Power, authority and legitimacy PDF

Preview

Summary

Power, Authority and Legitimacy Lecture Notes which will be useful for exam revision time....

Description

Power, Authority and Legitimacy Power Power is a fundamental concept within politics. Furthermore, power effectively has the ability to influence, control and manipulate behaviour among individuals. Power is a dispositional concept and can be classified in two. Firstly, ‘power to’ where it can identify the ability to achieve a desired outcome. Secondly, a more negative conception is ‘power over’, this focuses on power as a relationship. Where power is exercised over something and used to influence outcomes[CITATION Luk12 \p 109 \l 2057 ]. The simplest and clearest way of understanding how power is exercised is when A gets B to do something A wants; however, B would not otherwise do[CITATION Dah15 \l 2057 ]. However, this statement is seen to be too generic, therefore Steven Lukes constructed a more specific explanation ‘the three dimensions of power’. Which attempts to under how power is exercised and who by. First Face of Power The first dimension which will be discussed, will be the ‘decision-making face’ a traditional democratic model, proposed by a group of theorists, one of which being Robert Dahl (19152014). Whom took a pluralist view of power in this stage. in the firs dimensional view on power, Dahl stresses about the diversity of power and how each individual and area exercise power independently. Furthering arguing that decision making is largely influenced on the preferences of the citizens in a society[CITATION Hil14 \p 46 \l 2057 ]. For example, officials and Politian’s who are engaging in elections and then further elected, anticipate the results of elections. This first face as discussed comprises the most overt processes of formal decision making, however it is criticised due to Dahl ignoring ways in which issues and decisions never arose in the first place[ CITATION Ree13 \l 2057 ]. For instance, the first ‘decision making face’ does not emphasise the less noticeable ways in which systems may be against certain groups or biased towards others[CITATION Hil14 \p 46 \l 2057 ]. In contrast with this however the second dimensional view on power, will look at emphasising this more- explaining and attempting to understand the bias within a political system. This is argued as considerable advance to the second face- focusing more on what goes on ‘behind the scenes’ of agenda setting[CITATION Sco05 \p 15 \l 2057 ]. The first face is also largely criticised, by the second, for not providing an ‘objective’ principle for distinguishing between ‘important’ and ‘unimportant’ issues that can occur in the political field[CITATION Bac62 \p 948 \l 2057 ]. The Second Face The second face- known as the ‘agenda setting’ dimension, was proposed by Bachrach and Baratz. In this stage it is looking at how power has the ability to avert decisions being made[CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. This approach differs from the ‘decision making’ face, due to that it takes an elitist approach rather than a pluralist view. However, Bachrach and Baratz don’t disagree that power can be exercised when ‘A’ makes decisions which will then have an influence of ‘B’. However, in turn the philosophers of this face do believe that

the pluralists do not go far enough with their explanation, thus need a more detailed insight[CITATION Sco05 \p 15 \l 2057 ]. It is emphasised in the second face that barriers are created and reinforced to the public airing of policy conflicts and decisions, by either a certain individual or group that holds the power to do so[CITATION Bac62 \p 949 \l 2057 ]. Large or private companies are an example of such, as they can exert power in various different ways. One way in which they can do this is that businesses can lobby parties and representatives in the government, to ensure that consumer rights are not being publicly discussed. Another way that power can be exercised by these large companies and organisations, it that they have the ability to campaign to defeat proposed consumer legislation[CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. In addition to this the second face can be seen as the ‘convert’ dimensional view of power and the first face being the ‘overt’ stage. Whereby both faces of power deal with political preferences. However, the distinction that is made is that in the ‘thought control’ face political preferences will reveal themselves during open political play. Whereby, similar to the other two dimensions, it looks at how power is exerted to influence another individual. The Third Face The third dimension ‘thought control’, that Lukes has established is known as the Ideological power or power to shape desires. In this model it differs drastically from both the ‘decision making face’ and the ‘agenda setting’- taking a more radical view on how power is exercised. In addition, because it takes a radical approach in the third face it tends to overlie the notion of ‘soft power’ [CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. In the ‘thought control stage’, it focuses more on the relations between the real interest and political preferences[CITATION Sad04 \p 35 \l 2057 ]. Although, however it may have the same basis of thought as the ‘decision making’ and ‘agenda setting’ face, i.e. that power can influence an individual in some means or another. The ‘thought control’ stage views power as the ability to influence another individual by altering and changing what they think, need or want[CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. In a political sense this could be done by using means such as propaganda and speeches which are constructed deliberately to shapes one’s opinion. This stage Differs from the other two faces, as the ‘thought control’ stage was formed to highlight that power can not only shape an agenda to favour the powerful or to function within conflict in decision making. But it is also to alternate an individual’s desires[CITATION McC13 \p 51 \l 2057 ]. Similar, however to the second dimensional view on power, the third stage looks at both current issues and issues that may arise in the future. It can be argued that this stage it is difficult to identify, in comparison with the first and second stage, due to that it is difficult for individuals who are under the influence of this dimension, to see its existence[CITATION Sad04 \p 37 \l 2057 ]. In conclusion, it can be argued that one of the biggest similarities between the 3 stages, is that they all focus explicitly on the power an individual has over another individual. The difference is however, each model, looks at numerous ways power can be exerted. There is also a clear distinction between each of the faces view point. The first face of power has a

