13 Concept of Power PAT cl neo koma sas SIGNIFICANCE OF POWER ‘Power’ may be regarded as one of the central concepts of political science. Itis said that the concept of power holds the same status in the realm of political science as held by the concept of money in the realm of economics. The focus on power emancipates the study of politics from the status of an appendage to the study of philosophy or history or law. It also transcends the realm of formal institutions to focus on the real motives agd objectives of human beings which lie behind all political activity and institution-building. During the early phase of development of modern political science Frederick Watkins had observed: “The proper scope of political science is not the study of the state or of any other specific institutional complex, but the investigation of all associations insofar as they can be shown to exemplify the problem of power” (The State as a Concept of Political Science; 1934). This view was confirmed by William A. Robson who suggested: “It is with power in society that political science is primarily concerned—its nature, basis, processes, scope and results .. . The ‘focus of interest’ of the political scientist is clear and unambiguous; it centres on the struggle to gain or retain power, to exercise power or influence over others, ~ or to resist that exercise” (The University Teaching of Social Sci ” Political Science; 1954). Z & of Sociai Sciences In fact, the significance of power in the politi ; ss c political phenomenon was bro": by wadtia thikers ike Machiavelli (1469-1527), Hobbes (Sage nesen and Nietzche (1844-1900) as well as by modern writers like Ma: wa oP) Merriam, Lasswell, Kaplan, Watkins a noe Catlin, ‘ ae » Trietschke and Mor, of the ‘power’ view Cf politics focus onthe study of senthau. The exponent? the cquisition, maintenanceConcept of Power 309 and loss of power’. H. Lasswell and A. Kaplan (Power and Society; 1950) defined political science as ‘the study of the shaping and sharing of power’, Max Weber's definition of politics also implies a focus on power in the context of national as well as intemational politics: “Politics is the struggle for power or the influencing of those in power, and embraces the struggle between states as well as between organized groups within the state” (cited in GEG. Catlin, Systematic Politics} 1965). Similarly, Michael Curtis (Comparative Government and Politics; 1978) observed: “Politics is organized dispute about power and its use, involving choice among competing values, ideas, persons, interests and demands.” Elucidating the scope of the study of politics, Curtis continues: “The study of politics is concerned with the description and analysis of the manner in which power is obtained, exercised and controlled, the purposes for which it is used, the manner in which decisions are made, factors which influence the making of those decisions and the context in which those decisions take place”. If power is so important for the study of politics, what is meant by power? MEANING OF POWER Bertrand Russell (Power: A New Social Analysis; 1938) defined power as “the production of intended effects’. In other words, power denotes the ability of a person to fulfil his desires or to achieve his objectives. In common parlance the term ‘power’ may be used in multifarious contexts. For instance, we talk of the power of man over nature or material things, and the power of man over man. Most of the theorists of power, including Russell, prefer to restrict its use to ‘power over human beings’. H.V. Wiseman (Political Systems: Some Sociological Approaches; 1966) defined power as ‘the ability to-get one’s wishes carried out despite opposition’. Stephen L. Wasby (Political Science—The Discipline and its Dimensions; 1972) similarly observed: “Power is generally thought to involve bringing about of an action by someone against the will or desire of another.” Then, Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis; 1991) described power as a kind of influence; it is exercised ‘when compliance is attained by creating the prospect of severe sanctions for non-compliance’. All these definitions give prominence to that aspect of power which is exercised by aman ora group over an ‘unwilling’ lot. They are, therefore, one-sided. Power, to be effective and stable, ofien takes the character of ‘authority’ which also comprehends legitimacy; that is the capacity to secure willing obedience. Use of force or coercion or sanctions may be resorted to only when legitimacy fails to ~ work. It is authority which ensures social acceptance and effective implementation ontules, policies and decisions. Its, tntfefore, necessary to understand the precise relationship between power, authority ari legitimacy. ’7] Introdaction to Polittea Theme, Catlin defines “Power as the ability fo oe OVET PROD be any ings us| ns ranging from persuasion to ¢ ms nccordng to Herbert and Edward Shitle “Power i aay influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one's own is M.G. Smith hold’s the view that “Power is the ability 'e act oflectivery over people and things using means ranging from persuasion to coercion, Gulld and Palmer hold that “Power is the ability to affec Lor to comtrrg the decisions, behaviour policies, values and fortunes of others According to Robert Bierstedt “Power is an ability to use force Pat hep then its real use.” Tawney has defined “Power as an ability of the Individual oF Communy of individuals to change the conduct of other individuals or groups \, accordance with one’s own ends.” After studying the above definitions we may draw the following inference. (1) Power is the capacity to influence the behaviour of another. (2) Power is a social Phenomena. @) Power is a relationship between the authority and followers. (4) Power is omnipotent. (8) Power is Participation in decision making. (6) Power is different from its related notions life force, manipulation, Persuasion etc. (7) Power has many dimensions like social, political Economic and Ideological. (8) The power is the ability to determine the behaviour of other in accordance with one’s own wishes. Characteristics of Power After closely studying the definitions of Power we may Identify the following characteristics of power. (1) Power is functional, it is exercised for achieving goals and objective for e.g. if one influences the behaviour or actions of another. It is done so with - unless there is some relatively fixed goal or Purpose. There are some decisions by which the application of Power can be guided or directed.” (2) Power is abstract, we Cannot see it but can feel it, It’ terms, it is not an end rather its a means to an end (3) Power is Relationship Concept—According to Lasswell and Kaplan it is not the property of a’single individual, it requlres two actors one who exercises and the other upon whom the Power Is exercised, (4) Power implies Possession—Power means possessing something which the one who adds power lacked earlier, that something Is actually his a S$ not in physicalwel Authority and Legitimacy 175 tence to command obedie an ree with that cen, Friedrich ob Ider ac ey may be enjoyed, tain stated po serves when o quires a certain a , abused, pari to have a ne ‘s elected q one’ Power is Situational Pores of such oom and so forth. An hold life and one’s position, © Com ower wi ee jooses When the cone enloys power nepends on a his office. nd of jooses d : is lo n on msta : rstitutionalize d which means ost. In the mod e holds a parti nces, situations it vests in the pr ern times po Hcular status and operly or er is ge ‘ganized an nerally d recogn ized compe to offic ossess office ho institutions.312 An Introduction to Political Theory Ml. DIFFERENT FORMS:OF POWER * Social Analysis of power cannot be confined to the realm of ‘political power’. Economic and ideological forms of power should also be taken into account as they play an important role as the support-bases of political power. Its, therefore, necessary to distinguish between these three major forms of power. POLITICAL POWER According to Alan Ball (Modern Politics and Government, 1988), “the concept of political power. . . is a key concept in the study of politics for if politics is the resolution of conflict, the distribution of power within a political community determines how the conflict is to be resolved, and whether the resolution is to be effectively observed by all parties.” In order to identify the nature of political power it is essential, at the outset, to distinguishbetweenthe formal and informal organs of such power. Legislature, executive and judiciary are thie traditionally recognized organs of power in a state; they represent the formal organs. The obedience secured by these organs, backed by sanctions, is an important form of politica! power. Executive and Legislature, taken together, make laws, policies and decisions regulating the allocation of values in a society. They impose taxes and use a vast machinery for the collection of taxes. They issue licences, permits, and regulate a large variety of citizens’ actions, such as keeping vehicles and arms, running certain businesses, maintaining the quality of products, working conditions of the labour, building of