Hey Everyone,

Below is a short essay I have written after recently reading about Andy Burnham's proposals that will be encompassed in the upcoming budget and the backlash some of them faced. An example is Mike Ashley, who is notorious for his controversial l approaches to business, who believed the Prime Minsters plans to revive the high street was ' delusional ' and even 'populist'. It made me realise how do those in power acquire the obediency and ( from most people) respect so that the country keeps functioning.

Power and legitimacy are closely linked concepts with their relationship fundamental in understanding how political order is maintained. Power can be defined as the ‘probability that one actor in a social relationship will carry out their own will despite resistance’ ( Weber, 1922). Webber also provides an accurate description of legitimacy referring to the belief of those who are subject to power that it is rightfully used, resulting in their obedience without coercion. This essay argues that power acquires legitimacy primarily through traditional and legal rational authority which ensures obedience. In addition, democratic consent is also one of the only methods that gives legitimacy justification rather than merely accepted in practice. Whilst charismatic authority can reinforce legitimacy, it is often temporary and a supporting factor rather than the main method of power acquiring legitimacy. The most stable political orders have traditional and institutional foundations combined with democratic accountability as consent can be withdrawn at any time, ultimately separating legitimate authority from domination.

Power can acquire legitimacy through traditional institutions which are widely respected and legitimacy of those in power is seen as a belief of these people as power has always existed therefor the legitimacy of the power it is automatic. Weber presents this view through his identification of three types of legitimate authority. Traditional authority is that obedience is due to hereditary and custom practices such as respect for the King of a country and bowing when seeing them in person is due to hereditary succession being an accepted custom within certain countries. Charismatic authority is another method of power acquiring legitimacy due to citizen obeying a leader based on their personal qualities that makes one want to listen and obey them. Finally legal rational authority demonstrates that obedience is not just to individuals but also to laws and institutions. Modern democracies hold power and therefore acquire legitimacy through legal rational authority. Whilst charismatic authority can help reinforce legitimacy it is more of a supporting factor for power to acquire legitimacy rather than a fundamental reason for legitimacy to occur due to not all people likely to personality of leader I power. Thus, critically, the two aspects of legal rational authority and traditional authority matter the most as the legitimacy is rooted in historical beliefs that those in power should be obeyed and are therefore legitimate. As such power acquires legitimacy as subjects believe it is rightfully exercised through these two means. Fundamentally, the UK Monarchy highlights traditional legitimacy as it is an institution that has existed for over a thousand years therefore is a hereditary custom which has not been necessarily earnt. This shows that legitimacy does not require reason or consent as just familiarity alone can command obedience and accepted authority. In addition, legal rational authority is seen in the US Supreme Courts ‘Citizens United ruling ‘ which was deeply unpopular as it favoured corporation and unions to spend large amounts of money on political campaigns, meaning those who were wealthy were able to have significant political power. Yet despite this being interpreted by some as people ‘buying’ power within traditional institutions and therefore having legitimacy, according to Weber, citizen still obeyed with the law and had no choice but to obey whoever was in power no matter how they got there. As such, power is seen as acquiring legitimacy through formal institutions and traditional means of power being exerted.

Liberal views on democratic consent adds a normative layer to Weber’s argument by explaining when power acquires legitimacy, which is within a democratic setting as those who are governed have consented to the power. Locke holds the view that before governments exist, citizens are free and equal but vulnerable to disputes and overall chaos, therefore they enter a social contract where voluntarily give up certain freedoms to enforce justice themselves as instead the government does it for them, meaning they now have a level of power over citizens. Yet , especially within a democratic setting, citizens have the right to withdraw consent of their freedoms being removed within the social contracts. This is what Weber’s framework lacks: a mechanism in which withdrawing legitimacy occurs. Traditional authority claims that rules would be obeyed as they have always been this way and legal rational authority claims that citizens should obey the power as the rules say so . Yet in democracies, citizens have free speech and the right to say no as if consent can be given it can also be taken away, demonstrating democratic authority which is a key reason for how legitimacy is created rather than solely through domination and a lack of liberalism. Thus, Locke’s view exemplifies how power is not only legitimate because people simply obey but they also have the choice to obey within democratic settings. This paradox is clearly illustrated within the example of the Uk governments authority to use taxes to fund public services such as the NHS as it is justified through democratic mandates. Citizens have voted and therefore consented to the government dictating these decisions as they have given up their freedoms within a social contract. Therefore, they will obey to the rules of taxation those in power ( the UK government) have created, because they have consented to them being in power creating legitimacy. In contrast within authoritarian regimes where taxation exists but the power who decides this has not been consented by the people, they have the right to and may not obey the rules of the power, eliminating the legitimacy of the government. Therefore, power acquires legitimacy only within a democratic setting where those who are governed have chosen the leader and consented to giving up their individual freedoms on certain decisions and will therefore obey the decisions made instead by the power on their behalf.

On the other hand, one may argue that legitimacy may not be acquired by power through Weber’s two aspects of authority and within a democratic setting as those in power may emerge due to their charismatic authority. his challenges the main argument of this essay because if charisma alone can generate obedience, then traditional institutions and democratic consent may not be as fundamental to legitimacy as previously argued. This third type of authority that Weber’s explains is that leaders who have a strong personality which shines in speeches and has a personal charm can attract followers and make people want to be around them. Adolf Hitler is a Prime example of this as he created an image of a heroic saviour who had the vision of restoring Germany to its glory after World War One. He acquired millions of followers through his personality, despite him having initially little influence within the traditional political sphere and not being a member of a traditional mainstream political party. His power acquired legitimacy through charisma before he was given the traditional title as leader of Germany, and it was not given to him through democratic means. Yet whilst this argument holds some weight, it proves the fragility of charismatic legitimacy rather than its strength. Once Hitler became ruler, his regime-maintained obedience through coercion, and violence rather than through genuine belief in his authority. This aligns with Weber's own definition which requires that legitimacy rests on belief, not force. So, his regime actually lost legitimacy over time even as it gained more power. Beetham (1991) supports this critique, arguing that legitimacy built purely on personal belief without established institutional rules or consent is fundamentally unstable, because it offers no mechanism for sustaining authority once the charismatic figure loses their support or is removed. As such, charismatic authority may help power acquire legitimacy temporarily, but it cannot sustain it. Therefore, the most sustainable forms of legitimacy rest on traditional or legal-rational foundations that citizens have historically accepted, combined with democratic consent that gives the governed the ability to hold power accountable.

Overall, power acquires legitimacy through tradition, legal-rational institutions, and democratic consent. These each provide a reason for the governed to willingly obey. Weber’s framework remains integral in understanding how the legitimacy is not solely a single aspect but takes different forms with different meanings to them. The most stable political orders combine all three aspects, but democratic consent is also key in offering a strong foundation. This is as it provides citizens the power to withdraw legitimacy if authority is abused.