RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW

PATIALA, PUNJAB

MAX WEBER’S THEORY OF AUTHORITY

POLITICAL SCIENCE(MINOR)

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

SAURAV SARMAH VISHAL KUMAR

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF 17157

POLITICAL SCIENCE GROUP:- 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
i. MAX WEBER
ii. GENERAL DEFINITON OF AUTHORITY
iii. HISTORY OF CONCEPT OF AUTHORITY
2. THEORY OF AUTHORITY
i. TYPES OF AUTHORITY
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY
CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY
LEGAL RATIONAL AUTHORITY
3. POWER
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER AND AUTHORITY
4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
5. CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION

Max Weber

Max Weber was a German sociologist, philosopher, jurist and a political economist. He was
born in 1864 and died in 1920. During his lifespan he gave many sociological and political
thoughts and theories. In political science the major contributions of Weber are “Politics as a
vocation”, he further gave the definition of state as “the entity that posses a monopoly on the
legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” 1. Weber said that politics is the way
of sharing states power between various groups and political leaders are those who wield this
power. Weber also gave the three types of ideal political leadership also known as theory of
domination, legitimisation or authority.

GENERAL DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY

Authority is that the legitimate or socially approved use of power that an individual or a
bunch holds over another. Legitimacy is significant to the notion of authority; legitimacy is
the main means by which authority is distinguished from additional general notions of
power. Power will be exerted by the utilization of force or violence. Authority, against this,
depends on subordinate teams willing to the utilization of power wielded by superior teams.

Weber defines authority as legitimate types of domination, that is, types of domination that
followers or subordinates fancy to be legitimate. Legitimate doesn't essentially imply any
sense of rationality, right, or natural justice. Rather, domination is legitimate once the
subordinate settle for, obey, and think about domination to be fascinating, or a minimum of
endurable and not value difficult. it's not such a lot the actions of the dominant that make this,
however, rather the disposition of these United Nations agency subordinate to believe the
legitimacy of the claims of the dominant.

1
Gauba, O. P: An introduction to political theory(Macmillan India,1981)
HISTORY OF CONCEPT OF AUTHORITY

Expert as the one, if not the conclusive, factor in human groups did not generally exist,
however it can think back on a long history, and the encounters on which this idea is based
are not really display in all bodies politic. The word and the idea are Roman in cause. Neither
the Greek dialect nor the changed political encounters of Greek history demonstrates any
learning of expert and the sort of administer it infers. This is communicated most obviously
in the logic of Plato and Aristotle, who, in very unique routes yet from the same political
encounters, attempted to acquaint something associated with specialist into the general
population life of the Greek polis. There existed two sorts of lead on which they could fall
back and from which they inferred their political rationality, one known to them from general
society political domain, and the other from the private circle of Greek family and family life.
To the surveys, total lead was known as oppression, and the main attributes of the dictator
were that he led by sheer savagery, must be shielded from the general population by a
protector, and demanded that his subjects tend to their very own concerns and leave to him
the care of the general population domain. The last trademark, in Greek general assessment,
connoted that he devastated the general population domain of the polis through and through a
polis having a place with one man is no polis and in this manner denied the natives of that
political staff which they felt was the very substance of flexibility. Another political
experience of the requirement for order and acquiescence may have been given by the
involvement in fighting, where risk and the need to settle on and complete choices rapidly
appear to constitute a natural purpose behind the foundation of specialist. Neither of these
political models, in any case, could fill the need. The despot stayed, for Plato concerning
Aristotle, the scoundrel, and the military administrator was too clearly associated with a
transitory crisis to have the capacity to fill in as model for a changeless foundation.

THEORY OF AUTHORITY

Max Weber gave the three types of authorities in his essay “The three types of
legitimate rules”. He said that “in a legitimate dominion of any type legitimacy is based on
belief and elicits obedience”2.

The theory of authority can be ordered by those acting subjects to it in following

ways:-

1. By the virtue of tradition, a belief in the legitimacy of what has already existed.
2. By virtue of effectual attitudes.
3. By virtue of rational belief in its absolute value.
4. Because it has been established in a manner which is recognised to be legal, this
legality is treated as legitimate in either of the two ways :-
i. It may be derived from the voluntary agreement of the interested parties on the
relevant terms.
ii. It may be imposed on the basis of what is held to be legitimate authority over
the relevant person and a corresponding claim to their obedience.3

Weber said that the basis of every system of authority and correspondingly of every kind of
willingness to obey, “is a belief by virtue of which persons exercising authority are lent
prestige.”