houses, etc. There is police to catch hold of offenders, courts to try the offenders and settle disputes, and prisons to punish the convicts. Then military is meant to deal with foreign aggressors. In short, formal organs of political power play an effective role in a given territory. Informal organs of political power not only take the form of political parties in Power and in opposition, but also a large number of pressure groups, public opinion, Popular movements, etc. Thus, political power is not the sole prerogative of the formal organs af the state but these organs themselves are responsive to the ‘inputs’ received from the ‘environment’. This may be illustrated with reference to three cases: @ in independent States, Public opinion, popular movements and organized ees directly influence the decision-making; in democracies, the ruling party is pound to seek a fresh mandate from the people at regular intervals; (ii) in the colonies, dependencies and dictatorships, the strug; and strong popular movements are sooner or later able to eit concessions but even to win their independence; and organized sroups af nations do exercise their influence on the ‘authoritative allocation of values’. The constant pressure exercised by ‘third world’ countries oe Super powers to change their economic and foreign policies is a case in gle for independence tos re not only substantial (iti) in the international sphere,Concept of Power 313 ECONOMIC POWER Economic power is the power derived from the possession of material things, especially the major means of production and distribution. It is a potent factor behind politics. For instance, big landlords, industrial tycoons and business magnates are able to influence public decisions regarding the fixation of Priorities in the economic development in a liberal democracy. In India itself the organized | economic interests have been able to secure priority of colour TV for the urban rich, over drinking water for the rural poor. The possessors of economic power in a liberal democracy exercise their influence on politics in several ways. Their pressure groups are stronger, more organized and more vocal. For instance, in India, the chambers of commerce and industry are very strong, the workers’ unions are not as strong, peasants’ unions are less strong and consumers’ organizations are the weakest lot. The major newspapers and TV channels are owned by a handful of big business houses who take full advantage of these media to promote opinion which suits their interests. Besides, the big business houses extend a large amount of financial help to political parties, often clandestinely, and to the candidates seeking elections. The recipients of such help play a dual game—they pay lip-service to the interests of the masses but are secretly committed to safeguarding the interests of their financiers. IDEOLOGICAL POWER Ideological power provides a more subtle base of political power. The ideas upheld and promoted by the ruling classes in a given society regarding the ‘best system of government’ constitute political ideology. Ideology may be defined as ‘a systematic set of arguments and beliefs used to justify an existing or desired social order’ (Joseph Dunner, ed., Dictionary of Political Science; 1965). An outstanding feature of political ideology is that it provides legitimacy to the tuling classes and helps them maintain their stronghold on political power. When people are made to believe that a particular system of government is the best system, they will not be inclined to challenge the authority of the ruling classes. When people have leamt to respect their laws, the need for coercion to secure their obedience would be eliminated or at any rate, minimized.’ : Political ideology involves not only a set of beliefs, it is always action-oriented, It puts forward a ‘cause’ for which People are prepared not only to fight but to make a loi of sacrifices. As Alan Ball (Modern Politics and Government, 1988) has elaborated: “Individuals are Prepared to fight for causes, often Tealistically hopeless causes, or to undergo ill-treatment and torture in the belief that some political values are superior to others.” Ideology is often ‘devoid of feason. It Picks up certain convenient formulae and elevates them to the level of ‘absolute truth’ by exploiting people’s sentiments. Thus, some ideas are held sacrosanct by a particular group while others remain indifferent or even disdainful toward those very ideas.314 An Introduction to Political Theory Ideological power represents the manipulative power of the dominant classes which holds sway on the thinking and emotions of the people. Ideology even creates an illusion of ‘consent’ Under an ideological spell, the people express their approval to the rule of particular persons and policies. They are led to believe that they are being governed with their consent’ while they actually continue to be governed according to the designs of the dominant classes. Marx and Engels (The German Ideology; 1846) had noted that ‘the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas’ According to them the class which owns the means of material production in any society also controls the means of mental production. ‘Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), an Italian Marxist, gave the concept of “hegemony” to explain the phenomenon of ideological domination, particularly of the capitalist class, in the contemporary society. Hegemony, in this sense, denotes a form of rule where power is apparently exercised with the consent of the ruled. Role of Power in Society Types of Power Political Economic Ideological | | Ownership of Means of Inculcation of beliefs about Formal Organs Informal Organs Production best system of government | Legistature Public Opinion Ownership and Legitimization of the | I Control of Mass Media Ruling Classes Executive Pressure Groups (+ Bureaucracy) | Financing of Control on People’s | Political Parties Elections Choice of Policies Judiciary Mass Movements Based on the values transmitted through civil society - family, school Mass Media church and other primary groups According to Gramsci, the spiritual and cultural supremacy of the ruling class : inthe capitalist state was accomplished through the manipulation of ‘civil society’, particularly through the mechanism of socialization, such as family, school, church and other primary groups. Gramsci’s concept of ‘hegemony’ also explains why¢ - 3 q i 315 Concept of Power ate degree of list countries, as not enough lution in the the working-class parties have only achieved a relatively moder: Success in the open competition for political power in the capita Gramsci, therefore, insisted that revolution in the economic sphere W to end the capitalist domination. It was necessary to reinforce revo! cultural sphere in order to achieve this end. A GRITICAL APPRAISAL The chief merit of the power approach fies in its ability to identify the motive force operating behind politics. Moreover, it can be applied to an analysis of domestic as well as international politics. However, this approach suffers from several drawbacks. In the first place, it lacks precision. As Vernon Van Dyke has elucidated: “Power is said to derive from sources ranging from tacitly accepted rules of politeness to the possession of spaceships; and it is said to manifest itself in situations ranging from a request that the salt be passed at the dining table to a situation in which states are exchanging all-out thermonuclear blows” (Political Science—A Philosophical Analysis; 1960). This sort of imprecision in the concept of power itself defies any classification or quantification of data for the purpose of political analysis. Secondly, this approach seeks to reduce ali politics to a struggie for power, aad ignores other important purposes for which mer have recourse to politics. As Dyke has further elaborated: “Political actors rarely, if ever, struggle for power alone. They pursue other purposes, too. The theory that politics is a struggle for power does not say. how much power is desired or what price political actors are willing to pay for it in terms of other values. The thoughtless assumption that all political actors constantly seek a maximization of power at any price is obviously false.” Finally, all struggle for power in different social situations cannot be treated as a subject-matter of politics. For instance, competition among film-actors to win popular applause or that between textile-manufacturers to control consumer choices do involve struggle for power, but that is hardly an issue of politics. Politics is concerned only with a struggle for power to control public affairs, that is to have access to positions of taking decisions for the allocation of public goods, services, opportunities and honours. Any deviation from this focus will make the power approach a futile exercise. THE. STRUCTURE OF-POWER psoe An bitroduction to Political Lheory , the centres of power The studeat of politics is chiefly concerned with wens me to the mode of ina given society or in an international setting and ree oo approach to the authoritative allocation of values prevailing in that a aot be confused an Study of polities i atypically moult ura 