pluralist perception, whilst the second-dimension takes an elitist approach. Finally, the third dimension ‘thought control’ takes a radical approach compared to the two faces- being seen as a more sinister stage. Due to that it believes that power can be exerted to manipulate another’s desires. However, in addition to this, the second and third dimensional view on power, both look at a wider perspective not only at ongoing issues but also and arising ones. The second face of power criticises the first dimension, as they argue that the first face, neglects the idea that there is control over political agenda. In addition to this creates a misleading view of politics. In comparison with the ‘decision making’ face, a similarity between both the second and third dimensional views of power, propose less evident ways of manipulation through power. Authority In the broadest sense, authority is a form of power, it is a means through which one person can influence the behaviour of another. But power and authority are distinguished from each other are contrasting, in some ways opposite ways through which one can get another to act. Whereas power can be described as the ability to influence the behaviour of another, authority can be understood as the right to do so. Power brings about compliance through persuasion, threats, coercion or violence. Authority on the other hand, is based upon a perceived “right to rule” i.e., it is based on what other people think, and it brings about compliance through moral obligation- a duty to obey. So for authority it is not even essential that it is obeyed, only that it should be obeyed. An example is, that a teacher can be said to have the authority to demand homework- even if pupils persistently fail to hand it in, nobody has actually questioned the right of the teacher to demand it, as long as everyone accepts that right, the teacher has authority. Authority without power is very rare to find. The UK Royal Family could be an example, but religious figures like the Dalai Lama, or even leaders of sects or terrorist groups could be examples. Osama Bin Laden had no political power, but he did inspire unquestioning obedience from hundreds or even thousands or people whom he had never met. Traditional Authority This is regarded as legitimate because it has always been this way. This usually works through a hierarchical system which allocates status to each person in the group. This can be seen in many families where fathers dominate, respect for men or elders in other societies is based on traditional authority. Traditional authority is closely related to hereditary systems of power- not many have survived because of the growing acceptance of democracy- any authority our Royal Family still has is based on tradition. Charismatic Authority

This comes from the ability to make a direct and personal appeal to others. All forms of leadership require the ability to communicate and the capacity to inspire loyalty. Political leaders may try to subvert constitutional leadership via charisma, and get away with things that they could not otherwise. This may require them to construct a “cult of personality”. Charismatic Authority is most easily linked to authoritarianism and dictatorship- since it is based on personality rather than status of office- charismatic authority is not limited by rules, and may create a sphere of ‘total power’. This type of authority demands more than the normal level of obedience, it can inspire devotion, fanaticism or even discipleship. Charismatic authority can have a messianic quality (Jesus, Napoleon, Kim Jong II). But it can also be seen in modern democratic societies- Thatcher, Blair and Obama, all have different styles but have tapped into charismatic authority. Legal-Rational Authority This is dominant in modern industrial societies. It operates through clearly defined rules about the power of government- and power is attached to an office (i.e. Prime Minister) rather than person (May). This system is based upon the rule of law- which means that those who exercise power do so within a framework of law. Nobody is higher than the law, we are all subject to the same law, justice is blind etc. Bureaucratic authority is much less likely to be abused, or give rise to injustice than the other types. Authority can be seen as a threat to reason and critical understanding. Authority demands unconditional, unquestioning obedience and can therefore led to a climate of deference and avoidance of responsibility which comes from an uncritical trust in the judgement of others. Fascism depends on authority. This was shown in the Milgram experiments- people with a strong inclination to obey authority can be more easily led to behave in a barbaric fashion. Legitimacy Legitimacy is the quality that transforms naked power into rightful authority. People have authority, but political systems are described as legitimate. It is the perception that power is exercised in a rightful, justified and acceptable manner. Legitimacy is the basis of stable government, all governments seek legitimacy- how they achieve it and keep it is essential to the study of political regimes. So, in addition to whether a state has authority, in the sense that people obey its laws, we can ask whether it has legitimacy. The term legitimate comes from the Latin for ‘lawful’. In the most basic sense, a state is legitimate if it exists and operates according to the law. But this definition is too shallow: if a country has no laws about how a government can come to

power, then no matter how the government came to power, it will be legitimate. Or again, if a government is elected lawfully, but then changes the laws to create a police state ruled by a dictatorship, the dictatorship will be legitimate. But this is not what we mean by a legitimate government. If a government is legitimate, then in some way, the fact that it has power is right or justified. If it is right it has power, then we can argue that we ought to obey it. If it is objectionable that it has power, then we don’t have an obligation to obey it. Many philosophers have argued that people only have a political obligation if the government has legitimate authority. It can be suggested that a state is legitimate if it delivers important benefits; or that it is legitimate if its citizens consent to it. Both of these views support or complement the view that legitimacy requires popular approval. Neither consent nor benefits is the same as approval. However, it is unlikely that people would consent to something that they don’t approve of. So, if a state has its citizens’ consent, it will also have their approval. (It is worth noting that a state may approval without consent, e.g. a popular dictatorship.) Likewise, if a state secures important benefits, it will probably receive general approval. People are more likely to disapprove of a state if it starts to fail to provide security, justice, and the other goods discussed. So, it can be argued that even if consent is not necessary, there is still something peculiar in suggesting an authority could be legitimate (in anything more than the ‘justifiable coercion’ sense) irrespective on how those under the authority felt about it. Legitimacy emerges when those under the authority believe or are shown that it is beneficial or rational to obey the authority, and we can tell if they have this belief by their approval of the state. There are two ways of achieving legitimacy. Underpin machinery of government. A Constitution gives exercise of power, as it is a set of norms and procedures, accepted rules etc that a government has no choice but to follow and it aids them in being legitimate to their country. Manufacturing consent- certain regimes manufacture to exercise power- media, workplace, general common things. Ideology manufactures consent. Accept why things happen- don’t question why it may be....