Political Philosophy: Power and Authority

 (Related topics are Sovereignty: the supreme authority withing a certain field: Obligation: the duty to obey: the Social Contract: an agreement to obey; and Democracy: nowadays seem as the sole source of political authority)

 

   Power and Authority are two related but different concepts in political thought; exemplified in the difference between “CAN I do this?” and “MAY I do this?”: in other words, am I capable of performing a certain action, as against, is it legitimate for me to do it.  Political power generally involves getting people to do something which, initially, they might consider to be not in their best interests. This might be achieved by the use or threat of violence, or by some non-violent method of persuasion. Power is a “de facto” concept: either I possess it or I don’t. Thus, Mao said, “Power comes out of the barrel of a gun”, and Lenin said that the only question that mattered in politics was “Who – whom”: “who is pointing the gun at whom? and how do I ensure that I’m on the right end of the gun?" Both of these leaders believed that all power is ultimately based on the threat of violence.

  Authority is different. Suppose we were meeting in a public room, and I asked, “Can I remove this chair?” Yes: I can easily carry it. “Can I take this table?” No: it’s too heavy for me to carry on my own, and I would need the help of others. They might well ask whether I had the authority to take it. I might get them to help, either by threats, or bribery, or by persuading them that someone higher up had given me permission to take it. We could deduce from this that authority is delegated downwards.

   But what is authority? Unlike power, it is a “de jure” concept: it is based on the notion that it exists in law. Does it really exist, or is this merely propaganda by those in power, to persuade subjects that they ought to obey? This interpretation might be argued by Hobbes, Machiavelli and the Marxists, and the Utilitarians refuse to discuss the question. And if it exists, what is its source? The Emperor Frederick II in the 13^th century said his authority stemmed from “God, the Pope and the People”; three sources being better than just one!

Max Weber (1864-1920) famously defined Authority into three categories:-

1. Traditional: based on custom (e.g. a tribal chief or priest; presumably deriving ultimately from God(s)

2. Charismatic: based on force of personality (e.g. a gang leader; ultimately deriving from the democratic support of followers, and liable to be withdrawn if the leader proves unsatisfactory)

3. Rational/legal: in a more stable and bureaucratic society; authority granted by accepted constitutional methods.

(King Charles’s authority would appear to be based on a mixture of 1 and 3, and if he is to establish himself in the hearts of his subjects, he needs to display a measure of 2 as well!)

 

Authority is always delegated downwards from a sovereign authority to subordinate authorities, and can only be overruled by a superior. But what is the chain of this delegation?

1. God direct to King (Divine Right of Kings)

2. God to Church to King (The vision of the mediaeval Popes)

3. The People to Government (democratic theory)

In the USA the People elect the President and the Congress, but the supreme authority is the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court; which can override even an Act of Congress.

In Britain, the supreme authority is “The King in Parliament”, which can pass or amend any laws at will. The King, the hereditary Head of State, has the sole authority to appoint government ministers, but in practice the choice is limited by the need for a government majority in the House of Commons, which is elected by the People.

Possible limitations on the authority of a government:-

1.    1. Constitutional law – but who interprets this?

2.    2. God’s commands – perhaps speaking through an organised church?

3.    3. Individual conscience – are all citizens entitled to make their own judgements?

4.    4. The will of the people – when and how should this operate? (it will almost always mean the will of the majority of the people)

 

 Hobbes would reject all of these, and Rousseau would reject the first 3 but support 4. Aquinas would support 2. Mill had doubts about 4, fearing “tyranny of the majority”. Locke and the American Founding Fathers argued for 1, basing it on 4. In Britain, the Brexit referendum was taken as a clear example of 4 by MPs and peers, a majority of whom presumably voted Remain.

Historical note-

   In the Middle Ages, there was always a dichotomy between two different themes:-

1.    From Constantinople: a quasi-divine monarch, surrounded by elaborate ritual and answerable to God alone;

2.    From the Germanic tradition: a King chosen by the tribal chiefs, who then took oaths to obey him, but with royal authority  ultimately charismatic and thus always capable of being withdrawn

This was further confused by ambitious Popes who attempted to force Kings to be subordinate to them!

All mediaeval Kings were effectively elected by the nobles (and in Poland and the German Empire remained so right through to the 18^th century!). In England, unsatisfactory Kings (e.g. Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI) were overthrown and murdered by the great nobles acting in the name of “the People”.