7 division of the ‘powers’ of the traditional approach which recognized a threefo ee To deseribe them a government—legislative, executive and judicial ‘ ‘The modern approach according to the formal constitution a a ae shift in focus from the marks a departure from the traditional one as Sas viper satisfied formal organization to the informal one. In other words, we “ eee want t0 by learning as to ‘who rules a country according to its ery power although know and identify the groups and classes which actually ay't Political power the constitution guarantees ‘equality of status and ater cal inuetures. I in a country is always rooted in its socio-economic and ideo! oe _ in onder is, therefore, essential to discover the real sources and centres of po' to understand politics. oh coup has constantly Can we identify such groups in a society out of whic! oa eee exercised power over another group? Different schools of t oug ane different answers to this question. Marxist school of thought views the situ i ive’. Eliti hat an elite always dominates in ‘class perspective’ . Elitist school of thought holds t ’ pea airamel the masses. Ther, feminist school cf thouglit tends to anatyse the situation in gender perspective’. Finally, pluralist theory upholds “group perspective’ on power to - show that several groups in society have their own share in the exercise of power. CLASS AS THE SOURCE OF POWER {Class pesspectineen power was developed by Marx (1818-83) and Engels-(1820- -95) during the mid of the nineteenth century. According to this theory political power is the product of economic power. In other words, the tree of political Power grows on the roots of economic power; the edifice of political power is raised on the foundation of economic power.’ Economic power is vested in the ownership of means of social production. From the dawn-efeivilization society was divided into two antagonistic classes—haves and have-nots—on the basis of ” Ownership of the means of social production, In the ancient ° ownership and non- society these classes were rej society, by lords and serfs; workers: ] presented by masters and slaves; in the medieval and in modern capitalist Society, by capitalists and eaeConcept of Power (this theory recognized ‘class’ as the organizing category for exercising power in society. Those who Managed to grab ownership of the means of social production’ organized themselves into the ‘dominant class’, and forced the rest of society to do hard work on the terms dictated by the former. This part of society was reduced to ‘dependent class’. The do minant class resorted to intense exploitation of the dependent class in order to Strengthen its power and position. The dependent class could also organize itself and launch a struggle against the dominant class in order to put an end to the tegime of exploitation. This would fead to the: emergence of class conflict or class Struggle. Thus the opening sentence of Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels; 1848) reads: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” \a any case, the conditions Prevailing in the past ages did not permit or enable the dependent class to organize itself fully so as to enter the phase of a decisive class struggle. it was only under capitalism that the working class found an Opportunity to build its strong organization to fight against its oppressors. In ancient slave-owning society, the slaves were scattered to distant households with little communication among themselves. In medieval feudal society, the serfs were similarly scattered to distant agricultural estates, But in moder capitalist society, the conditions of industrial production led to the Concentration of workers in big cities with strong communication between themselves. They became not only conscious of their strength but also of their common enemy—the capitalist class \shich exploited them so intensely! Marx and Engels believed that the overthrow of the capitalist class was not only imminent but also inevitable. | Communist Manifesto gave a clarion call: “Workers of all countries, unite!” Its concluding part reads: “The Communists . . . openly declare that their cnds can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” This doctrine of class struggle was strongly endorsed by Lenin (1870-1924), Rosa Luxemberg (1871-1919), Mao Zedong (1893-1976) and other leading Marxists. However, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), an Italian Marxist of early twentieth century, introduced the concept of ‘hegemony’ to explain the subtle sources of capitalist domination. It added a new dimension to the strategy to fight against capitalism in contemporary societyMPs An Introduction to Political Peon Capitalism system of theymodem age, largely based on industrial wo al production (lind, buildings, mines, forests, machinery 3 Se wake re owned by private entrepreneurs, # large number Sf WETS ketrate; and econamic activity is primarily deve Exponents of Marxism believed that the class struggle led by the working class would culminate in a socialist revolution. This would mean overthrow of capitalism and setting up a new economic and political system in which all means of social production would be placed under social ownership and control. During the socialist phase work would be made compulsory for every able-bodied person and efforts will be made for fuller development of the forces of production. This would eventually result in the emergence of communist society which would be a ‘classless’ society. With the abolition of the division of society into dominant and dependent classes, the use of power will become redundant. POWER AND HEGEMONY Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) admired the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) of Russia as a victory of the will power over economic conditions. But he also wamed that: this strategy would not be suitable under the conditions prevailing in Wester society where the working class had come to accept the existing arrangements. He set aside certain assumptions of.classical Marxism and produced a new analysis of the capitalist state. = -- ~_ Gramsci noted that the real source of strength of the ruling classes in the West is manifested in their spiritual and cultural supremacy. These classes Manage toConcept of Power a9 \ inculcate their value system in the mind of their people through the institutions of the civil society. Gramsci Particularly focused on the structures of domination in the culture of the Capitalist society. The conventional Marxist theory had held that economic mode of production of any society constituted its base while its legal and political structure and various expressions of its social consciousness including legal and political structure, Teligion, morals, social custom and Practices constituted its superstructure. It believed that the character of the Superstructure was determined by the prevailing character of its base. During the course of social development the changes in the base led to the corresponding changes in the Superstructure. So it focused on changes in the base; the superstructure was not regarded to deserve an independent analysis. Gramsci did not accept this position. He suggested that the superstructure of the contemporary Western society had attained some degree of autonomy; hence its analysis was also necessary. — Gramsci particularly focused on the structures of domination in the culture of the capitalist society. He identified two levels of this superstructure: (a) Political Society or State which resorts to coercion to maintain its domination. The whole organization of government comes within its purview. The structures associated with this part of superstructure are called ‘structures of coercion’; (b) Civil Society which resorts to obtaining consent of the citizens to maintain its domination. This part of the superstructure is closer to the base and itis relatively autonomous. The structures associated with this part are called ‘structures of legitimation’. Gramsci pays Special importance to this part of the superstructure. ‘According to Gramsci, the institutions of civil society—family, school and church familiarize the citizens with the rules of behaviour and teach them to show natural respect to the authority of the ruling classes. These structures lend legitimacy to the rule of the capitalist class so that even injustice involved in this rule would carry the impression of justice. That is why these are called ‘structures of. legitimation’. They enable the capitalist society to function in such a manner that the ruling classes seem to be ruling with the consent of the people. When the power is apparently exercised with the consent of its subject, it is called ‘hegemony’.320 An Introduction te Political Gramsci’s Analysi: of Hegemony in Capitalist 90¢ iely Capitalist Society ' | Base Superstructure Capitalist Mode of Legal and Political Structures, Religion Production Morals, Social Practices, ete Structures of Domination . 