legal-rational authority. This
classification, though not fool proof one, is still recognised and accepted by
majority people.
| http://studyspot02.blogspot.com |
1.
Traditional Authority:
The first type of authority is called traditional authority
because authority is based on customs and traditions which are long
established. That is, people of a community show respect to a particular
authority on the ground that their forefathers did the same and naturally they
cannot violate the tradition.
The authority, in this way is sanctioned by the tradition. An aspect of the
traditional authority is that there is no legal sanction behind such authority.
Simple customs, traditions and conventions have made the authority legitimate.
The records of the activities of the traditional authority are to be found in
the pages of history. Weber says that in ancient time and even in middle Ages
in many political systems the traditional authority existed. There was also
traditional authority in tribal societies of all countries. This was due to the
fact that political system in its present form did not develop in the tribal
societies. But this did not adversely affect the functioning or management of
tribal societies or political systems of earlier epochs.
In hereditary social and political systems the traditional authority exists. In
many countries of Africa (or West Asia) there are hereditary systems or
dynastic rulers. The son or daughter of a ruler becomes ruler. The rulers of
the hereditary system have built up the tradition and that tradition continues.
The governing system of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco provide the examples
of traditional authority and hereditary system. In some industrialised countries the hereditary systems still prevail.
2. Charismatic Authority:
Charismatic authority is Weber’s second type of legitimate authority. People obey the authority or show allegiance mainly due to the charisma possessed by the authority. An individual creates tremendous impact upon the mind of the people by his personality or charisma. Not all individuals or men holding power possess such type of personality or charisma. If we open the pages of history, we shall find that few leaders such as Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa etc. possessed charismatic power. The charisma is so powerful that people do not go into the legal aspects of the power. With the help of charisma the authority exercises power and people accept it. Charismatic authority is not always supported by law. Charisma is a special quality or gift of God. Nehru of India had the same qualities. But all these persons came to power through legal and constitutional means. Not in reality it is not always clear who is simply a charismatic authority and legal or constitutional authority.
3. Legal-Rational Authority:
Weber’s final classification is legal-rational authority. In almost all the modern states this type of authority is generally found. It is legal because the formal authority is supported by existing laws of the constitution. It is rational on the ground that the posts and positions are clearly defined by law. Power and duty are also clearly stated Rational-legal authority is the explicit form of a right to give orders and to have been obeyed. The core idea of the legal-rational authority is the holder of the authority has the right to issue orders or to take decisions and also the authority (sanctioned by law) to implement them. When the authority is challenged by rebellion or recalcitrant elements the authority has the power/ability to take legal action. Everything is cloaked with legality.
An important aspect of legal-rational authority is—it cannot do anything or take any decision on its own accord. Whatever the authority wants to do it must have legal sanction. Legal-rational authority can be called a type of limited form of government. John Locke contemplated such type of government. Later on legal- rational authority laid the foundation of liberal form of government.The government cannot whimsically interfere with the freedom of citizens. The central theme of the legal-rational authority is law and rationality is the vital points. There is no place of whims and the rationality in such authority.
Key points:-
Max Weber (1864 -1920), German sociologist and political economist, he is best known for his thesis of the ‘Protestant Ethic’ and for his ideas on bureaucracy. He explained typology of authority concept in his book the theory of social and Economic organization 1971. Weber divided legitimate authority into three types:
■Traditional Authority: It is derived from long established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another generation, then it is called traditional authority. The best example is the right of hereditary monarchs to rule a country.
■ Charismatic Authority: Here, the charisma of the individual or the leader play the important part. It is the authority which is derived from the gift of grace or when the leader claims that his authority is derived from a "higher power” and followers accept this and are willing to follow there inspired authority, in the place of authority that they have been following. For example, N. T. Rama Rao, a idol whose charisma made him one of the most powerful Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh & Mr. Narendra Modi (Present PM of India).
■ Legal Rational Authority: it is the form of authority which depends for its legitimacy or formal ruler and established laws of the state, which are usually written and often are complex. The power of the rational legal authority is mentioned in the Constitution. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority and Government officials are the best example of this form of authority. Weber has noted that legal domination is the most advanced, and that societies evolve from having mostly traditional and charismatic authorities to mostly rational and legal ones, because the instability of charismatic authority automatically forces it to "routinize" into a more structured form of authority. Similarly, he notes that in a pure type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a master can led to a "traditional revolution". Thus, he indicates towards an inevitable move towards a rational-legal structure of authority, utilizing a bureaucratic structure. This ties to his broader concept of rationalization by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction. In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition, in charismatic authority from the personality and leadership qualities of the individual (charisma), and in legal (or rational-legal) authority from powers that are bureaucratically and legally attached to certain positions.
