Political Power: Origin, Legitimacy, and Social Order
Political Power: Origin and Legitimacy
Item 12: Origin and legitimacy of political power
Concepts of origin and legitimacy
The power has no subject; it is a relationship and is considered an enigma. The enigma of power is characterized by its multiple and complex nature. Power is a set of institutions to guarantee the holding of citizens in a given state. It is the legal-political interpretation of power.
The state is a relation of domination of man over man, founded by legitimate violence. The state has a legitimate use.
The strategy is an attitude that involves confrontation or conflict. Confrontation can be a mere game, but sometimes ends with fists. Confrontation can also be a struggle, as that takes place in a forest among the animals.
“Homo hominis lupus est” “The man is a wolf to man.” This means that man himself is the one seeking his misfortune. Along with talking about legitimation strategy, we must put an order in this disorder.
The political relationship is a relation of domination between rulers and ruled, where one commands and others obey. According to Weber, force, domination, even violence are in politics, in its management and its gestation.
Foucault said that politics is the continuation of war by other means. Power is not the same as force or violence and cannot be reduced to them. Neither force nor violence can build a community, nor a society of free human beings and reasonable.
Legality and legitimacy are not the same:
Something is legal if it conforms and complies with certain laws.
Legitimacy is the ultimate value and the condition of possibility to refer to a particular body of law.
A rule is fair if the population believes that it mostly sticks to this norm. There are different types of legitimacy:
National legitimacy: Domination based on the acceptance of the validity of the laws created. Get rational laws and accept them. For example, democracy.
Traditional legitimacy: Domination through religious uses, ancient recognition, and habitual orientation toward compliance. This domination is exercised by the patriarch and prince of yore.
Charismatic legitimacy: It follows the leader who inspires confidence in others, fascinated by attitudes and qualities that are attributed. For example, a hero. Someone stands out by their actions more than others and they are followed. No political society exists without power. The problem facing man is how to organize and exercise political power.
The exercise of political power is at risk of centralization and unification in a single institute or person. There must be a democratization of political power through division. Political power is divided into:
Legislative power: Belongs to the parliaments, which must be represented by different social groups.
Executive branch: Must be in the hands of a king or a president.
Judiciary: The ability to judge. Should be independent.
The Rules of Social Order
Companies need to develop rules and institutions to maintain social cohesion.
The rules:
Social practices or customs owe their strength to tradition. Those who bypass these social practices are punished and blamed by others.
The individual’s moral standards are endorsed. One who does not address the moral standards is self-punished with guilt.
Legal rules are rules created by the state; all are subject to them. Noncompliance is sanctioned by the state. The set of laws are legal.
When we ask whether a rule is right or wrong, we consider a moral issue. To what extent does it meet the criteria of justice that we consider successful? This is the problem of moral legitimacy. This aspect focuses the attention of the entry of foreign ethics. To prohibit poor people in rich countries is morally wrong; it is wrong to support those who have money and not those who are fleeing from hunger.
If we ask whether it is legal or illegal, it is the question of the validity of a legal rule. If it can be part of the judicial system of a country, it is said to be legal; if it goes the opposite way, it is illegal. Knowing what is right. The legal rule that prevents the passage of foreign poor is a law in force in most rich countries. It can be discussed whether such a law is legally valid. While the courts did not speak out against this law, it is considered binding.
When we ask whether a rule is socially valid, we mean the social efficiency that accompanies it: a rule may have little social acceptance but is morally correct, and there may be another that enjoys wide recognition in social life. In practice, sociology, returning to the example, is likely that this rule currently enjoys a legal standard of great social acceptance. Many groups consider it unfair because it is contrary to human rights. In the future, it may be that the law fell into disuse, which would indicate a loss of social force. Ethics, law, and sociology are independent in their approach and their own methods, but there are some connections between them. The law cannot ignore ethics; one of the functions of the legal laws is to achieve a just society, and ethics makes it clear that social justice is important.
Arguments to Justify the Existence of Political Power
Do we need political power to run any society? Is it right that there is a social hierarchy between rulers and ruled? Is the state a morally legitimate institution or, conversely, is a bad thing that should disappear?
We can summarize their responses:
Theological type arguments: Political power exists because divinity wanted it. The gods, or God, have established a hierarchy among men and pointed to some to rule and the rest must obey. This type of argument was common during the Middle Ages.
Naturalistic type arguments: Political power is a natural need of the human species. These communities are necessarily governed by some authority who must obey. This argument has been used primarily by Aristotle and his followers.
Functionalist arguments: Political power exists in most societies, probably in all. It is useful and beneficial for their members that there is a political authority to keep order and peaceful coexistence.
Legitimization of Political Power Through History
Aristotle proposed a classification of political regimes according to two criteria: the number of governors and whether the government benefits all or rather a part of society. The latter is the key to legitimacy, according to Aristotle.
Aristotle argued that the choice of one or another of the three legitimate regimes depends on the historical and social circumstances:
No legitimate political leaders Regimen Regimen Only one corrupt politician Tyranny A small group Monarchy
Aristocracy Oligarchy
A majority Demagoguery social Constitutional Democracy
Theories of Social Contract
They are the group streams of thought that use a hypothetical contract as an explanatory model of the origin and legitimacy of political power and the social contract establishing the state. This is from a supposed state of nature. The individuals come to an agreement to organize a society. The function is to justify a particular type of political organization. The breakup of the church and the political power arises. The authors who compose it are:
Hobbes: Man in a state of nature is in full war of all against all; man is egoistic. Hobbes, through the pact, seeks the safety of humans and reaches a control. Therefore, the contract grants the waiver of freedom to the state, transferring it to more accepted forms of government, which is absolute monarchy.
Locke: For the state of nature, man is free and absolute master of his life and property. The contract guarantees the natural law that man possesses, protecting private property. It guarantees respect for natural law. The terms of the contract are that people respect the natural law, creating a liberal democracy that guarantees a division of powers.
Rousseau: Believes that man in the state of nature is placid and simple. He possesses basic goods and coexists with other individuals in harmony. He thinks that man by nature is morally aware. Man in this state is free, able to do what he wants. In the natural state, he is good and sociable. Man makes a pact when he discovers that there is private property. With the contract, he does not do what he wants. According to Rousseau, the pact was signed so that there were no inequalities or social confrontations. The most accepted form of government was social democracy.