1 Civil Society Political Society Family, School, Church, etc. Governmental Organization Structures of Coercion Structures of Legitimation _ Gramsc: points vut that ihe ‘structures of society usually prevent any challenge ‘to its authority. Caj depends on the efficiency o| society fails to prevent dissent that political society structures of coercion, including police, courts and prisons. This analysis leads us to the conclusion that the strategy of communist movement should not be confined to the overthrow of the capitalist class but it should make a dent in the value systemn that sustains the capitalist rule. This value system is likely to persist through the institutions of civil society even under socialist mode of production. Fresh efforts will have to be made to transform the culture of that society by inculcating socialist values in the minds of the people. According to Gramsci it would be futile to hope that true socialism would automatically emerge from the ashes of capitalism. Gramsci tried to convince the Marxists that they should emerge from the spell of economics and continue their ideological warfare in the field of culture, art and literature, and philosophical debates. The revolutionaries must infiltrate the autonomous institutions of civil society and create a new mass consciousness informed by the socialist value system. Jegitimation’ within the capitalist pitalist society largely f these structures for its stability. It is only when civil is required to make use of its ; Gramsci was primarily a humanist. He was opposed to any type of tyranny. He did not want to use revolution in order to set up a coercive state, but wanted to democratize all institutions. In fact he sought to replace the state by a regulated society where all decisions would be made through consensus, and not by means of coercion. ,321 Concept of Power CS Elite theory of Power was advanced in early twentieth century by three famovt Sociologists: Pareto, Mosca and Michels. The term ‘elite’ as a category ol sociological analysis was introduced by Pareto while the idea associated wien this theory was floated earlier by Mosca. The term ‘elite’ was derived from the French where it meant to be something excellent. Accordingly the elite theory tends to divide society into ‘excellent’ and ‘ordinary’ people who are placed in different positions. So, like class theory, elite theory accepts a broad division of society into dominant and dependent groups. But unlike class theory, elite theory treats this division as somewhat natural and functional. [t regards competence and aptitude (and not the emergence of private Property) to be responsible for this division. Again, while clas theory held that the division of society into dominant and dependent classés could be set aside through a socialist revolution, elite theory sees little prospects of a thorough- going change in this position. . Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), an Italian sociologist, in his The Mind and Society (1915-19) used the term ‘elite’ to indicate a superior social group, i.e. a group of people who show highest ability in their field of activity whatever its nature might be. It was a minority group which took ali major decisions in society. The other part of society which fell short of this level of ability was termed as mass of the people, or ‘masses’. Masses are characterized by the lack of qualities of leadership as well as the fear from responsibility. They feel that in public life it would be safe to follow the elite. Pareto’s Model of Circulation of Elites Scciaty Elites Masses (Distinguished by (Devoid of leadership competence and qualities; Fear from aptitude for leadershfp) responsibility) Governing Elite Non-govering Elite. RL Circulation of Elites ~ Within the elite Pareto distinguished between ‘governing elite’ and ‘non- governing elite’. ‘Governing elite’ is one that wields power for the time being while ‘non-govering elite’ constantly endeavours to replace it by showing greater5 / ae An Introduction to Political Theor aracterized by @ constant 5 results in what Is of entering the ability and excellence. In short, behaviour of the elite 1s ch competition between governing and non-governing elites Thi called ‘circulation of elites’. In any case, masses have no chance tanks of elites. 5 urage and cunning ns’ (who. tinguished by of status quo under stable their cunning) are adaptive areto also recognizes CO Apart from intelligence and talent, Pi as the qualities of the elite. He observes that ‘the lion their courage) are more suited to the maintenance conditions, while ‘the foxes’ (who are distinguished by and innovative and cope better during periods of change. ; . a Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941) was also an Italian sociologist Inhis noted ee The Ruling Class (1896) he postulated that the people are necessarily es a two groups: the rulers and the ruled. The ruling class controls most of ae ls power and prestige in society. ‘The ruled are not competent to replace it. atever form of government might be adopted, it is always this minority which exercises all power in society. Mosca defined ruling class as a political class that Tepresents the interests of the important and influential groups, especially ina parliamentary democracy. In any case the ruling class tends to invoke moral and legal principles in order to win consent of the ruled. White Pareto regards intelligence. and talent as the outstanding qualities of elite, Mosca’s ruling class was di inguished by its capacity of organization. OF the two Italian elitists, Mosca is more democratic. He believed that leadership could emerge at all levels including grass-root level. Each stratum of society has the potential of producing good organizers for itself. They need not look for outsiders for their guidance and control. : Mosca argued that the dominance of the ruling class was essential to provide for proper organization of the unorganized majority. Members of the ruling minority always enjoy a high degree of esteem in the eyes of the people because of their outstanding qualities. Mosca also held that a constant competition between the upper and lower strata of society led to the ‘circulation of elites’. While class theory held that the division of society into classes was based on exploitation, elite theory believed that the division of society into elite and masses was functional. They compensate each other in sustaining the social organization. This division does not give rise to any injustice in society. Hence the masses need not rise in revolt against the ruling class. Under this system social change. if any, would be confined to the ‘circulation of elites’. In this process, an outmoded elite may be replaced by a more dynamic elite, but masses will have no opportunity to come to power, Robert Michels (1876-1936), a German sociologist made further contribution to development of the elite theory. In his famous work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1911) Michel propounded his ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’. He proceeded to demonstrateConcept of Power 33 a CvErY Organization—whatever its original aims—is eventually reduced to oligarchy + that is the rule of the chosen few who tend to use their authority iti self-interest, He held that majority of human beings are apathetic, indolent and slavish. They are permanently incapable of self-government, So they have to bank upon their leaders for Pursuing their social objectives. Trade unions, political Parties and other organizations are the vehicles of such leadership. Michels Points out that any organization may be set up with democratic aims, but as the Organization grows in size and complexity, its management is left to the professional experts. In due course these experts or leaders become indispensable for the organization. They use their manipulative skills, including oratory, Persuation and playing upon sentiments of the people in order to perpetuate themselves in power. They become so prominent by virtue of their expertise and experience that it becomes very difficult to replace them af periodical re-election. In exercising their undisputed power they set aside the original aims of the organization. The growth of oligarchy in every organization is so inevitable as if this process is governed by an ‘iron law’. This ‘iron law of oligarchy’ rules out the possibility of ‘circulation of elites’ as- envisaged by Pareto and Mosca. It belies ll hopes of democracy in any society or organization. All forms of government are also destined to be reduced to oligarchy. However, critics of Michel’s iron law of oligarchy point out that this law cannot be uniformly applied to all organizations. Members of some organizations could be more vigilant, vocal and assertive than those of others. Again, some organizations by their nature could be more democratic than others. For example, political parties may offer more options to their members than trade unions. In any case, Michel's observations could serve as a warming to those who sincerely believe in democratization of institutions. This view was subsequently applied to the practical situations by some leading sociologists. Max Weber (1864-1920), a Germah sociologist, inspired by this theory cane to reject the prevalent definition of democraty as ‘government by the people’. He sought to redefine democracy as ‘a competition for political leadership’. In tis essay