Government and Politics Political sociology, power and authority

Government and Politics Politics is the social institution through which power is acquired and exercised by some people and groups. In contemporary societies, the primary political system is the government. Government is the formal organization that has the legal and political authority to regulate the relationships among members of a society and between the society and those outside its borders. Sociologists often refer to the government as the state―the political entity that possesses a legitimate monopoly over the use of force within its territory to achieve its goals.

Political Sociology Political science primarily focuses on power and the distribution of power in different types of political systems. Political sociology examines the nature and consequences of power within or between societies, focusing on the social circumstances of politics and the interrelationships between politics and social structures. Sociologists, however, tend to be more interested in the influences of governmental power on society and in how social conflicts arise from the distribution of power. Sociologists also examine how the use of power affects local, state, national, and global agendas, which in turn affect people differently based on status, class, and socioeconomic standing.

Power Many scholars adopt the definition developed by German sociologist Max Weber, who said that power is the ability to exercise one’s will over others (Weber 1922) Power is the ability of persons or groups to achieve their goals despite opposition from others. Power affects more than personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and governments. Similarly, a government’s power is not necessarily limited to control of its own citizens. A dominant nation, for instance, will often use its clout to influence or support other governments or to seize control of other nation states.

Power to the people Leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, for example, commanded powerful movements that effected positive change without military force. Both men organized nonviolent protests to combat corruption and injustice and succeeded in inspiring major reform. Modern technology has made such forms of nonviolent reform easier to implement. Today, protesters can use cell phones and the Internet to disseminate information and plans to masses of protesters in a rapid and efficient manner. They found they had power because they were able to exercise their will over their own leaders. Thus, government power does not necessarily equate to absolute power.

Authority Authority is power that people accept as legitimate rather than coercive. Authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree to follow. People listen to authority figures because they feel that these individuals are worthy of respect. Generally speaking, people perceive the objectives and demands of an authority figure as reasonable and beneficial, or true. According to Max Weber, there are three ideal types of authority: Traditional, Charismatic and Rational-Legal

Traditional Authority Traditional authority is power that is legitimized based on long‑standing custom. Often in preindustrial societies, this is grounded in religious belief and custom. According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because that has traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists because it has been accepted for a long time. Traditional authority can be intertwined with race, class, and gender. In most societies, for instance, men are more likely to be privileged than women and thus are more likely to hold roles of authority. Similarly, members of dominant racial groups or upper-class families also win respect more readily.

Charismatic Authority Charismatic authority is power legitimized on the basis of a leader's exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment that inspire loyalty and obedience from followers. Followers accept the power of charismatic authority because they are drawn to the leader’s personal qualities. The appeal of a charismatic leader can be extraordinary, and can inspire followers to make unusual sacrifices or to persevere in the midst of great hardship and persecution. Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times of crisis and offer innovative or radical solutions. Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short durations, and according to Weber, they are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. For this reason, the routinization of charisma occurs when charismatic authority is succeeded by a bureaucracy controlled by a rationally established authority or by a combination of traditional and bureaucratic authority.

Rational-Legal Authority Rational-legal authority is power legitimized by law or written rules and regulations. This is also known as bureaucratic authority, and is based on an organizational structure with clearly defined division of labor, hierarchy of authority, formal rules, and impersonality. In this type of authority, power is vested in a particular rationale, system, or ideology and not necessarily in the person who implements the specifics of that doctrine. In the United States, the Constitution grants rational-legal authority to the office of the presidency. Weber believed that rational-legal authority was the only means to attain efficient, flexible, and competent. regulation under rule of law.

Table:3 types of authority Of course, ideals are seldom replicated in the real world. Few governments or leaders can be neatly categorized. Some leaders, like Mohandas Gandhi for instance, can be considered charismatic and legal-rational authority figures. Similarly, a leader or government can start out exemplifying one type of authority and gradually evolve or change into another type.