and hence emphasized more on the methods of science to rely
upon to understand the actual nature of politics. Hence study of
„politics‟ becomes „political Science‟. Such realism eventually leads
to understand the political phenomenon in applied sense. Thus
study of themes like „power‟, „authority‟, „legitimacy‟ took over the
field of political studies from the traditional idealism, institutionalism
etc. In present chapter we will attempt to understand three
concepts- power, authority, and legitimacy and its relevance and
implications regarding the role of government in society and its
relations with subjects i.e. people.
5.3 POWER
Concepts of power occupied a respectable position in the modern
discussion of politics since the beginning of 20th century. It
becomes so inevitable now a day that it is applied not only to
describe the international relations but also the social unit like
family. The concept altered the meaning of politics in dramatic way
and made it appear like „contest for power‟. From Hobbes‟s
description of the warring state of nature to the Betty Freidan‟s
Feminine Mystique applied power as analytical tool to describe the
human relation at macro as well as micro level.
Meaning:- What is Power?
The notion of power has multiple meanings. It is an „essentially
contested‟ concept. No settled or agreed definition can ever be
developed. In natural sciences, power is understood as „force‟ or
„energy‟. In social sciences it appears with diverse interpretations
like; the ability to achieve a desired outcome, and an exercise of
control by one over another.
Power is a psycho political phenomenon. In simple sense it is the
capacity of the person/group/institution to affect /change/modify
the behaviour of other person/group/institution. In this sense it is
the capacity to influence the behaviour of others. Further this
influence is not voluntary and not readily accepted by those over
whom it is applied. Hence Power is the capacity of one to impose
its will over others irrespective of the will of others. When one
succeeds in making other person do, which otherwise he would
not do or restricting other persons from doing things which
otherwise that person want to do, then it is said that the will of first
person is imposed on the other and hence power is applied.
What make power different from other concepts like Force,
Influence, and Authority?
Force is the instrument of power. Influence is the outcome of the
power and authority is the legitimized power. But force, influence
and authority in itself are not power.
Force is more physical and power is psychological. Relation
between power and force is delicate one and the difference is often
blurred. Perceived threat of force can result in change in the
behavior of a person. But if such fear is not present then it is
said that power extinguishes and what remain is only brute force
which can defeat the person physically but its mind will be non-
defeated.
Power is visible through influence. It can be seen in change in the
behavior of the person on
Whom power is exercised. Thus, influence is the yardstick of
power.
Regarding relationship between authority and power it is sufficient
to say that when power is accepted by the people over whom it is
applied it transforms into authority. Absence of power makes
authority a puppet and presence of power makes a common
uncommon.
What are the types of power?
As we have seen earlier power is the capacity of the person to
impose its will on others. Problem of identifying the location of
power lies in judgment of the capacity of such person. Such
capacity depends upon two things.
Firstly, presence of potential elements such as money, military,
social status, numerical strength, territory, natural resources, quality
of human resource etc., provide necessary inputs
Which form the base of power.
Secondly, the capability of the actor to use such resources i.e.
leadership, decision making,
Negotiation, propaganda and diplomacy.
Thus crucial thing to locate power is to quantify the potential
resources and to qualify the capability to use these resources
effectively to its optimum utilization. Both of these categories help
us to describe the types of power.
TYPES OF POWER BASED ON RESOURCES
Money: From ancient times money i.e. finance is considered as
effective determinant of power. Plato advocated separation of
finance from governance and thus underlined the importance of it. It
is said that in modern days it is financial strength that make
persons, political parties, and nations powerful. Money excelled
over other resources in the capitalist system and thus is an
important source of power.
Military: Machiavelli advocated strengthening military capacity to
make State powerful. Kingdoms in past and Nation-states in
modern days maintain big armies and advanced weapons in their
arsenals to frighten adversaries and to secure their territory.
Destructive capacity of nations determines the power in such
cases.
