Sociology

In its epistemological sense, political authority concerns with the philosophical justifications of authority. However, for Max Weber this concept is a characterization of political domination. (Weber, 1958). He further defined this concept as the chance of commands being obeyed by the specific group of people (Weber, 1958). This concept according to him can be categorized as legitimate and can be justified by both the ruler and the ruled. The primary concept that he tackles in his principles are the differences between political powers from descriptive idea of political authority. He also mentioned authority in the sense of a morally justified authority and coercion in the wisdom of capacity to create duties on others, and finally the ability as right to rule. Moreover, the distinctions of the two separate principles concern with the nature of the responsibilities that political authority inflicts on the subject matter.

Political authority is said to be a power based upon a certain justification, legitimacy and the right to exercise. Although sometimes authority is often used interchangeably with the word power, however it is simply refers to the ability and capability to achieve certain ends with or without justification of human rights. A good example of this will be a mob which possessed the power to punish a criminal (without any legal basis) while the courts have the ability to exact capital punishment (Miller, 2003). Thus, it is said that the legitimacy of political authority is the central issue in political philosophy as well as political science. At present, the concept of authority has been the subject of research in a variety of empirical settings such as small groups (informal authority of leadership), family (parental authority) and society wide or inclusive groups ranging from the most primitive tribal society to modern groups (political authority). Weber divided political authority into three distinct classes namely rational-legal authority, traditional authority and charismatic authority.

Authority Types
The rational-legal authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the core of natural law (rationality) or content of the law (legal) exclusively. This specifies that obedience is not given to a specific individual leader (traditional or charismatic) but rather to a set of uniform philosophies.

Weber thought that the best illustration of legal-rational authority is the bureaucracy (economic or political). He reiterated that this form of authority is mostly found in the modern state, private, public, city governments and various voluntary organizations. In fact he stated in one of his wrings that development of the modern state is identical indeed with that of modern officialdom and bureaucratic organizations just as the development of modern capitalism is identical with the increasing bureaucratization of economic enterprise, (Weber 1958). In this type of system, authority according to Weber does not change primarily over the period of time but rather change when someone was elected or put into a political process. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority and the best example of this form is the government officials which is prevalent all over the world. The Unite States for example follows this kind of political authority.

Second political authority that Weber mentioned is about traditional authority. According to him, in this system, political authority is derived from the inviolability of traditions. In this type of authority the ability and right to rule is passed down from one individual to another by the right of succession (hereditary). Authority does not change over time rather it perpetuates the status of quo and tends to be irrational and consistent. In his book he states The creation of new law opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in principle, (Weber, 1958). Thus, the traditional authority is basically enclosed in patriotism and feudalism. However, in a pure patriarchal configuration the servants are said to be completely and personally dependent upon the noble, while the state system the servants are not personal servants of the noble but rather independent to men. Powers are passed from one generation to another like the Tudor Dynasty in England and the ruling families in India (Rajasthan) and other are the best examples of traditional authority.

The last form of political authority according to Weber is charismatic authority. Charismatic authority originates in a leader whose mission and vision motivate others. He based upon leaders with extraordinary characteristics as the head of new social movements. The charisma of an individual plays a major role in which the authority is derived from the gift of God (appointed by the Lord). These leader claims that their authority is derived from a higher power like natural law or rights or God (Heywood 2004). Consequently, the inspiration is superior between the validity of traditional and rational legal political authority. Followers of this kind of authority accept this leader and inspired in the place of the authority they have been following. Various individuals with tremendous charismatic theories (e.g. Mahatma Ghandi, Adolf Hitler and other) are well-known examples of charismatic authority. Sometimes they can be politicians or leaders that come from the movie or entertainment industry. However, in terms of democratic type of society people who lead become triumphant and win in an election because of their charm and creativity to get the votes of the majority. Moreover history has witnessed few social movements or revolution against a system of legal-rational or traditional authority which are usually started by charismatic authority. Thus, Weber favors charismatic authority especially because of the ability of an individual to become a leader with authority which is neither hereditary nor based on capability.

However according to Web, it is impossible for an authority structure to actually be exclusively bureaucratic because position would be held by a variety of charismatic leaders. He also stated that non-bureaucratic legal authority can be found in society that has rotating office holders and he said Parliamentary and committee administration and all sorts of collegiate and administrative bodies, (Weber, 1958). He felt that bureaucracies sometimes came through and tended to view towards a legal-rational authority. What distinguishes authority from coercion, power, force and leadership is legitimacy. Superiors feel that they have a right to give commands and their subordinates have an obligation to obey them. Weber argued that authority is an important resource for individuals to take formal positions. Legitimacy should be recognized, not by the masses or citizens, but by those who control valued resource such as his immediate staff, military leaders, cabinets, administration and political members of the entire society.

