Essay on Legitimacy. Meaning, Sources and Types

LEGITIMACY Essay on Legitimacy: Meaning, Sources and Types Legitimacy: The concept of legitimacy also has acquired a significant place in modern political theory. Although the germs of this concept can be seen in the writings of Plato who enunciated the idea of justice in his Republic, yet its systematic exposition has been carried only by modern political thinkers. Power, influence and authority can be effective only if they are legitimate. The role of coercion in political relations has diminished with the growth of culture and civilisation. Coercive power is now regarded primitive and brutal. The modern political processes make use of non-coercive methods of control such as influence, persuasion, leadership, public opinion, etc. Legitimacy is a prerequisite of power. Meaning of Legitimacy: The word ‘legitimacy’ has been derived from the Latin world ‘legitimas’. During the Middle Ages it was called ‘legitimitas’ which in English language was interpreted as ‘lawful’. Cicero used the word ‘legitimum’ to denote the power constituted by law. Later on, the word ‘legitimacy’ was used for traditional procedures, constitutional principles and adoption to traditions. At still later a stage the element of ‘consent’ was added to its meaning. Consent was considered the essence of legitimate rule. In the modern age it was Max Weber to first enunciate the concept of ‘legitimacy’ as a universal concept. According to him, legitimacy is based in ‘belief’ and gets obedience from the people. Power is effective only if it is legitimate. Undoubtedly, power has the right to use coercion but that is not its chief element. Power should be based on legitimacy otherwise it would invite trouble and may prove ineffective. The meaning of legitimacy has changed from age to age. During the Middle Ages it was used to express the feeling against usurpation. But now all revolutions or coup d’etat cannot be called illegitimate. The revolution of Bangladesh against Pakistan to secure freedom cannot be termed illegitimate. Thus, new principles of legitimacy replace the old principles. Legitimacy is not synonymous with moral beliefs or good conduct. It is only the basis for justifying the actions of those in power. Robert A. Dahl writes, “Leaders in a political system try to ensure that whenever governmental means are used to deal with conflict, the decisions arrived at are widely accepted not solely from fear of violence, punishment, or coercion but also from a belief that it is morally right and proper to do so. According to one usage of the term, a government is said to be ‘legitimate’ if the people to whom its orders are directed believe that the structure, procedures, acts, decisions, policies, officials, or leaders or government possess the quality of Tightness, propriety or moral goodness—the right, in short, to make binding rules.” Thus defined, Dahl makes it clear that legitimacy is the quality of Tightness, propriety or moral goodness. All the governments try to prove their acts as legitimate and, therefore, binding on the people. The army leader who stages a coup and captures power also tries to prove the justifiability or moral Tightness of his action. The ‘de facto’ government becomes ‘de jure’ on acquiring legitimacy. In democracy the importance of legitimacy is no less because democracy is based on consent. It cannot be forced on people against their will lacking legitimacy. The government loses popular confidence and is overthrown. In the absence of legitimacy power is sheer force. According to Dolf Sternberger, legitimacy is the foundation of governmental power which on the one hand makes the government conscious of its right to rule and on the other makes the governed aware of such a right.” According to S.M. Upset, “Legitimacy involves the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are most appropriate for the society.” In the words of Jean Beandel. “Legitimacy can be defined as the extent to which the population accepts naturally, without questioning, the organisation to which it belongs.” J.C. Pleno and R.E. Riggs define legitimacy as “the quality of being justified or willingly accepted by subordinates that convert the exercise of political power into rightful authority.” G.K. Robert holds, “Legitimacy is that principle which indicates the acceptance on the part of the public of the occupancy of political office by a person or the exercise of power by a person or group either generally or in some specific instance on the grounds that occupancy exercise of powers is in accordance with some generally accepted principles and procedures of component of authority.” In fact every political system strives for legitimacy. An enormous variety of political systems have gained legitimacy in various times and places. Hence slavery, feudalism, monarchy, oligarchy, hereditary aristocracy, plutocracy, representative government, direct democracy—have acquired legitimacy in some time and place. Even in a democratic society, political systems that reflect quite contradictory principles of authority acquire legitimacy. For example, business firms, governmental agencies and some religious associations are organised according to hierarchical rather than democratic principles. Yet people concede legitimacy to these hierarchical systems. We may thus conclude that legitimacy means the capacity to produce and maintain a belief that the existing political system is most suitable to the society. The masses must obey it unreluctantly and accept its sanctity and consider it worthy of respect and reverence. Sources of Legitimacy: According to Max Weber, there are three sources of legitimacy: (i) Tradition: Legitimacy may rest on an established belief in the sanction of immemorial traditions and on the need to obey leaders who exercise the authority according to the traditions. (ii) Exceptional Personal Qualities: Legitimacy may secondly be based on “devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, or exemplary character of an individual person.” (iii) Legality: Legitimacy may rest on the belief that power is wielded in a way that is legal. What is done legally is regarded as legitimate. Grace A. Jones has described the following sources of legitimacy in the context of British system: (i) Continuity with the political and social institutions. (ii) Tradition of non-violence. (iii) Religious beliefs. (iv) Belief in values. (v) Electoral process, liberty and unanimity. (vi) Coordinated and integrated society and continuity of its traditions. (vii) Adaptive political culture. According to Friedrich, the sources of legitimacy are: (i) Religious, (ii) Philosophical and juristic, (iii) Traditional, (iv) Procedural, and (v) Empirical. From the above analysis it is evident that legitimacy is not a mere abstract or moral feeling. It is something related with the entire political system. It is a belief which leads the people to accept that it is morally right and proper for the officials or leaders of government to make binding rules. Legitimacy enables a ruler to govern with a minimum of political resources. It is the soul of democracy. Types of Legitimacy: David Easton describes three types of legitimacy as under: (a) Ideological legitimacy: When the source of legitimacy is the ideology prevailing in the society, it is termed as ideological legitimacy. A political system is in fact an articulated set of ideals, ends and purposes which help the members to interpret the past explain the present and provide a vision for the future. The ideology portrays the aims and states the objectives of the political system. These aims and objectives have the potential as they constitute a set of ethically infused ideals to capture the imagination of the people. They inspire men to action as they are related to their success. (b) Structural legitimacy: The principles which lead the members in a particular system to accept as legitimate, contribute to the validation of structures and norms of the regime. Every system has set goals according to which authority is exercised and political power is wielded. This basis of validation is termed as structural legitimacy. (c) Personal legitimacy: If the behaviour and personality of those at the help of affairs is of dominating importance and if the members consider these authorities as trust-worthy this is known as personal legitimacy. David Easton is of the view that a large class of leaders, regardless of any inner conviction of being called, or outer recognition as such by followers, manage to build up a belief in their legitimacy. A political system can face a crisis if its legitimate position is in peril. The crisis of this nature brings change in the existing social system as well. A crisis of legitimacy is thus a crisis of change. In the words of Lipset “…………In general even when the political system is reasonably effective if at any time the status of major conservative groups is threatened or if access to politics is divided to emerging groups at crucial periods the system of legitimacy will remain in question. On the other hand a breakdown of effectiveness repeatedly or for a long period will endanger even a legitimate system’s stability.”