Social Status: Higher social status on the parameters of gender,
class, caste, clan, and race enable the person to impose his will
on others. Thus higher social status in the social hierarchy is
desired by persons and groups to enjoy the privileges of power
holders.
Numerical Strength: In democratic polity the number of the
followers or members of particular group determine the power of
the party, leader, organization. Elections are won and governments
are run on the support of the people. Decisions are made and
influenced on the basis of the support enjoyed from the people.
Quality of Human Resource: Educated, committed, and loyal
human resource is considered as strength of the great nations.
Uneducated and corrupt human resources are liability over the
national resources. Thus quality to human resource adds to the
strength of the nations as well as community.
Types of power based on the capacity to use resources:
What makes power is the capacity to utilize available resources
cleverly and not only presence of it. Thus a tiny Britain ruled over
the vast territory for almost 150 years due to its skillful use of
available resources. Same British rule was overthrown by the
Indian leadership during freedom struggle with optimum use of
unarmed satyagrahis and manipulation of the international political
entrapment of Britishers. In such manner power can be categorized
in following manner.
Leadership, Strong and resourceful leader can turn the course of
the situation in its favour any time with his leadership qualities. A
Leader guides, motivates, channalise the organization. Winston
Churchill during Second World War; Lincon during American Civil
War are the examples of the leadership who successfully pulled out
their countries from the adverse situations.
Decision making, right decisions at right time save resources and
energy and give victory to the nations/organization. One wrong
decision of Hitler to invade Russia costs Germany a defeat during
the Second World War.
Negotiation, It is some time that wars are fought on the ground but
are won or defeated on the negotiation table. Thus skilful
negotiation can change the course of history at any moment.
Propaganda, it helps to mould the mind of the people or
adversaries and to create the favourable environment before the
actual negotiation, war begins. Thus propaganda through mass
media is majoritary applied in modern contests be it war or
elections. Thus control over media is a key to hold power in modern
days.
Check Your Progress
1. What is Power?
2. How is it different from Force?
3. Explain types of Power.
5.4 AUTHORITY
Meaning:
The word authority is derived from the Latin words; auctor‟ and
„auctoritas‟ . An auctor is an
Originator of promoter of some order, pronouncement or whatever.
When an action has been authorized there is some person or set of
persons from whom the authority to do it derives.
According to Carl Friedrich, an authority is the embodiment of
reason and depends on the capacity of reasoned elaboration.
Authority regulates behaviour mainly by speech and words, not
force. The term essentially indicates the people who are considered
to have the right to make announcements or announce decisions.
Authority implies not only that someone with the capacity to
reasoned elaboration has the right to issue regulations and make
final pronouncements. It also implies that someone has the right to
receive obedience.
McIver defines authority as the power to command obedience.
Simon interprets it as the Power to make decision which guides the
action of others. Authority is legitimate exercise of power.
Characteristics of Authority:-
Legitimacy: Legitimacy determines the effectiveness and
acceptance of authority.
Dominance: Authority is the capacity of the individual to command
others. An individual or group which possesses authority, exercises
dominance over others. Authority is command of seniors to their
juniors which is accepted by them.
Accountability: The individual or the group which possesses
authority is also answerable to some higher authority. In a
democracy, responsibility or accountability is an important
characteristic of authority.
Types of Authority:-
Authority can be classified into many ways depends upon its
sources and location.
Traditional, Charismatic, and Legal- Rational Authority
Max Weber describes three types of political authority as per
their sources: traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. When the
power to issue commands emerges from the source of customs
and traditions such authority he named traditional authority. The
right to rule which is based on the leadership qualities of the ruler
is called as charismatic authority. When such rule is legitimized by
the legal-constitutional framework Weber called it legal rational
authority.
De Jure and De Facto Authority
R. S. peters distinguish between two senses of authority‟. Person
may possess an authority as a right to do so or he may have it
without that also. In first sense it is called the „de jure’ authority and
in second sense it is called as ‘de facto’ authority.
