ADM1121, Ders Notları: Power and Authority

Politics is something that developed out of diversity that exists between those who have power over others and the others that live under the power of the ones who has it. That power is given or taken after a certain manner of social relationships. The one who takes the power eventually decides how to allocate power and scarce resources in the society, which, gives him political authority (i.e. right to influence others' behaviours). So authority includes power, but power does not include authority (i.e. power generates obedience, but obedience does not necessarily generate acceptence, i.e. power results in authority). To generate acceptance, you require legitimacy and you need acceptance for stability in the society. But why would people accept power as rightful, legitimate? Because in all cases power offers a reward or a punishment. But although power requires this rational argument, authority doesn't. Authority just requires power.

There's also infleunce: which is the ability to effect decisions by some sort of rational pressure. The keyword here is "rational", because power based decision changes do not need to be rational, they just need to be -legitimately- power based. But nevertheless, influence is not binding, it only works if the people in places of power are convinced.

And since power is about decision making; non-decisions are also in the mix. Silence, inaction and apathy are all decisions themselves. Non-decisions of the people who are in a position of power usually leave the people whose only means of acquiring power is channelizing their own views through political parties of the people who are making those non-decisions of their choice powerless, i.e. if the party you voted for is silent/inactive/apathetic on an issue you have an opinion about, that pretty much makes you irrelevant and politically null.

According to Weber, there are three types of authority: Traditional, Charismatic and Legal-Rational. Traditional authority, as its name suggests, is based on traditions and customs, e.g. "töre". In these cases, history legitimizes authority, but also limits it because the one who has the power also has to obey the same rules he enforces, and most of these customs and traditions also have rules about enforcing rules. Charismatic authority on the other hand is solely legitimized by the charisma of an individual; manufactured or naturally obtained. If not kept in check by the constitution, charismatic authority usually turn itself into something totalitarian. Lastly, legal-rational authority is based on rational arguments, which, in the age of bureaucracy usually is efficiency. In cases like this, you obey the guy who symbolizes the office, not the guy himself.