Power, Authority and Legitimacy

Introduction

Authority, power and legitimacy are seen as an integral part of the human society for the simple reason that these are the defining features of a social being with social and political institutions and hierarchies. Many scholars have sort to propound these concepts but not has so extensively influenced the concept as max Weber who sums the three to culminate into one, ‘authority’. Authority since then has grown into a catch word in many social sciences especially those related to administration and politics. Max Weber’s dissection of authority exposes three typologies of authority which he calls traditional authority, charismatic authority and legal rational authority from which he elevated the legal rational authority as the best form of authority.

This essay therefore labors at discussing the assertion that legal rational authority is the most rational type of authority amid the three noted types of authority. In laboring to do so therefore, the essay begins with an effort at defining authority and differentiating as well as relating it from and to other concepts such as power, influence and legitimacy often mistaken as its synonyms. The term “rational” shall also be defined so as to conceptualize our understanding of it in its usage in the discussion of Weber’s argument of legal rational authority being the more rational type of authority. This will be followed by a brief discussion of the three types of authority as propounded by Weber where a clear distinction of them will be drawn as well as their levels of rationality discussed and latter narrowed to legal rational authority in a comparative analysis to the others, a conclusion will then follow.

Definitions of key concepts

Most often as revealed by Bower (1971) power is used by many scholars as a synonym for authority and this has led to a confused understanding of the entire concept of authority especially with the idea that legitimacy is also another form of authority. The questions which emerge therefore include: what then is authority? Is it synonymous to power, influence and legitimacy? How do these concepts relate and apply to society and its institutions?

Power as defined by cline (2012) 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.” Power is therefore an ability or potential of an individual or groups of individuals to influence and compel action. Power can therefore be force or influence of action whether accepted/recognized or no. this differs from authority in that authority comes with recognition of the right to exercise power hence authority also encompasses the legitimacy defined as “a socially constructed and psychologically accepted right to exercise power”. Authority therefore refers to the ability (power) and right(legitimacy) to influence and compel action. Max Weber therefore as noted above identifies three ways in which people gain and exercise authority but argues that one of them, the legal rational type, is the most rational form of authority. What then did he mean by rational?

Encarta student dictionary (2009) defines rational as something reasonable and sensible and is governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice. Rational authority is one therefore that is no arbitrary but is objectively reasonable based on sensible thinking and clearly reasonable judgements.It is also defines rationality as being based on logic. If authority a type of authority is therefore to be deemed more rational, it must be logical, sensible, objective and reasonable enough relative to the others.

The three types of authority in perspective

Weber presented three types of authority in his analysis of authority namely traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. Weber presented them in the light of historical evolution of authority and related them implicitly to his ideas of class formation which he presents also in three forms(Collins 1986).

Traditional authority is seen as the legitimate power driven from sanctity of traditional norms, values and culture. This implies that the ability and right to rule is determined by traditions and culture, authority is often hereditary or inherited. Here therefore is the luck of rationality of the traditional form in that qualification of the holder of authority is not logical or sensible in that it is not the most qualified but the heir that gains the authority.

Further, traditional authority maintains the status quo as even the heir operates in line with the established culture,norms and customs to maintain the legitimacy hence does not facilitate social change, political, and other forms of change. The holder of traditional authority therefore exercises limited rationality in his exercise of the authority which makes the traditional form less rational relative to other however his authority remains stable and unchanged overtime.Put in Weber’s words “The creation of new law opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in principle” (Weber 1958, 4).

Charismatic authority on the other hand is driven from the concept of charisma or charm or personality magnetism of the holder of authority (Blau, 1963). This form of authority therefore is defined as the right and ability to exercise power as driven from the charismatic influence of the individual or groups of individuals. It is therefore seen as a non-formal type of authority driven from personal attribution and neither law nor tradition yet might overlap into these forms. As an overlap therefore a leader i.e. Shaka of the Nguni’s Zulu in south Africa, can have traditional authority but hold it with charismatic authority.  Charismatic authority is often change driven and as argued by Riesebrodt (1999) Weber argues that charisma played a strong - if not integral - role in traditional authority systems. He argues that charismatic authority is necessary in the transition from traditional authority to legal rational authority.The irrationality of charismatic authority is often in its power structure legitimatized not within the limits of tradition or law but and its stability is dependent on the increasing or decreasing charisma of the authority figure. It can be seen therefore as blind attribution and exercise of authority as it is an authority devoid of power boundaries.

The Legal-rational type of authority is power legitimatized by two key aspects, the ‘legal’ and the ‘rational’ which in other ways are the content (legal) or process (rational).  The legal rational authority is therefore a result of procedural and substantial consensus in its establishment. It is therefore impersonal but institutional/office based.