In ’de jure’ sense legal or traditional rules make it possible for
auctor to exercise his right to pass commands or orders or
directions, i.e. to be „in authority‟. De jure authority pre-supposes
a system of rules which determine who shall be the auctor, that is
who shall be those who with reasoned elaboration, shall take
decisions, make pronouncements, issue commands and perform
certain acts.
In certain cases authority can be exercised by persons without
backing for legal or traditional rules. And in such cases even
person who are legally entitled to pass orders can be overruled by
the person who is legally not authorized to do so. But still people or
followers accept such commands and defer the commands of
legally entitled person. In such sense authority is „de facto’ which
derives from personal characteristics of the auctor. Thus the right to
give orders is distinct from the ability to secure obedience to them.
A person exercises de facto authority with others in virtue of certain
personal qualities. He does not need to resort to force, threats,
bribes or the like. He does not need to justify saying that a
particular course of action, should be adopted in the way a man
who lacked his authority might have to. He can secure in those with
whom he has authority the conviction that something ought to be
done by giving it his personal support and does not need to argue a
case in detail. People takes orders from him even though, he has
no right to their obedience. They do so because they recognize
certain qualities in him and not because he has a gun, is in a
position of command , or whatever. As Peters puts it, „there is
something about him which people recognize in virtue of which they
do what he says simply because he says it‟.
Such account of de facto authority resembles the Weber‟s account
of charismatic authority. It seems to be based on some mysterious
element of personal qualities which is very difficult to prove and
recognize. But it defers from Weber on the point that Weber was
too preoccupied with highly special figures like Jesus and Napoleon
to explain the Charisma and Peter‟s account of de facto authority
even recognizes the influence of quite ordinary people like doctors,
solicitors and even teachers in class room as masters in their own
specialized fields whatever limited they are.
Check Your Progress
1. Explain meaning of Authority.
2. What are the characteristics of Authority?
3. Write on types of Authority.
5.5 LEGITIMACY
Meaning:
Legitimacy in simple sense is derivative of legitimate which means
allowed by the law or rules or something which is able to be
defended with reasoning. In political sense it is the property that a
regime‟s procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable
to its subjects. Legitimacy is an important ingredient of authority
along with power. Legitimacy of a rule or decision implies that the
members of society treat that rule or decision as beneficial to
society as well as to themselves. So they willingly tend to abide
by it. Use of force or coercion or sanctions may be resorted to only
when legitimacy fails to work. Legitimacy is based on respect and
willing compliance.
Political science is indebted to Max Weber for application of the
term in the manner that Legitimacy constituted the basis of very
real differences in the way power was exercised. Liberal thinking
requires justification of power. It does not take authority granted
or something invincible. In Weberian description there are three
broad grounds for exercising authority, based on: tradition,
charisma, and rational legal authority. All three depends on certain
belief in the legality of enacted rules and right of those in
positions of authority to issue commands. Weber advocated that in
modern democratic societies with prevalence of rule of law
obedience is owed not to a traditionally sanctioned person or a
charismatically qualified leader, but to the legally established
impersonal order. It extends to the persons occupying a public
office by virtue of the legality of their commands. He demonstrated
limitations over such authority when he stated that such authority is
confined to the scope of the office and cannot be used in
capricious of self- interested way.
S. M. Lipset raises the concept to different height when he
discussed the capacity of the political system to engender and
maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most
appropriate ones for the society. He underlined the acceptance of
the political system by the plural fabric of the society. He argues
that Western nations have had to face three difficult and potentially
destabilizing issue: the place of the church of various religions
within the nations; the admission of the working class to full
economic and political rights; the continuing struggle over the
distribution of the national income.
In this sense presently globalization poses further challenges to the
legitimacy of the political system in general. Those groups who
claim certain specific identities do not accept the legitimacy of the
territorial boundaries of the nation-states. Quebecs in Canada,
dissolution of Yugoslavia, and dissent in Northern Ireland are few of
many examples that markedly emphasise this phenomena. In other
way the issue of legitimacy also arises in relation to new types of
political formation such as European Union which is struggling
to meet the legitimacy criteria on political front among the
population of its member nations.