Claims to Divine Right monarchy were only effective when governments had become more bureaucratic and had brought the Church under control. The great constitutional conflicts of 17^th century England turned upon how far the King could govern without the consent of Parliament (as representing the People) and how far the King’s authority was limited and restricted by “law” – in other words, by what we would call a Constitution.

The strange guests, part 2

(The story so far: Betty Worthing, a chambermaid, has got to know a mysterious foreign couple, who call themselves Ilych and Nadezhda, staying at her hotel. Now another foreigner has tried to persuade her to intercept and hand over the couple’s letters. Betty is unsure what to do)

One morning Betty came down to the foyer of the hotel and found the place deserted, apart from one guest sitting in an armchair in a far corner reading a newspaper. Behind the deserted reception desk was the board with the letters waiting to be collected, including one with a foreign stamp. She stepped behind the desk and examined it. Yes: it must be for the couple in room 212! This was her chance!  Quickly she took the letter from the board and slipped it into the pocket of her apron. She was still undecided what to do next: whether to deliver the letter to room 212 or to pass it on to the stranger who had offered her money for such letters; but all that could come later!

    There were footsteps behind her. The guest had dropped his newspaper and risen from his chair, and was now looking at her intently. He was a shortish man, bearded, wearing a tweed suit.

   “I see you’ve picked up the letter for our Russian friends”, he said. He had a strong Scottish accent, and his voice was firm but not threatening.

   “Yes, sir”, Betty replied, since it was pointless to deny it. “I was just going to take it up to them, sir”, she added impulsively. She sensed that she was falling into a situation beyond her control. What on earth should she do now? Suddenly coming to a decision, she told the gentleman how she had been asked to intercept and pass on letters. “But I wasn’t going to do it, sir! And I was afraid if I didn’t take the letter, he might come and take it himself, now there’s no-one about”.

   “Are you with us, then?” he asked.

   “Oh yes, sir!” replied Betty emphatically. Now she was really committing herself; getting in deeper and deeper!

    “Good. I’ll go up there with you then. It’ll save me the trouble of waiting for one of them to come down”. He returned to his chair to pick up his coat and a large bag.

   

    He let her lead the way up the stairs. At the end of the corridor he stopped. “Now, lassie, you go and knock on their door and tell them the Scotsman’s come with the pamphlets. I’ll bide here to make sure the coast’s clear”.

    Despite her fears, Betty could not help feeling a tremor of excitement as she knocked on the door. She really was in an adventure now! As usual, the door opened just a crack at first, but then Nadezhda recognised her.

    “If you please, miss: I’ve a letter for you”, Betty said, “and the Scotsman says he’s brought the pamphlets”.

    Nadezhda opened the door, and Betty signalled to her waiting companion to come in. He glanced down the stairs to check they were not being followed before walking to the room. He greeted Nadezhda and Ilych, and then produced a large pile of pamphlets from his bag. Betty noticed that they were printed in strange foreign letters. Ilych thumbed through one of them eagerly, purring to himself with pleasure as he did so.

    “Very good, very good!” he said at last, “I shall arrange for these to be sent into Russia. But tell me: why did you bring the chambermaid up with you? Is she to be trusted?”

   The Scotsman briefly recounted what Betty had told him. The two foreign guests were silent for a while, then Ilych asked her to describe the stranger who had asked her to pass on the letters. “But I wouldn’t do it, sir!” said Betty, “I didn’t like him!”

   Nadeszda still looked distrustful, but Ilych chuckled, pinched Betty on the cheek and called her “a true proletarian heroine”. Betty had no idea what this meant, but gathered that it was intended as a compliment.

    Ilych then sighed. “So they have found us!” he said. “So we must be moving on again; Nadezhda and me. I think we must leave England. Now, child, you may tell your police spy we have gone, and you do not know where. Because, of course, you do not know! Do not tell him this until next week: give us time to get away. We shall take these pamphlets, but I shall give you one. You cannot read Russian, but one day you may learn. I shall write my name on it in your alphabet, so that you will remember me”.

    He picked up his pen and on the first page of the pamphlet wrote very carefully: Vladimir Ilych Lenin.  

Stories: The strange guests; part one

    Betty knocked tentatively on the door of room number 212. Voices from within told her that the occupants were still there, but it was now late in the morning and unless she was able to make their bed very soon she wouldn’t have time to get ready for her lunchtime duties. She hadn’t yet met the couple in 212, but Elsie, who normally did this room, said they were foreigners and “a bit funny”.