on ‘Socialism’ (1918) Weber emphatically pointed to the relative independence of political power from social classes. He argued that if socialim is sought to be established through a socialist revolution, it was destined to becene- the dictatorship of officials rather than the dictatorship of proletariat as envisaged by the Marxist theory. Weber asserted that the inequality of political power isin no way diminished or eliminated by the abolition of classes. In other words, een324 An Introduction to Political Theory oe Society’ all power was bound to be concentrated in the ane ear sen few. A democratic form of government was preferable because democrac i, an open competition for political leadership. This model of mocracy was adopted and further developed by Joseph Schumpeter (1883- 1950), an American economist and social thinker. C. Wright Mills (1916-62), an American sociologist, presented a new version of the elite theory in his famous work, The Power Elite (1956). He preferred the term ‘power elite’ to ‘ruling class’. While Marxian concept of the “ruling class’ implied that an economic class would exercise all political power in society, Mills concept of ‘power elite’ implied a combination of several groups who exercised all power by virtue of their high status in all important spheres of social life. It signified an inner circle of powerholders in modern American society. Mills observed that modern American society was ruled by aet of three loosely interlocking groups who had come to occupy the pivotal positions of power: the captains of industry, military leaders and prominent politicians. These three groups, taken together, constituted the ‘power elite’. They not only share their cultural and psychological orientations, but also often share their social origins. In other words, the top groups in bconomic, military and political organizations in the Unitea Siates were linked by ties of family and friendship and shared common social backgrounds. According to Mills, the power elites do not owe their power to fulfilling social demands. They themselves are capable of creating such demands. They occupy the stfategic command posts within the social structure. The power elite constitute a self-coriscious class whose members help each other on the basis of mutual understanding, tolerance and cooperation in order to strengthen each other's power and position. They project their image of high moral charactér only with a view tO commanding respect in society, but chey are scarcely sensitive to their moral or social responsibility. Vil:: GENDER PERSPECTIVE. ; Gender perspective on power is represented by feminist theory. It recognizes the division of society into two broad groups on the basis of gender: men and women who act as dominant and dependent groups respectively. This division was created by nature for sustaining the human race and to enable the human beings to build up an excellent civilization and culture, but it is society which placed men and women in dominant and dependent positions respectively. Feminists demand a thorough-going change in this arrangemeat and wish to liberate women from the undue dominance of men. ‘The age-old and universal dominance of man over woman is manifested in the concept of patriarchy. Friedrich Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the Stare (1884) observed that in the antiquity when the institutionConcept of Power 325 of marriage was not invented, lineage of a person could be reckoned only through the female line. Consequently women as mothers were treated with a high degree of consideration and respect. The transition to monogamy, in due course, where the woman belongs exclusively to one man, implied the erosion of that respect. In Engles’ own words: “The overthrow of mother right was the world-historic defeat of the female sex. The man seized the reins in the house also, the- woman was, degraded, enthralled, the slave of the man’s lust, a mere instrument for breeding children . . . The first effect of the sole rule of the men that was now established is shown in. . . the patriarchal family.” Literally, patriarchy means ‘rule of the father’. The term was originally used to describe the social organization based on the authority of male heads of households. In the contemporary usage, it has come to mean male domination in general. It is now used to describe 'a social system in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women. It comprehends the various ways iri which men exercise power over women. Broadly speaking, the social relations involving reproduction, violence, sexuality (including the use of pornography) and work culture are identified as parts of the patriarchal system. : : Modem theories of patriarchy postutate that there is a fundamental division of interests between most men and most women as a result of social structuring of gender relations. Some writers focus on biological differences between men and women as the basis of patriarchy. For instance, they point out that men show their greater physical strength in warfare, and women are constrained by nature to perform an elabo~te role in the reproductive function. Others see sexuality as an instrument of control of women by men. Still others focus on male violence as the basis of this control. Again some feminists have asserted that men benefit from women’s labour, both as unpaid house-work and as poorly paid work in the labour market. Feminist sociologists have broadly given three types of account of patriarchy. In the first place, those influenced by the work of the French psychoanalysts and structuralists have argued that a society's culture is dominated by the symbols of male origin. According to the second account, patriarchy is essentially based on the household in which men dominate women economically, sexually and culturally. This view treats marriage contract as a labour contract through which women exchange unpaid domestic services for their upkeep. Finally, Marxist feminists argue that patriarchy and capitalism support each other. Within the household, men take the benefit of women's unpaid domestic labour. and thus relieve their employer—the capitalist of the liability to pay for that labour. Outside the home, women are segregated to perform some specific jobs for which very low wages are paid. In fact all these accounts focus on different aspects of women’s exploitation in society and they should be read together to draw a tull picture of the situation.326 An Introduction to Political Theory The e: ter ec | Nt of economic exploit emporary soctely 1S ation of women in conte amply reflecte \ > ; Ee eflected in a United Nations Report (1980). It reads: “Women constitute alf the world’s popul ork hours, recetve lation, perform nearly two thirds of Its . ¢ world's One tenth of the world's income, and own less than one hundredth of th property.” In other spheres of life, c.g. cultural and social spheres. simular data to show tne extent of exploitation of women by men might not be available, But @ general awareness about this exploitation led to strong protests manifested in Women Liberation Movement which emerged in the United States since the early 1970s Soon this movement also spread to Europe and other parts of the world This movement focused on equal rights and status for women in a male-dominated society. Some prominent organizations associated with this movement were: National Organization for Women (NOW), Boston's Bread and Roses, Berkeley Women’s Liberation Group, Women’s Radical Action Project, Women’s Equity Action League (WEAL). National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC), etc. Broadly speaking, Women Liberation Movement demanded truly equal treatment of men and women. It required that many of society’s myths, values and beliefs conceming status and role of women in society should be fundamentally reassessed and changed. These changes must embrace the pattems of work ane family life, social behaviour, decision-making, politics, religion and education. Even the more personal and private domain of sexuality needed to be redefined. These demands led to a widespread debate on diverse issues concerning women. These include day-care facilities for children, the development of a non-sexist vocabulary (e.g. the term ‘chairman’ should be replaced by ‘chairperson’), and the representation of women and their roles in the mass media, including advertising. These debates have not only led to enactment of new laws in some countries, but also to the worldwide acceptance of new norms protecting dignity of women. In India some important legislation concerning the protection of women includes: the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986; the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987; and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Il. GROUP PERSPECTIVE Group perspective on power corresponds to pluralist theory. Whereas class perspective, elite perspective and gender perspective on power maintain that the exercise of power divides the society into two broad categories—dominant and dependent groups, pluralist theory of power does not subscribe to this view. According the this theory, power in society is not concentrated in a single group, but