The importance of Legitimacy can be emphasized in the words
that the ability to issue commands which are seen as binding
because they are legitimate is one of the central pillars of a stable
political order.
Types of Legitimacy
David Easton refers to three types of legitimacy; ideological
legitimacy, structural legitimacy , and personal legitimacy.
Ideological legitimacy is based on the moral convictions about the
validity of the regime and incumbents of authority. When the
source of legitimacy is the ideology prevailing in the society, it is
called ideological legitimacy.
Structural legitimacy is based on an independent belief in the
validity of the structure and norms and incumbents of the authority.
Personal legitimacy is based on the belief in the validity of the
incumbents of authority roles to the authority roles themselves. The
belief in the validity of authorities is based on their personal
qualities.
5.6 QUESTIONS
1) Discuss the meaning and types of power?
2) Define authority and discuss its nature?
3) What are different types of authority?
4) Define legitimacy. What are the grounds of legitimacy?
5) Examine the relationship between power, authority and
legitimacy?
6
MODULE III
UNIT 6
SOVEREIGNTY
Unit Structure
6.1 Objective
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Evolution of the concept of Sovereignty
6.4 Aspects of Sovereignty
6.5 Defined Sovereignty
6.6 Characteristics of Sovereignty
6.7 Austin‟s theory of Sovereignty or Monastic theory of
Sovereignty
6.8 Pluralistic theory of Sovereignty
6.9 Classification of Sovereignty
6.10 Conclusion
6.11 Questions
6.1 OBJECTIVE
We will examine the concept of Sovereignty. Poputation, Territory,
Government and Sovereignty as four essential characteristics of
state. In this unit we will study the Concept of Sovereignty in
greater detail.
6.2 INTRODUCTION
State has four characteristics - namely population, territory,
government and sovereignty. The term sovereignty literally means,
supreme or highest authority or power, within the state. It is the
most important of characteristic of the state.. It is like the very heart
or soul of the state. A natjon or a country cannot be called state
unless it enjoys sovereign power over its people and within its
territory. Essence of the state authority is its sovereign power. It is
this element which distinguishes the State from other associations.
In every state there must be an authority which is supreme, final,
whose will is legally binding over all individuals and associations
within the territory. The concept of sovereignty is essentially a
juristic concept. It implies supreme and final legal authority, above
and beyond which no further legal power exist.
EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF
SOVEREIGNTY
The concept is closely associated with the emergence of modern
state. However, its idea can be traced back to Aristotle, who spoke
of the 'supreme power' of the state.
The first systematic theory of sovereignty goes to Jean Bodin
(1530-96) He defined sovereignty as the supreme power over
subjects and possessions. According to Boding, law is the
expression of sovereign's will, and binds the subject regardless of
their consent. The sovereign power is however, subject to the
constraints of natural and Divine law. The sovereign cannot be
subject to his own laws, since they express his will.
6.4 ASPECTS OF SOVEREIGNTY
Bodin developed .concept of internal sovereignty (as supreme
power of the sovereign over citizens and subjects) Hugo Grotius
(1583-1645), the Dutch writer, developed the concept of external
sovereignty. He propounded the theory of equality of the sovereign
states in their relations and independence of external control or
dominations. Concept of sovereignty was also influenced by the
writings of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Subsequently Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) of England argued
that the sovereignty of the state had no legal limits in principle, and
no need for justifying any power outside itself. The state could not
only administer traditional laws but could create new laws. He
denied the claims of the Church to share political power. He
advocated that there has to be a single centre of authority, Hobbes,
thus developed the concept of legal sovereignty. '
Concept of sovereignty was further developed by Bentham,
Austin, Rousseau, Hegel and Bosanquet The jurists viewed the
state as legally supreme with final and absolute authority.
Limiting the Sovereign**power : As stated above, while a group
of writers advocated absolute power for the sovereign, another
group of thinkers led by John Locke, Montesquieu, Spinoza and
Kant, rised the question of the limits of the sovereign power.