       The door opened a fraction, and a pair of eyes peered out through the crack. When they recognized Betty’s chambermaid uniform and cleaning gear, the door was opened more fully and a youngish woman, plainly dressed and with her hair tied severely back, poked her head out and quickly glanced each way down the corridor to ascertain there was no-one else there, and then pulled Betty quickly inside and locked the door behind her.

       The air inside was thick with smoke. A great mass of papers littered the table by the window, with more on the floor. Seated at the table was a man in shirt-sleeves and waistcoat, with a pen in his hand. The woman spoke to him in a foreign language, and he then turned to face Betty.

   “If you please, sir; I’ve come to make the bed and tidy the room”, said Betty.

   “And what is your name, child?” His accent was so strong that Betty had difficulty understanding him.

   “Betty Worthing, if you please, sir”. She dropped him a little curtsey, because she sensed that, despite the fact that his clothes were rather shabby and that he and his wife were occupying one of the cheapest rooms in the hotel, he was nevertheless a gentleman.

   “Ah, Betty Worthing, yes”. (He pronounced it as “Vording”) “You may clean the room, child. But you must never touch my papers. Never, you understand?”

    “Yes, sir”. Betty proceeded with her work, conscious that the couple were closely watching her every movement. She was careful not to touch a single paper, however much she longed to stack them in a neat pile and dust all the cigarette ash from the table. She allowed herself no more than a single fleeting glance at one paper, which was not only in a foreign language, but written in strange letters which she could not read. At last she finished her work, curtsied to the couple and let herself out. They were indeed “a bit funny”!

Betty was assigned to room 212 for the next few weeks. She never found the room empty, at any time of the day. The strange couple always had their breakfast in the room, and never went down to the dining room together for other meals. Sometimes the man went out for a walk on his own, or the woman went shopping, and to post letters. They wrote a lot of letters, often to foreign countries. Sometimes they had visitors, mostly other foreigners, and then animated conversations continued throughout the night.

     As the man became more accustomed to Betty’s presence, he began to ask her questions; about how much she was paid and the hours she had to work; about her family and life in the town. Often he made notes about her answers. In time she found it easier to understand him, though he never learnt to pronounce her name properly. In an odd way, she liked him. His wife said little. Betty worked out from their conversations (which were never in English) that she was called “Nadezhda” and that she called her husband “Illyich”. That’s a very strange name, Betty thought.

Then one day the clerk at the hotel reception desk called Betty over. “There’s a man wants to speak to you”, he told her, indicating a respectably-dressed stranger seated near the entrance. “He says it’s important”.

    Betty didn’t usually like to be seen walking out with strange men, but she allowed him to take her to a café (where fortunately there wasn’t anyone who would recognize her) and they sat in a quiet corner. She remained on her guard, and hoped he wouldn’t suggest anything improper.

   “You are Betty Worthing, chambermaid at the hotel?” He asked, and she nodded. “And you clean room number 212, where live a man and a woman, yes? Tell me now, how does he look?”

   Betty considered. This man was clearly another foreigner; perhaps from the same country as the couple in 212, since he pronounced her name in the same way. What was going on, she wondered. But she saw no harm in answering his question.

   “He’s not very tall, and his forehead’s bald. He’s got a little beard. He’s got high cheekbones and his eyes are a bit slanted. I think his wife calls him Illych”.

   “Ah yes! It is him!” the man hissed, “And his woman, Nadezhda, she is very plain, yes? She is not his wife, you know. Immoral behaviour! Yes, a very bad couple! Most wicked!”

   Betty stiffened. Her brother was living with a girl who wasn’t his wife, and although she didn’t approve of such behaviour, she didn’t see why strangers had any right to make remarks about it.

    “Are they criminals?” she asked. “Shouldn’t you tell the police?”

   “Ach, your police; they are so stupid! Just because this man commits no crime under your law, they ignore him! But this man, he is more dangerous than any robber; far more dangerous! But you can help us. He has many papers in his room, yes? Then perhaps you can bring some to us: you will be rewarded. Or does he let you post letters for him? No? Then you can persuade him to, and bring them to us. And also the letters he receives, yes?”

   Betty found herself disliking the man more and more. She might only be a chambermaid, but she still had some professional pride; and the suggestion that she, an honest girl working in a respectable hotel, might steal a guest’s papers and letters ….. the very idea! And why should a foreigner say the British police were stupid: what an insult! On the other hand, she was tempted. It wasn’t so much the promise of a reward, though heaven knows she could do with more money. But she’d always had the dream that she might one day be the heroine of a great adventure mystery, and now it looked as if the dream might be coming true.

     “I’ll see what I can do, sir”, she said, cautiously.

(To be continued in a later entry)