Bower identifies five distinguishing features of the legal and rational aspects of the legal rational authority and these are; basis of legitimacy, grounds for legitimacy, source of legitimacy, nature of power and source of power. The legal/formal aspect of legal rational authority has is basis of power from belief in the "right" of person to hold authority and the ground for this belief(ground of legitimacy) is the legal structure (established laws) and the source of the legal structure or legal framework is organization/formalization which springs from consensus building. In terms of power, the legal/formal aspect‘s nature of power is based on the organizational constraints and prerogatives granted and the source of power is not traditional nor charismatic but is derived from the legal structure or the legal framework of the organization. The rational aspect however is the determinant of the legal structure/framework. The rational aspect in terms of legitimacy has belief in effective utility of person's actions and commands as the basis of its legitimacy implying that the authority’s command is believed to be of general greater benefit having the basis of this belief of legitimacy from the identified qualification of the individual before acquiring the authority which is also the basis of the acquiring the authority, they are qualified for it. The source of legitimacy therefore is the social and societal acceptance of the individual’s qualification for the authority. The nature of the power here is in the technical competence of the authority figure and the source of the rational authority’s legitimacy is in the exposed and intrinsic skills and competencies.

The legal rational authority is therefore a combined form of authority whose  basis of legitimacy, source of legitimacy, nature of legitimacy, nature and sources of power are both legal(based on the legal and institutional frame work) as well as rational(based on the individual’s competence, skills and qualification to exercise the authority) the authority here therefore is not only rationally based as one with the qualification but not legally mandated cannot exercise it and in the same vain, one cannot be legally mandated to exercise the authority without being qualified to exercise it as the legal framework is rationally determined.

Comparative analysis

Using bower’s five distinguishing features, the reasons of the argument that the legal rational authority is more rational(reasonable, logical or sensible) than the other types of authority can be upheld. Legal rational authority is thus more logical or reasonable firstly because of its basis of legitimacy which is the belief of right of the office bearer to hold the authority impersonality as a qualified individual acting on the basis of utility benefit for all. This is unlike traditional authority whose basis of legitimacy is birth/heredity or patrimonialism hence arbitrary and not rational. The aspect of organizational utility is not sort for in the traditional authority but the maintenance of the status quo. Charismatic authority is not impersonal hence has continuity problems with the demise of the charismatic leader. Further, it looks at the charm or appeal of the leader without consideration of institutional and personal qualifications for exercise of authority which may lead to abuse of power or luck of ability perform despite the great charismatic appeal.

In terms of ground of legitimacy, legal rational authority is grounded in the legal structure/framework as well as the individual’s ability to interpret it understand it and effectively execute it with the consideration of either qualification or experience or both. Its legitimacy is therefore grounded into the institutional structure and the institutional legal framework as well as the fitting of the individual into that structure and legal framework. The traditional and charismatic typologies however has no formal institutional and legal frame work to guide actions, limit power and determine qualifications and the holder of authority is has not been therefore subjected to a pragmatic test or assessment of competence in a legally based manner. This makes both the traditional and charismatic authority less rational forms of authority relative to the legal rational forms of authority.

The source of legitimacy too sets legal rational authority apart from the rest in that its source is an organization with both procedural and substantial consensus with both a job description and a job specification. The job description determines the duties and authority of the office while the job specification determines the qualifications and needed personality attributes and technical and professional competences. Charismatic authority however does not have organizational form of consensus as there may be no need of an organization for charismatic authority to emerge. Traditional authority though having some aspects consensus does not formalise specific enough to ensure that the formal qualifications of office bearers are well taken into account. The rationality therefore of both the traditional and charismatic authorities is underscored relative to the legal rational one.

In terms of power however, it is almost unlimited in the non-formal types which include charismatic and traditional types of authority. The luck of formal boundaries and limits of authority leads to abuse of authority with no formal channels of accountability. The legal rational authority’s nature and source of power is driven from the legal prerogatives and constraints of the authority given to the structures of the organizations hence the individuals in those structures. Legal rational authority gives authority and constraints as well as accountability to the exercise of the power hence the power has limits.

Conclusion

It is clear therefore that the most rational (reasonable, logical or objective) form of the three types of authority is as argued by Weber to be the legal rational authority. Legal rational authority ensures the authority its structure, nature and basis as well as source and ground is impersonal, formal, rational, and accountable and combines both individual qualifications to exercise authority and laws based on both procedural and substantial consensus of the organization with established structures and offices.

Bibliography

Blau, P. M. (1963), Critical remarks on Weber’s theory of authority, The American Political Science Review, 57 (2): 305-316.

Bower T (1971),Formal and Rational Authority Some Notes, Hypotheses and Applications, Kansas Journal of Sociology Winter 1971

Cline, A., (2012)What is Authority? Differentiating Authority, Power, and Legitimacy, www.about.com/ (10/02/13)

Collins, R. (1986), Weberian Sociological Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dana, W. (2012) Traditional, Legal-Rational, and Charismatic Authority

Weber, M., (1947),The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (trans.) and Talcott Parsons (ed.). New York: The Free Press.