They developed doctrine of separation of power, limited and
constitutional government and theory of natural rights.
6.5 SOVEREIGNTY DEFINED
Blackstone defined sovereignty as "the supreme irresistible,
absolute, controllable authority in which the supreme legal power
reside".
Jellinek defines it as "that characteristic of the state in virtue of
which it cannot ' be legally bound except by its own 'will, or limited
by any other power than itself".
Duguit defines sovereignty as "the commanding power of the state;
it is the will of the nation organised in the state; it is the right to give
unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of the state."
Burgess characterises sovereignty as "original, absolute, unlimited
power over the individual subject and over all associations of
subjects."
Garner defines it as "the supreme will and power", elements which
distinguish the state from other human associations.
Political Science Dictionary defines sovereignty as "the supreme
power of a state exercised within its boundaries, free from external
interferences".
The Penguin Dictionary of Politics defines sovereignty as "the
right to own and control some area of the world".
All these definitions emphasise absolute and exclusive nature of
sovereignty in its internal and external aspects. In simple words
„sovereignty means supreme authority of the state within its territory
and complete freedom from external control, or interference‟.
In conclusion we may quote the words of Justice Sutherland of
the Supreme Court of United States of America :
"Rulers come and go; governments and forms of government
change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure
without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in
suspense".
In strict sense sovereignty is a legal attribute of a state which
entitles it to make decisions with respect to matter within its
jurisdiction, free of external restraint or coercion.
6.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOVEREIGNTY
On the basis of above definitions, we can briefly state the
characteristics of sovereignty as follows :-
(i) Absoluteness
The sovereignty of the state as studied from the legal point of view
is absolute, It is the most important and essential characteristics of
the state. The will and authority of the sovereign power of the state
cannot be challenged or overridden by any agency within the state.
Externally no power can influence or dictate terms to the state.
However, as pointed elsewhere in these notes, this concept is
purely of juridical nature. In reality sovereignty of the state is limited
by several factors, such as customs, public opinion, power of
electorate etc. Externally even the most powerful state cannot
ignore the world public opinion.
(ii) Permanence :
The sovereignty is like the very heart and soul of the State.
Destruction of yovereignty means end of the state, it does not
cease with the change of government or death of a president. Even
after a successful revolution the sovereignty shifts to the new
bearer of power.
(iii) All comprehensive and universality :
Sovereignty of the State is all comprehensive and universal, in the
sense that the sovereign power of the state extends over all its
individual citizens and all groups, human associations within its
territorial limits. No individual, except, of course, the foreign
diplomats and ambassadors, is free from its all-embracing authority.
None can claim exemption from the authority of the state.
(iv) Inalienability :
Sovereignty, being an indispensable element of the state, it cannot
be alienated from the state. Alienation of the sovereignty would
amount to the state's suicide. When there is change of power the
sovereignty shifts to new bearer.
(v) Exclusiveness :
It means the state and the state alone possesses sovereign power
over its citizen and associations within its territory. In other word
there cannot be more than one centre of power within the territorial
boundaries of the state. To have more than one centre of pov/er
means to divide sovereignty, which juridically would mean denial of
the absoluteness of the sovereignty.
(vi) Indivisibility :
If the sovereignty is exclusive it logically follows that it cannot be
shared or divided. Sovereignty being the highest will within the state
it cannot be divided without destroying or creating more than one
state. Some writers speak of 'dual' sovereignty. However, they
confuse sovereignty with its emanation. Power which emanates
from sovereignty can be divided, but not the sovereignty itself. In a
federal state the power flowing ^from the constitution is divided
between the Union and constituent units.
The characteristics of legal sovereignty may thus be summed up
as under :
(i) It is always definite, determinate, organised, precise and
known to laws.
(ii) It may reside either in the person of a monarch, as in an
absolute monarchy, or it may be vested in a body of persons as
in democracy, e.g. Parliament in Britain.
(iii) It alone has the power to declare in legal terms the will of the
state.