it is dispersed amongst a wide variety of social groups. These groups are largely autonomous and almost independent centres of decision. Organizations ofConcept of Power 307 workers, pe q workers, Peasants, traders, industrialists, consumers, etc. could be cited as examples of such groups in the contemporary society. These groups cannot be classified into dominant and dependent groups. They have their share of power in their Fespective spheres of operation. Since these Eroups are more or less interdependent within the social Organization, they tend to balance each other’s power. Public decisions are largely the outcome Of this equilibrium. This theory gives a description of actual distribution of power in society as well as its justification. Thus pluralism upholds a Political system which is suited to a pluralist society. Pluratist society is that Society in which power and authority are not concentrated in a particular group but they are spread to various centres of decision-making. The Present form of pluralist society represents a modem arrangement, but early hints of this arrangement can be traced to medieval Europe. In that age monarchy and church regulated different spheres of human life while craft corporations and feudal lords commanded obedience from their subjects in their Tespective spheres of authority. But this system cannot be likened to the modern version of pluralist society. In fact medieval society was characterized by several Competing centres of power and ‘egitimacy which’sitaultancously demanded loyalty tron: the same set of persons. Their social and political life was intertwined However, modem pluralist society does not seek to mix up social life of citizens with their political life. It encourages them to form autonomous groups. These groups are not required to compete with the authority of the state. They are designéd to serve as intermediate bodigs between indivjduals and the state. They seek to, convey the sentiments of their members to government and try to influence the process of policy-formation and decision-making. In pluralist society individuals may be divided into several competing groups according to their status and interests, but politically they continue to be the members of the same community. They owe allegiance to the same state. They are goyerned by the same law and public policy. They enjoy equal rights as citizens. Hence pluralist society represents a social system which provides for the coexistence of a variety of social customs, cultural traits and religious beliefs. ‘They participate in the political process under uniform political institutions. French writer Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59) observed that the absence of intermediary groups in France was responsible for the French Revolution (1789) whereas the United States was able to maintain democracy due the presence of such groups. Tocqueville suggested that in order to protect democracy these intermediary groups should be kept free from state interference. However, moden pluralists insist that these groups should be allowed to exercise their influence on. government in the process of policy-formation and government should also seek. cooperation of these groups in the process of decision-making.328 An Introduction to Political Hwary Contemporary pluralist theory appeared in the 1950s, particularly with the Publication of Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom’s Politics, Economics and Welfare (1953), Robert Dahl's A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956) and Who Governs? (1961). Itwas based on the assumption that there was a widespread distribution of political resources, and that different interests prevailed in different political disputes and at different times. Dahl's model of democracy, described as ‘polyarchy’, postulated that Society is controlled by a set of competing interest Soups, with the government as little more than an honest broker in the middle. Then N. Polsby in his Community, Power and Political Theory (1963) pointed to an urspoken notion in pluralist tesearch that at bottom nobody dominates. Critics point out that pluralism focuses only on the decision-making process. It overlooks those issues on which no decision could be taken though some of those issues might be very important. Moreover, even if different groups bargain on equal footing, some groups may lack internal democracy. As a result, leaders or spokespersons of those groups may play a dominant role. Steven Lukes in his Power: A Radical View (1974) has pointed to a ‘third-dimension of power’. It implies that powerholders can so manipulate the wants of others that their real interests are suppressed. ~ These points of criticism have led to some modification in the pluralist theory in its later phase of development. Thus Charles Lindblom in his Politics and Markets (1977) conceded that there is a privileged position of business in the market-dominated polyarchies of the West; that they are controlled undemocratically by business and property. Robert Dahl in his Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (1982) conceded that pluralism cannot be treated as an open Competition between truly equal political forces. In order to reduce the inequalities Of these forces Dahl has recommended those policies which would promote redistribution of power in society. In a nutshell, the subtle forms of domination existing within certain groups and the predominant position of some groups in society should not be ignored while using group perspective for the analysis of power in society.329 Concep! of Power Comparative Perspective on Power The Issue Class Elite Gender Group Perspective Perspective Perspective Perspective Relevant Theory Marxist Theory Elite Theory Feminist Theory Pluralist Theory Nature of Division Haves and Elite and Men and Several Auton- ; of Society Have-nots Masses Women omous Interest- Groups Basis of the Ownership of Competence Biological Diversity of Division Private Property of the few Differences Interests Role of the Exploitation Organization Exploitation Mutual Powerholders and Leadership Bargaining Prospects of Yes | No Yes ‘ Not Needed Change Instruments of Socialist Not Needed Women’s Lib- Not Needed Change Revolution eration Movement310 An tatradiction to Political Theory Vo) AE Lea LA Mea eA LLLLaN | Authority = Power + Legitimacy ] Authority consists of two Important componcity Power and Legitimacy. Legitimacy of an act or arrangement implies that the members of soctety treat that arrangement as beneticial to society as well as tothemsclves. So they willingly tend to abide by it. Power alone involves capacity to get a decision obeyed by others against their will. Robert M Maclver (The Web of Government; 1965) aptly defined power as ‘the capacity in any relationship to command the service ‘or compliance of others’. Power may involve use of ‘force’, but service or compliance of others will best be obtained when they regard the command as ‘tight’, ‘good’ or ‘beneficial’. Power, to be effective and stable, must be accompanied by the capacity to secure willing obedience. Use of force or coercion or sanctions may be resorted to only when legitimacy fails to work. If we think of power as w naked sword, authcrity may be envisaged as a sword in tts scabbard. If power is based on fear or force, legitimacy is based on respect ang’ willing compliance. Authority is, therefore, the most effective instrument of exercising power in the sphere of politics. Power relation in society may be expressed in terms of conumand and obedience. If command is based on genuine motivation, it may result in willing obedience. In such case, power is accompanied by legitimacy, obedience is rendered with consent, and the power relation in question takes the form of authority. On the conteary, if command is based on coercion or threat of punishment, obedience comes from fear, and the power ‘elation takes the form of tyranny which would eventually lead to rebellion. So legitimacy is the best instrument to ensure effective and enduring use of power. Most people will follow rules habitually if these are regarded to be legitimate. Legitimacy, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. Max Weber ( 1864-1920), German sociologist, identified three prominent types of authority. In the first place, charismatic authority grows out of personal charm or extraordinary ‘gift of grace’ of the leader, whether in the religious or in political sphere. In the religious sphere, it is exemplified by Jesus Christ. In the political sphere, it may include the examples of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) in England, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in Germany, and Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) in India.Secondly, traditional authori ty implies the right to rule as established by teditary or dynastic rule. Fin tive office held by an individual, that is where he is appointed through the prescribed procedure, such as merit-based selection, promotion, election, rotation or nomination. Itis not based oi the personal char acteristics of the individual holding an office. In other words, legal-rational authority is attached to an office which