“Write short note: Authority.” (1994)
Authority is power accepted as legitimate. Max Weber defined power as the chance of carrying out one’s will even against resistance. He treated domination (Herrschaft) as the probability that a command will be obeyed, and authority as domination resting on the belief of the ruled that obedience is rightful (Economy and Society, 1922). Coercion alone is costly and unstable, so every durable order seeks legitimacy.
Weber’s three pure types
| Type | Basis of legitimacy | Staff | Character |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional | Sanctity of immemorial custom | Kin, retainers, favourites (patrimonialism) | Stable, resists innovation |
| Charismatic | Devotion to a person’s extraordinary qualities | Disciples by personal calling | Revolutionary, unstable, needs continual proof |
| Legal-rational | Belief in the legality of enacted rules | Trained, salaried officials (bureaucracy) | Impersonal, continuous |
- Routinisation of charisma: to survive the leader’s death, charisma turns into hereditary charisma (traditional) or charisma of office (legal-rational).
- These are ideal types; real regimes mix them. A modern prime minister holds legal office, may draw on personal charisma and appeals to national tradition.
Other perspectives
- Chester I. Barnard (The Functions of the Executive, 1938) located authority below, in the acceptance of subordinates. An order is authoritative only if it is understood, consistent with organisational purpose and personal interest, and possible to carry out. Most orders fall in a “zone of indifference” and are accepted without question.
- Talcott Parsons treated authority as the institutionalised right to mobilise collective resources for shared goals. Power, for him, was a generalised medium, not a zero-sum weapon.
- Critics: Marxists see legitimacy as manufactured consent that masks class domination. Jürgen Habermas (Legitimation Crisis, 1973) argued that late-capitalist states face crises when they cannot justify their performance.
Indian illustration
- Traditional: caste and khap panchayats still claim customary authority over marriage. In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held their interference with consenting adults’ marriages illegal, asserting legal-rational authority over custom.
- Charismatic → routinised: M. K. Gandhi’s charisma was converted into the Congress’s organisational authority. Many regional parties later turned founders’ charisma into hereditary succession.
- Legal-rational checking the state: in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (February 2024), a Constitution Bench struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme for violating voters’ right to information. The judgment shows that in a constitutional order even governments obey impersonal rules.
- Acceptance as the limit: the three farm laws of 2020 were legally valid, yet a year of farmers’ protests led Parliament to repeal them in November 2021, Barnard’s point that commands fail when consent is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Authority converts power into obligation. Weber explains its historical forms, Barnard its everyday acceptance and Habermas its fragility. In India, where all three types coexist, legitimacy is continually contested between custom, charisma and constitution.