(iv) All legal rights emanate from the legal sovereign and it can
withdraw or annul them at its will.
(v) The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute, unlimited and
supreme. It is not subject to any control from outside the state.
Check Your Progress
1. Explain aspects of sovereignty.
2. Write on characteristics of sovereignty.
6.7 AUSTIN’S THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY OR
MONISTIC THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY
Austin's Theory of Sovereignty o|° H.tmi6fH<l lW0)M ^T SWef ejj
TTl/vis~John Austin, the famous English Jurist, who gave one of the
most authentic definition of sovereignty, in his book Lectures on
Jurisprudence published in 1832. His theory of Sovereignty has
left an indelible imprint on the subject of sovereignty and even
today the concept of sovereignty cannot be studied without
reference to Austin. Austin provided the most elaborate analysis of
the legal theory of sovereignty. His theory is also known as
Monistic Theory. In spite of several criticisms the basic principles
of his theory still serve as the basis for modern jurisprudence.
6.7.1 Austin’s theory is as follows
Austin's theory of sovereignty is purely legal or juristic. In simple
language it means that :
(1) In every independent political community there exists a
sovereign power. In other words sovereignty is an essential
attribute of an independent political society.
(2) The sovereign is a determinate person or body of persons. It
cannot be an indefinite body or a vague concept.
(3) The power of the-sovereign-is legally unlimited, there is no
legal limit to his power or authority.
(4) The obedience rendered to the sovereign is habitual and not
casual. Austin's thesis is that obedience to the sovereign
must continuous, regular, undisputed and uninterrupted. But
this obedience need not be from every member of the
society. It is enough if obedience comes from the bulk or
majority of the population.
(5) The power of the sovereign is indivisible. There must be as
many states as there are sovereigns. The power of the
sovereign cannot be divided or shared. Division of the
sovereignty is unthinkable.
(6) The command of the sovereign is the law. Whatever is not
commanded by the sovereign, cannot be considered, as law.
Obedience to be command of the sovereign is obligatory.
Disobedience will invite penalty.
6.7.2 Criticism of Austin’s Theory of Soverignty
Austin's theory was criticised by many scholars such Sir Henry
Maine, Clark, Sidgwick, Laski etc. Criticism of Austin's theory is as
under :
(1) Sovereignty does not reside in a determinate human superior.
Sir Henry'Maine pointed out that sovereignty does not reside in a
determinate superior. He pointed out that sovereignty and the
power of sovereign can never be absolute. e.g. Maharaja Ranjit
Singh, he said that he could have commanded anything yet never
in his life he issued a command which could be properly called as
law. The rules which regulated the life of his people were derived
from customs, usages and conventions. He himself was subject to
customery la'ws of the community.
Not only in the Asian society but even in the Western society no
sovereign could disregard the social customs and traditions. In the
medieval period the Church exercised complete control over the
authority of the sovereign. Accordingly, Sir Maine concludes that
sovereignty has never been or can never be absolute.
(2) Maine also pointed out that Austin's theory is inconsistent with
the concept of popular sovereignty. It is not true in a democratic
society. In democracy sovereignty resides in the people. In this
sense, sovereignty cannot be determinate. Austin also does not
take into account, what is today called as political sovereignty.
(3) According to Laski, law is not simply a command of a sovereign.
It must be based on the moral sense of the society. There cannot
be a law opposed to social, moral values and customs.
(4) Sovereign power can never be absolute and unlimited. Even the
most powerful dictators and autocratic rulers could not ignore the
public opinion, or prevailing customs and tradition. Theoretically, we
may say that the power of the sovereign is absolute but in reality, in
every society there are forces which can challenge the authority of
the state.
(5) Austin lays too much emphasis on force. He believes that
obedience can be exacted by the threat of force. But force and
coercion are unproductive in the long run. In fact repeated use of
force can become counter-productive. Force is something which
destroys its own roots. It is not force but the willing consent which
should be the basis of authority.
