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.