Weber’s classification of the type of authority is regarded as the basis of a noble investigation
of the nature of authority in contemporary civilisation.

2
Johari, J. C, Principles of Modern Political Science, Delhi, Sterling Publishers,1989, PP 271
3
Ibid2
TYPES OF AUTHORITY

Weber gave three types of legitimate authorities:-

I. TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY

Traditional authority is derived from the long established customs, habits and
social structures. When power passes from one generation to another it is called
traditional authority. Traditional monarchs rule for their whole lifetime. The right to
rule neither change with time nor it brings out any social change, it tends to be
irrational and inconsistent. Weber has said, “the creation of new laws in this type of
authority is almost impossible”4. This type of authority is thought of to be as
legitimate as it has always existed and had been accepted by earlier societies.

Traditional authority starts to decline as:-

i. Society starts industrialising.

ii. The way of living and beliefs of people starts changing.
iii. The people starts thinking scientifically.

We can find examples of traditional authority among some of the tribes and small
groups. There are still some hereditary rulers in places like United Kingdom,
Malaysia etc. who claim a traditional right to rule their state. But, their power over the
society has been minimised and are regulated by some other authorities who are
selected by the citizens of the state.

4
Williams, Dana(2003), Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic Authority, sociological theory
sociology3850:560
CASE STUDY

MEWAR EMPIRE

The ruling family of Mewar(Rajasthan) is the perfect example of traditional authority.

The Mewar empire consisted of the south-central region of Rajasthan. It consisted of

the present districts of Rajasthan like Bhilwara, chittorgarh, Rajsamand, Udaipur,
jhalawar and districts like Neemuch, Mandsaur of Madhya Pradesh and some parts of
gujrat.

In the past the state of Mewar was used to be ruled by Chitrang Gori. In the year 734
A.D. Rawal Bappa defeated Chitrang Gori and established Gahlot empire in Mewar.
He ruled till 735A.D, after which his descendents ruled the state of Mewar until the
state of Mewar mixed up with Indian territory after India got independence
in1947.During the period of 1734 to 1400 the empire does not got so much glory or
extended its boundaries. But after the ruling period of Maharana Mokul, which lasted
from 1421 to 1433 A.D. the empire starts glorifying. Maharana Mokal was the 40 th
ruler of his family. After him the rulers who ruled the mewar state are as follow5:-

 Maharana Kumbha (1433-1468)

 Maharana Sangram Singh(1509-1527)
 Maharana Udai Singh II(1537-1572)
 Maharana Pratap Singh(1572-1597)
 Maharana Amar singh(1597-1620)
 Rana Karan Singh(1620-1628)
 Maharana Jagat Singh(1628-1654)
 Maharana Raj Singh(1653-1680)
 Maharana Jai Singh(1698-1710)
 Maharana Amar Singh II(1698-1710)
 Maharana Sangram Singh II(1710-1734)
 Maharana Jagat Singh II(1734-1751)
 Maharana Pratap Singh II(1752-1755)
 Maharana Raj Singh II(1755-1762)
 Maharaja Ari Singh II(1761-1773)
 Maharaja Hamir Singh II(1772-1778)

5
Available at, http://www.eternalmewarblog.com/rulers-of-mewar/, acccesed on 27.08.2017
  Maharaja Bhim Singh(1778-1828)
 Maharaja Jawan Singh(1828-1838)
 Maharaja Sambhu Singh(1861-1874)
 Maharana Sajjan Singh(1874-1884)
 Maharana Fateh Singh(1884-1930)
 Maharana Bhopal Singh(1930-1955)
 Maharana Bhagwat Singh(1955-1984)

Mewar became a princely state in the 19th century under British rule. After India got
independence the state of Mewar merged with the state of Rajasthan. In 1971, after the
abolition privy purse (a payment made to the royal families of princely states as a part of their
agreement to integrate with independent India) the way of

As we can see that only the family members of the previous rulers are preceding over
the throne and the authority is being passed from one generation to another so it can be
said that traditional authority is being followed in the by the Mewar empire.
 II. CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY

Charismatic authority is found in a leader whose missions and visions inspire others. It
is based on the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual6. Charisma
means ‘gift of grace’ in Greek7. It is a non-rational and dynamic type of authority. It is
temporary in nature. Charismatic authority can be found in the leader who can inspire
others by his missions and visions. It depends upon the person’s personality. The leader
must have a skill to turn the audience into his follower. He must contain the skill to
convince people to do things which he asks them to do and has authority over them.
Charismatic leaders may be found in any spheres of social life like religious prophets,
political leaders or military heroes. Charismatic leaders are revolutionary they mostly
come into picture at the time of crisis and political instability. “Weber regarded
charismatic authority as inherently unstable. This is because, since the authority rests
with an individual and not a set of rules, the death of this individual, or his/her loss of
authority, will immediately lead to instability”.8Weber was in favour charismatic
authority. India’s liberator Mahatma Gandhi, US civil rights leader Martin Luther king
Jr, Adolf Hitler, Mother Teresa etc. are the perfect examples of charismatic authority.

6
Williams, Dana(2003), “Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic Authority”, sociological
theory sociology3850:560
7
Johari, J. C, Principles of Modern Political Science, Delhi, Sterling Publishers,1989
8
Robert Garner, Peter Ferdinand, Stephanie Lawson, Introduction to Politics, Oxford University Press ,Italy
2009
 CASE STUDY
Mahatma Gandhi is considered as one of the most charismatic leader of our
country. Despite being an average looking man and belonging to a middle class
family, he managed to unite all the Indians and fought for its independence. It
was all possible because of his charismatic ideologies and thoughts. He showed
the right way and gave positive thoughts to the people. He fought non violently to
the British rule in India making satyagrah, salt march, civil disobedience etc as
his weapons. The charismatic ideologies of Gandhi make it possible that people
gathered together and supported these movements. Since, Gandhi was devoted
towards his home land and towards its people and was even ready to die for them
so people started believing and supporting him9.
According to Helpert, the dimensions of charisma are10:-
a. Transformational leadership
Transformational leaders always have higher value principles like equality,
freedom peace etc. Gandhi Ji for his entire life followed these values and took
stand for it. Because of this leadership style many people follow him till date.
b. Idealised Influence
This nature arouses active and powerful follower emotions and identifications
among the leaders. Gandhiji successfully motivated and influenced people
and used to practice what he preached.
c. Intellectual stimulation
This character creates the consideration of people about the issues and helps
them to think about the problems from a different angle. Gandhi ji always
inspired his followers to think about the situation broadly and ask queries
without any hesitation.
d. Indivisualised Consideration
This character means the quality of being the support of the follower, giving
them training and inspiring them. Gandhi ji always used to listen to his
followers’ problems patiently and inspired them to overcome their problems.

9
Available at, www.mkgandhi.org/articles/bapu-leader-of-leaders.html, accessed on 28.08.2017
10
Available at, https://studymoose.com/charismatic-leadership-style-of-mahatma-gandhi-essay, accessed on
28.08.2017
We can see from the life of Mahatma Gandhi that how a ordinary man transformed himself
into a charismatic leader. His life shows us how at the time of crisis and of political instability
a charismatic leader came into picture. His way of protesting non violently was so famous
that it is used in present generation also to show protest against something. These qualities
gave the title of ‘Mahatma’and ‘bapu’ to Gandhi11.

III. LEGAL-RATIONAL AUTHORITY

This type of authority is derived from the status of an office as a part of a

system of constitutional rules in a democratic country, or s religious document such as
Quran in Islamic regimes.12It is based on a belief in the legality patterns of normative
rules.13In a legal authority ‘the legitimacy of the ruler to issue order is based upon the
rules that are rationally established by enactment, by agreement or by
imposition.’14Weber has stated that, “submission under legal authority is based upon
an impersonal bond to the generally defined and functional ‘duty of office’”. 15The
power of legal-rational authority is derived from the system of bureaucracy and
legality.16This type of authority system is dominating these days and is the most
efficient one. This system is characterised by rationality and legality. The system is
rational because the means are expressly designed to achieve certain goals. The
system is legal, because the authority is exercised by means of a system of rules and
procedures through the office which the individual occupies at a particular time. “This
system consists of many parts like that of a machine and every part must have to
perform its function efficiently to make sure that the system runs efficiently. A nation
which follows a constitution is said to be following this type of authority. On a
smaller scale this type of authority can be found in workplaces like school class
rooms, offices etc where certain rules and regulations are followed and work is done

