The nature of authority
In this section we attempt to clarify the concept of authority by
distinguishing it from power, by distinguishing political authority
from other kinds of authority and, finally, exploring Weber’s analysis
of the different types of political authority.
The definitions of power quoted in Chapter 1 all included the idea
of achieving results by a variety of means. Authority can be seen as a
particular kind of power relationship in which the legitimacy
(literally ‘lawfulness’) of the exercise of power is accepted, to some
degree, by the other actors in the situation. As we saw in Chapter 1,
other power relationships may be based not on the acceptance of
authority but on force, persuasion or manipulation.
In most political situations legitimacy implies an appeal to an
established system of law, but it may take on the broader meaning of
‘in accord with moral law’. Weber (Gerth and Mills, 1948: Ch. X)
distinguishes between ‘traditional authority’ and ‘rational legal
authority’. Both of these will normally refer to an appeal to an
established system of law. Thus in a tribal society the customary law
gives authority to chiefs, whilst in a modern liberal democracy a
rationally organised system of statute law gives authority to political
and bureaucratic office holders. Both of these arrangements will be
reinforced by moral doctrines – e.g. that the gods/ancestors have
bequeathed their way of life to the tribe or the sanctity of majority
votes. In stable societies, ideally, there is no conflict between moral
and political obligation.
On occasion, however, rival claims to authority may conflict,
particularly in societies in transition or crisis. Thus in South Africa
before its transition to full democracy, the traditional authority of the
King of the Zulus on occasion conflicted with the rational–legal
authority of President Botha (head of the apartheid regime). Both, in
the end, had to defer to the authority of the leader of the largest
popular movement – Nelson Mandela. Weber suggests the descrip-
tion ‘charismatic’ for the authority of leaders, such as Mandela, who
are followed because of their personal qualities rather than any legal
position they may hold. Literally this terminology derives from the
Greek root ‘a favour specially vouchsafed by God – especially a gift or
talent’ (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) and emphasises, at first
sight, the exceptional qualities of those exercising such authority.
But, as Weber points out, such divine gifts are not always recognised;56 CONCEPTS