automatically extends to the individual holding that office. Weber rec ognized that none of these categories existed in pure form. In any case, legal-rati onal authority, which is the chief characteristic of bureaucracy, is the outstandin g attribute of the modern State. Weber’s Analysis of Authority Authority (Right to obtain compliance) ismati Traditional Legal-Rational tic Ler {Based on the (Based on the office of the ( sonality of the leader, long-established tradition, individual, obtained through = the tule of & popular e.g. the hereditary rule) the prescribed proce due, dictator) e.g. the rule of bureaucracy)178 Introduction to Political Theory Distinction between Power Force, Influence and Authority Power and Force Generally power and force are taken as identical terms. Because er is manifest of force and force is expressed power. Force exists In the Powe, Power is sisible where as force is visible power. In the words of Rob, Biersted's “Force is manifest power, force means the reduction or limitation or closure or even total elimination of alternative to the social action of one Per: or group by another person or group.” In simple words the Actual Manifestat; of power is force. It means force is power in action and power is the latent Capacity to apply force though force is coercive and repressive while power has sanctions behind it. Power is a much wider concept than force as it includes both influence and force. Power is the ability of decision making, it decides means and to attain those decisions power uses force. Thus force Is just am to attain power. Finally power is the facility to conquer but force is a brutal manifestation. Power and Influence Power and Influence are alike in many way but at the same time both differ from each other also Brachach and Barat in his book political Power has identified the difference between the two terms they are— 1. Power is coercive and influence is persuasive—Power carries with it physical sanctions and leaves no alternative except complying to it. Influence is basically voluntary and has psychological sanctions. It is not obeyed because of fear or absence of alternative rather compliance is due to acceptance of decisions. 2. Power is Undemocratic and Independent—Power resides in the hands of power holder in an independent manner making him autocrat because it is exercised against the will or the wishes of people. Where as influence is dependent and democratic. Power is not legitimate it invites counter action, influence is rational and not independent, it is accepted voluntarily and its legitimacy is implied. 3. Power has its limits where as influence is unlimited. power is limited through its sources such as money, energy time etc. where as influence remains unlimited and is inexpensive as its output are in form of cooperation and compliance. 4, Power is definite and influence is indefinite. Power is external it is general by nature whoever holds it applies it effectively where as influence is internal, indefinite and fuzzy. It is interpersonal and can not be transferred. Power and Authority Power is the abllity to act independently even when the opposite forces are in action, power can command obedience by others, We have examples from history where the state's through the use of power had acquired the territories of other nations, and slowly and gradually won the support of people (acceptance) and took the shape of authority. In the absence of authority power is unlimited, indefinite un-institutional and un-organized.powers Authority and Legitimacy 179 Authority being institutionalized is definite. Its order's are binding, thus obeyed Charles E. Merriam in political power has considered both terms are ential but actually both are different as power is a means to exploit, it has a ysical impact whereas authority is based on consent. Infact authority is the ght to exercise the power and influence of a particular position. In short it is ie legitimate power based on law. interpretation of Power by Various Scholars Politics is the study of power, the significance of power lies in this " statement. The study of politics is concerned with the description and analysis of the manner in which power is obtained. This Political phenomenon was " prought out by traditional thinkers like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Nietzsche and _ Modern writers like Max Weber, Catlin, Merrjam, Lasswell, Kaplan and Morgenthau. Robert Dahl defines power as a kind of influence, it is exercised when compliance is attained by creating the Prospect of severe sanctions for non- compliance. H.V. Wiseman has defined “Power as the ability to get one’s wishes carried out despite opposition.” Max Weber’s interpretation also shows that Power is important in the study of politics he says politics is the struggle for power or the influencing of those in power and embraces the struggle between states as such as between organized groups within the state. 4: George Catlin was the first one who made power as the center point of politics he has considered power as the basic and primary element of the study of political science. Catlin has treated power as the essence of politics and argued that analysis of power should not be inclined in favour of any particular value sysfem. Laswell in his book politics; who gets: what, when, how, has tried to prove about the source of power that lies with the political class, in his book he describes about the main sources of power through which the high class people reach at powerfull places and maintains. Kaplan has also concentrated on power as the main theme of Political science. Power is an important concept in Political science, it influences and decides but it cannot be treated as the exclusive or the primary factor in shaping Politics. Authority and Legitimacy Authority is an important concept in political science, its a base to all formal Organizations. To understand its meaning lets study few definitions on authority. Beach “Authority is the legitimate authority to effect and direct the performance of other's work.” . . Biersetdt said “Authority is an institutional right to use power; it is not Power in itself.” Allen “Authority is the sum of the powers and rights entrusted to make Possible the performance of the work delegated.”™ 180 Introduction to Politica T™ id Henry Fayol—Authority is the right to give orders and power to rag obedience. Chester Bernard—Authority is the character of a communication formal organization by virtue of which it is accepted by a contrtbuto member of the Organization as governing the action he contributes, ‘tor studying the definitions we can identify the Ollowin, characteristics of authority, a T tO op 1. Authority is Closely associated to power but it is not Power, 2. Authority is exercised when decisions are made and Carried out, 3. Authority is based on Consent. It flows out of willingness of Power to accept the exercise of power. 4. It is based on Hierarchy, authority always flows from top to bottom, or from bottom to top. 5. Authority has legitimacy which determines its effectiveness, It is Considered as an embodiment of reason. Nature of Authority Prof. Beach had forwarded two theories regarding the Nature of Authority, () Formal Theory—The theory considers commands. Accordin Constitution, as the co; i amendmeni to i: also authority flows from ment is the agency that exercises, It is seen in an @ Acceptance Theory—Chester Bernard in his Book ‘Function of the Executive’ has advanced the acceptance theory of authority, He states that it is consent or acceptance of the People on whom the acceptance theory depends, obviously the authority flows from bottom to top. The administrator is actually deriving his authority from those who are obeying him or his subordinates, if they do not obey it means he has lost authority over them. Thus authority is exercised by the virtue of acceptance of subordinates. Types of Authority Max Weber is Considered to be the Sreatest advocat authority h te of the concept of © considers authority as the universal characterises the Social rel; Phenomenon that elationship. he say when the Power exercised is acceptable because of being justified Or legitimized its authority. According to Weber authority can be of three types. qa) Traditional—According to Weber “An established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and in the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them,” It refers to the Tight to govern with those who have been exercising this right from a long time. In other words A Person or A Clan has been governing because of established tradition. The rule of Gerontocracy or Monarchy falls in this category as the authority resides in thepower, Authority and Legitimacy 181 eldest a and ee is because of traditions. Thus the authority exercised is by virtue of status and inherited traditions and customs. co) Charismatic Authority—Charismatic authority resides in the sonal qualities of the leaders for eq. Hitler, Alexander, Cromwell, Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, asir. They are few who had an extraordinary impressive sonality because of which people loved them and were ready to even sacrifice their lives. @ Legal Rational Authority—The Legal