11
Available at, http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/voices-for-human-rights/champions/mahatma-
gandhi.html accessed on 28.08.2017
12
Robert Garner, Peter Ferdinand, Stephanie Lawson, Introduction to Politics, Oxford University Press ,Italy
2009
13
Johari, J. C, Principles of Modern Political Science, Delhi, Sterling Publishers,1989
14
Gupta, R. L, “Political theory”
15
Ibid14
16
Available at, http://www.preservearticles.com/2012031427334/what-do-you-mean-by-legal-rational-
authority.html, accessed on 28.08.2017
 following them. The police officers, classroom teachers, security guards follow a
rational-legal authority”17.

CASE STUDY

BUREAUCRACY

Bureaucracy is the best example of the rational-legal authority. It is a type of system in which
most of the important decisions are taken by government official or the bureaucrats rather
than the elected personals. In this system there is a clear hierarchy of authority, there is a
division of labour among the persons, it works according to the set of written rules and
regulations. Police officers, postal workers, city employees, and many other people who hold
low-level government positions are all part of our bureaucracy18. In modern administrative
system of India bureaucracy plays an important role.

Bureaucracy in India is considered to have the following characteristics19:-

 too large and slow.

 extremely rigid and mechanical.
 consequently not flexible and adaptive to cope with change.
 not innovative and enterprising.
 low motivation and low morale.
 accountability is low.
 not democratic.
 lack of expertise.

17
Williams, Dana(2003), “Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic Authority”, sociological
theory sociology3850:560
18
Available at, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bureaucracy.html accessed on 28.08.2017
19
Available at, http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/articles/ncsxna/index.php?repts=ias-
nird.htm#_Toc397313573, accessed on 28>08.2017
Hierarchy in Indian bureaucracy20:-

A. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
It consists of the following-
i. The president (the head of state)
ii. The vice-president
iii. The cabinet
B. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
i. The president of India
ii. Rajya Sabha(upper house)
iii. Lok Sabha(lower house)
C. CIVIL SERVICES(CALLED THE PERMANENT BEUROCRACY OF INDIA)
i. Cabinet Secretary-chairman of civil services
ii. All India services-IAS, IFS, IPS
iii. Central civil services

D.JUDICIAL BRANCH

i. The Supreme court

ii. State high court

iv. district court

v. public interest litigation
E. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
i. central government
ii. state government or local government

As we can see the power is distributed among the above hierarchies so a particular
decision deals with a lots of check and improvements and the power does not
accumulates to a particular person or with a particular departments. There are also
some of the demerits of this type of system like a particular decision making passes
through a lot checks and improvement so it takes a lot of time to be put into action.
Despite all of the demerits bureaucracy which comes under rational legal authority is
thought of to be as the best system of governance.

20
Available at , http://www.hierarchystructure.com/indian-political-hierarchy/, accessed on 28.08.2017
 POWER

According to Wiseman, “power is the ability to get one’s wishes carried out despite
opposition”.21
According to Guild and Palmer, “power is the ability to affect or control the decision,
policies, values or fortunes of other.”22
Friedrich says, “power is not primarily a thing, a possession but rather a relation”.
Wasby says, “power is generally thought to involve the bringing about of an action by
someone against the will or desire of another.”

Characteristics of power:-
i. Power is a relational concept and not a personal characteristic. It is exercised
with respect to another, i.e. for someone to exercise power there must be
someone over which power can be exercised.
ii. Power is bilateral as well as relational.
iii. Power is situational. The exercise of power depends on the position/role of the
person concerned.
iv. It is not always possible to identify person who hold the real power
v. Power is not hierarchical in nature.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER AND AUTHORITY23

POWER AUTHORITY
Power is ability or charisma of a person Authority is the rights of person to make
to influence others a decision or to command
Power can flow in any direction. Authority flows downward in the system.

Power need not to be official Authority is official.

Power can be used indiscriminately Authority acts equally for everyone

Power does not depends on the position. Authority depend upon the position of the
Even a person at lower position may person in an organisation, i.e higher the
enjoy the power which can influence the position is the bigger the authority will be
people at higher positions.