Inter-relationships of Authority
The theory of Weber regarding authority is said to be very intricate and rich. He detailed many interesting relationships between types of political authority. Blaus for example Critical Remarks on Webers Theory of Authority (1963) details that two of these particular components can either strengthen or weaken an authority with regard to each other. Also, he reiterated that these three authority types may be reinforced by qualities that differentiate them from each other. Traditional authority for him is impersonal (not like charisma) and non-rational (not like legal rational). On the other hand, charismatic authority is dynamic (not like tradition) and non rational (not like legal-rational. And lastly, legal-rational for him is active (not like traditional) and impersonal (not like charisma). Thus, the likelihood of retaining this particular type of authority may depend on the capability of the system to hold the traits that make them different and refuse the traits that make it more favorable to other type.

Weber also argued that a particular authority can lose to power into transition and some other ways like revolution, civil war and other that could give rise for an individual to obtain power. The idea of revolutions can advocate a charismatic leader or the rational pursuit of ends via formal philosophies which can loosen traditional authority and can have proper authority. On the other hand, charismatic movements can be categorized into a traditional order of rational formal organization. Leaving irrational forces and together with powers of culture to weaken legal-rational authority. The categories of this authority according to Weber do not exist for the sake of labeling and are imbedded in a huge network and image of how they work. The three types of political authority furthermore match up with the three categories of inequality namely parties, group status and class (Wolff, 1996). In this sense charismatic authority provides itself to a market system and Weber considers it as an outcome of class. Therefore the party of this legal-political authority will have codification especially in the case of bureaucracies.

Concept of Legitimacy on Political Authority
Weber saw the different accounts of legitimacy of political authority as a result to anarchist challenge. He argued that it is a general duty to follow the law for political authority to be legitimate. Wolff with his book An Introduction to Political Philosophy reiterates that political authority is one of the major factors that hold and satisfy certain normative condition. Further more, he explains that legitimacy is important factor to attain political stability. In this sense, commands of legitimate political authority are grounded not in the content of the control itself but in the nature of the basis on issuing the command. The duty of the follower is to obey primarily command issued by an appropriate independent in the sense of right form of attribution. Thus one must obey, since he has been commanded because of the formality of legitimacy that issues a command. This however according to Weber is kind of political authority that the central kind of duty in legitimacy. An idea that one must obey the proper authority because of its legitimacy together with is political authority.

Weber together with British philosopher Thomas Hobbes had an exceptionally negative pessimistic view of human nature and believed that societies often went through series. For Weber, democracy is not necessary to obtain legitimacy by the process of voting. He claimed that it is perfectly possible in contemporary society to revert back and become a follower of a brutal charismatic leader like Adolf Hitler of Germany. His examination of legitimate authority led him to distinguish an ideal system of bureaucracy. This is an ideal-type of action that is systematic and rational that can be constructed in a pure type of action. This can be seldom taken place in reality and used to measure and determine similarity between defined social institutions and actual ones. The ideal-type of bureaucracy that Weber created developed in incorporated hierarchy, written rules of conduct and efficiency. In this sense, impersonal rules are explicitly defined duties and responsibilities together with the code of conduct on how to appoint legitimate type of leader.

Present Day Views about Weber Political Authority
Weber views regarding political authority are said to be present in the modern day society. Traditional legitimate norms rule with historic legitimacy, and can be found in anarchist predilection for specific types of organizing like the use of affinity which is a practice popularized with Spanish Civil War in 1930s. Today the basis if his distinction between power and authority can be greatly recognize by different societies. Power is rational that requires one person to dominate an entire society. Power can be achieve by three ways through direct physical power (Adolf Hitler leadership in Germany), by reward and punishment (in anarchy) by influence of opinion (democracy). The exercise of power therefore is more likely to be an indirect combination of rewarding and fulfilling use of argument, rhetoric and debate act. Authority on the other hand can be compare in the quality that uses power rather than by the form of power itself. Today, the word authority come from the verb to authorize and therefore must be in a form of legitimacy. An individual is considered to be legitimate if he carries authority because of his technical expertise with the combination of his ability to communicate with the society. Thus, he is the one who primary control certain aspects of what other group members say and do and perhaps how and what they think about.

The work of max Weber further reflects a continued interest in varying paths taken by a widely cultural society and history as it reflects in the growth of the great world civilization. The contemporary views of his writings attempts a strong and analytical study of the different philosophers concerning his views about political authority. Weber took his own principles as a specific and universal rationalism of westerns culture. Together with his emphasis on universal history, Webers further influences the detailed training as a legal and economic historian escorted him to deny the simplistic formulas about political authority. For example, his principles of political leadership led him to give way for some contemporary philosophers to further analyze his concepts of political authority.