Rational Authority's main urce is the political office. The obedience to this authority is to be legally established in personal order. Here the authority is exercised by means of a system of rules and Procedures, the subordinate accepts the directives because they are in conformity with higher universal principle which is legitimate. pelegation is natural here infact the modern bureaucracy operates on this principle. Forces that Imply Authority An important question regarding the imposing of authority is why is it obeyed, there are two theories regarding it one is formal authority theory and other is consensus theory. Weber, Follet, Benard, have expressed their views on this question but Simon's ideas were found to be more relevant, as he has mentioned four reasons for it. 1, Faith—Faith is the primary source of authority the subordinates carry blind faith for his superior due to which, obedience to the commands is received, the more the faith the more is the obedience. But if faith is hurt than obedience to commands becomes difficult and superior might be required to use force to get his orders carried out. 2. Uniformity—People generally accept the ideas towards which they have a liking or which are more to what they believe in. The political Ideologies like liberalism, communism, fascism prevailed at places because people at there had the same kind of views due to which they accepted these ideologies and have followed them. (8) Pressure—Many times binding forces and external or internal pressure works because few people do not resort to faith and uniformity, they work only under some fear thus authority has to be strict many times regarding implementation of commands which are followed by punishment in case of disobedience. ( Constitutionality/Legality—Every organization has a hierarchical set up due to which the person who is exercising authority receives habitual obedience and his commands have a legal force so that they are binding and are accepted. Limitations on Authority A well organized society is impossible in the absence of Authority but authority can not be limitless, it is important to know that Authority also has some boundaries for the effective and its smooth functioning. They are— 1. Natural Limitation—People in a country can not be denied or devoid o{ natural rights. they are the basic requirement for an individual for their182 Introduction to Political Theory development thus no authoritative power can encroach upon them. Their natural freedom is given respect in oe ote are bound by tele moral an —Peo} ; reagoes on Wilh a eaped on their lives thus if eo a goes against their faith than its impossible to get the commands obeyed. 3. Culture—Culture is the foundation stone on which oe is build, every society has its own tradition and culture, which they sae a vied out of long usages and practices, thus they would never accept any kind of interference to it. / 4. Constitution—Constitution is a legal document, its the law of the land through which people derives rights, and government is authorised to Rule, Thus no Constitution allows any one to exercise unlimited power, Constitution maintains balance among the relationship of those who govern and who are governed. 5. International Law and Organization—In the modern world International Law and International Organization like U.N.O. Regional Organizations like SAARC, ASEAN keep a check on the mode and power exercised by the government. These organisation are given due Tepsect they cannot be overlooked or disobeyed because of the world public opinion. Legitimacy “The stability of any given democracy depends not only on economic development but also upon the effectiveness and legitimacy of its political system.” The words of S.M. Lipset tell us the Importance of Legitimacy. The word legitimacy has its origin from the Latin Word ‘Legitimus’, which is interpreted as ‘lawful’. The word has a long history in the Ancient Greek Days. Plato has implanted the term in the rule of philosopher king. Aristotle used it in constitutional government, Cicero used the word Legitmum to denote the power constituted by law. But all these were not very clear. Max Weber was the first to enunciate ‘Legitimacy’ as a universal concept. According to Weber legitimacy is based on belief and gets obedience from the people. Power is effective when it is legitimate power based on coercion is shortlived. To understand the meaning of legitimacy more clearly we must first study some of the definitions. Jean Blondel—Legitimacy can be defined as the extent to which the population accepts naturally, without questioning, the organization to which it belongs... the broader the area of agreement or acceptance the more legitimate the organization.” Alfred says "Legitimacy has been constructed as the acceptance of major bargain between the ruler and the ruled. As its most elemented level this is an agreement by the people to pay taxes and obey the government in turn of being allowed so stay alive and out of prison.” Acc to S.M. Lipset—“Legitimacy involves the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institution are the most appropriate ones for the society.”power: Authority and Legitimacy 183 After studying these definition we macy gives effectiveness to power, influ validity. It is La distinguishes Coercion force and power from fence, persuasion and leadership. Infact legitimacy is a pr juisite of power. trsitimacy in the words of Max Weber is based on belie tnd gets obedience from the people. Power has the right to use coercion but that is not the chief element. The element of consent has an important place, it adds meaning to wer infact consent is considered as the essence of legitimate rule. Power having the consent is legitimacy. Legitimacy is a concept that has changed its form from the Ancient times to middle age to modern world, earlier it was based on moral principles and good conduct but the contemporary world does not take legitimacy in moral sense rather it is only the basis of justifying the action of those in power. Robert Dahl kas explained, legitimacy as the quality of rightness, propriety or moral goodness. In his words “Leaders in a political system try to ensure that whenever governmental means are used to deal with conflict the decisions arrived at are widely accepted not solely from fear of violence, punishment or coercion but also from a belief that it is morally right and proper to do so.” While explaining Robert Dahl says All the government, Try to prove their acts as legitimate this is the reason they are binding upon people. In a democratic government legitimacy has an important place because, Democracy iS based on consent and if consent is lost it means support or confidence of people is lost and than government looses its power. In the words of David E. Apter “Legitimacy is related to a set of .conceptions held by significant members of the polity about the rightness of a political pattern which, in turn, provides the patterns with a set of properties, legitimacy is thus a behavioural term referring to a set of limits on governmental action. It is with reference to legitimacy that right conduct in office is defined. When legitimacy is withdrawn, government is weakened. After studying the various definition and observations about legitimacy, we can identify the following characteristics of legitimacy. (1) Legitimacy has the capacity to develop belief in the political system. (2) The concept of effectiveness is closely associated with legitimacy. (3) The legitimacy of any political system is directly linked with the Values of its natures. (4) Legitimacy is the ability to convert power into authority. (S) Legitimacy is based on social acceptance. Classification of Legitimacy The Modern Political Scientists like Max Weber, Robert Dahl, Dolf Stern Berger have attempted to classify legitimacy. According to Stern Berger legitimacy can be classified as Divine Legitimacy and civil legitimacy. Divine Legitimacy could be seen in Roman Gods and in Christian religious teachings and civil legitimacy is seen when the government administers welfare of all, co-ordinates with local administrative units. may come to the conclusion that jeg Hence and authority otherwise they have nO184 Introduction to Political Theory Max Weber has classified 3 forms of legitimacy first traditional) legitimacy, second legal legitimacy and third charismatic legitimacy. And Robert Dahl has divided legitimacy into two parts high level legitimacy where justified government which has the consent of people lies and at second part loose legitimized government are put which refers to totalitarian authority. The study on legitimacy takes us to the conclusion that its a link between power and authority, when power receives the concent or legitimacy it has stability and if legitimacy is lost it tooses its significance. A king may rule on earth because of power but may rule through hearts with legitimacy. In other words legitimacy converts brutal Power into the recognized Authority. A Tyrannt rules for a short time through the use of force and power but a legitimized Ruler, Rules for ever.—_loss of aro Dew a Cae rae, On Sin ts! py is. not xecogaiaed i © Diving aver shyifica ot Ths. polity py "Tre fol es