21
Gupta, R. L, “Political theory”
22
Gupta, R. L, “Political theory”
23
Available at, http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-power-and-authority.html, accessed on
28.08.2017
 It does not follow any hierarchy. It is hierarchical in nature.

It is not legitimate. It is legitimate

CASE STUDY24

The role of Supreme Court in USA is a good example of the distinction between power and
authority. It is seen as the most powerful arm of American political system as it has
established rights to declare the actions of executive and legislative branches as
unconstitutional which means that the decisions of elected body can be overshadowed by
unelected body. The members of the supreme court are selected by the president which are
further confirmed by the senate and after the confirmation from senate they remain as the
member of supreme court throughout their lifetime. They can be removed in middle only if
they are found guilty for any wrong doing.

It is always thought if the power of Supreme Court is worrying or not, in a democratic

politics. The court has taken many of the important decisions relating to controversial issues
like that of race, abortion, capital punishment and many more but still they are not the elected
bodies.

The above claim makes it necessary to distinguish between power and authority. So it is
important to note that the supreme court has no army or police force to enforce its decisions.
So in order to enforce its decisions without any threat of coercion, the court depends upon
other authorities. In other word it has authority but no power. If the Supreme Court made any
decision that is varied from public opinion and not acceptable by them, it would lose its
authority and therefore its legitimacy. Therefore, Supreme Court justice is constrained by the
need to remain an authoritative institution in American polity.

24
Robert Garner,Peter Ferdinand, Stephanie Lawson, Introduction to Politics, Oxford University Press ,Italy
2009, PP 49.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
THOUGHTS OF DIFFERENT SCHOLARS25
Max weber always used to get criticised for supporting a neutral approach in social science
and for thereby denying to man, in the words of Leo Strauss, “any science, empirical or
rational, any knowledge scientific or philosophic of the true value system “. On the other
hand Carl Friedrich says that “Weber’s ideal type analysis lead him to introduce value
judgements into discussion of such issues as bureaucracy”. It is the characteristic of Weber
work that it can be criticised oppositely, not only in this respect but also others.

According to P. M Blau Weber’s focus on type of legitimacy made him to believe of the
existence of legitimate authority for granted and never systematically examined the structural
conditions under which it emerges out of other forms of power. Another problems that Blau
stated is about the specific referent of Weber’s concept of authority. He states that when
Weber gave the definitions, he seemed to refer to authority in interpersonal relations.

Weber’s analysis of different authority goes in different directions in each case.:-

In his analysis of traditional authority, he focuses mainly on the differences between subtypes
i.e. between patrimonialism and feudalism.

In his analysis of charismatic authority, Weber does not focused on different sub-types or
past incidents, inspite he focussed mainly on subsequent developments. He found detailed
ways by which charisma seemed to be routinized with the passage of time and converted into
traditional or bureaucratic institution.

In his elaboration of legal authority, Weber seemed to be dealing with both the historical
conditions that led toits development and with its use for subsequent developments, but again
there was a difference in focus. In his illustration of charismatic authority, his focus was
mainly with the transformation into other system. In his illustration of legal-rational authority
however his concern diverged and he focussed mainly on the ways in which this system takes
plaace in all institutions and become more followed throughout the society.

25
Blau, P.M. (1963). Critical remarks on Weber’s theory ofauthority. The American Political Science Review,
57(2): 305-316
CONCLUSION

In this project I have studied about the life of Max weber and came to know about the
sociological and political theories which he had given. His major theories includes, “politics
as a vocation”, “the definition of the state” and “theory of authority”.

I studied the Theory of Authority in detail, which is of three types which are traditional
authority, charismatic authority and legal-rational authority. From the study I came to know
about the definition of authority and also the definitions of its three type which are traditional,
charismatic and legal rational authority.

I came to know about the definition and examples of traditional authority like the rulers of
United kingdom, Malaysia etc. Further I have done case study on the ruling family of Mewar
in which I saw how only the blood relatives of the rulers got the chance to rule.

Further I knew about the definition of charismatic authority and its example which included
charismatic leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa etc. I have done a case study on
Mahatma Gandhi in which I studied about his charismatic qualities etc.

In the study of legal-rational authority I came to know about its definitions and examples. and
further done a case study on how bureaucracy function in India.

I further came to know about the definition of power as given by different scholars and also
the characteristics of power. I further studied about the difference between power and
authority. I also have done a case study on supreme court of USA which shows the difference
between power and authority.