POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

PREPARED BY: RIZALYN G.ALEGRE

 BANDS

 Bands and tribes are considered as the simplest political systems.

 They are often perceived to be “acephalous” or without a well-defined system
of leadership.

Band – is typically formed by several families living together based on marriage ties,
common descendants, friendship affiliations, and members usually have a
common interest, or enemy.
- The power structure within a band is less hierarchical as member families are
seen to be equal and there is no class differentiation based on wealth.
- The main source of integration is kinship either by blood or affinity.
 BANDS

 There is evidence that women have higher influence in bands that are considered
pedestrian-foragers (gatherers), while men tend to end up having more leadership roles in
bands whose livelihoods depends on hunting, or in pastoralist-agricultural bands where food
is produces by cultivating the land.
 Informal leadership is accorded to members who possess certain skills and knowledge such
as the gift of memory, hunting or healing skills, or those other special ability.
 As band increase in size, the tendency for conflict increases, which lead to the band
splitting along family lines. This process is known as “band fissioning.” Eventually, this could to
some leaving the band to form their own, which is referred to as “social velocity.”
 A band that survives fissioning and social velocity, even as it experiences increasing
population and a shift from a foraging and hunting community, to one where there is now a
presence of multiple communities engaged in pastoral or horticultural forms of livelihood,
eventually becomes a tribe.
 TRIBES

 A tribe is still considered an acephalous political system, even it is more complex than a band.
This complexity results from the fact that the source of integration is no longer simply by informal
forms of leadership presiding to govern kinship ties or friendship, but by a more elaborate way of
organizing to settle conflicts to prevent the society from breaking apart.
 The manners by which tribes are organized is through the presence of pantribal associations, or
what anthropologists refer to as “solidarities.” These come in the form of councils or tribal elders.
 Tribes are often headed by a village headman, even though such a role does not have absolute
political power.
 A village headman derives his authority from having a senior position, coupled with an ability to
force others to obey him.
 Most tribes remain egalitarian, where families and groups are considered politically and
economically equal, even those of the headmen.
 CHIEFDOMS

 Chiefdom defined as a political organization that is more defined.

 Formal leadership exists and authority rests solely on the members of a select
family.
 It is composed of a number of communities that is rules by a permanent
chiefdoms.
 The social structure in chiefdoms is hierarchical. Social classes exist and are
differentiated according to the level of their power in relation to the permanent
ruler.
 CHIEFDOMS CAN EITHER BE SIMPLE OR COMPLEX

Simple Chiefdom – is characterized by a central village or community ruled by a single

family. A number of smaller communities surround this smaller community, with each being
headed by subsidiary leader subservient to the central ruler.

Complex Chiefdom – is composed of several simple chiefdoms ruled by a single

paramount chief residing in a single paramount center.
- This is a highly structured and hierarchical political system characterized by a class system
where the elites demand tributes in the form of agricultural crops and produce from the
commoners to a system that is called “tributary system.” Lesser chiefs are then obliged to
give tribute to the paramount chief. In return, the paramount chief carries out rituals and
performs functions over which he has sole authority, such as the conduct of symbolic
redistribution of material goods, and the awarding of titles and other symbolic rewards.
 NATIONS AND STATES

Benedict Anderson – considers a nation as imagined in the sense that nations

can exist as a state of mind, where the material expressions seen in actual
residence in a physical territory becomes secondary to the common imagined
connections emanating from a common history and identity. Thus even if
people may be scattered in different places, they have this self-consciousness
that they belong to a particular nationality.
Paul James – consider a nation as abstract. He argues that a nation is
objectively impersonal even if each individual is able to identify with others. This
argument however may not be true for Filipinos, as Filipinos identify strongly
with other Filipinos, especially when the are in other countries.
 NATION

 A nation, despite its being historically constituted and having a common

sense of identification among its members, as well as the consciousness of
having the potential to be autonomous, nevertheless does not possess
political sovereignty.
 Nation is a cultural or ethnic concept, which may consist of one or more
states.
 Philippines is a nation. The Philippines are a nation that is made up of a
large number of islands located off the mainland of Asia.
 STATE

 Is a political unit consisting of a government that has sovereignty presiding over a group
of people and well-defined territory. It is thus the highest form of political organization.
 State is political and legal concept, which may consist of one or more nations.
 AUTHORITY vis-à-vis LEGITIMACY

 AUTHORITY Is the power to make binding decisions and issue commands. It is

necessary for a leader to possess authority. What makes authority binding and
worthy of obedience is its legitimacy.

 LEGITIMACY is a moral and ethical concept that bestows one who possesses
power the right to exercise such power since is perceived to be justified and
proper.
 Is not automatically acquired just because one has the authority. This occurs when
the authority was obtained through improper means such as through violence or
when one commits cheating in an election, or when one is perceived to be
undeserving of power due to lack of qualifications.
 WEBER AND THE TYPES OF LEGITIMATE
AUTHORITY
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY – whose legitimacy is derived from well-established customs,
habits, and social structures.
Ex. Monarchical rule or the rule of elites in chiefdom
CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY - whose legitimacy emanates from the charisma of the individual,
which for some can be seen as a “gift of grace,” or the possession of “gravitas” or an
authority derived from a “higher power,” such as those that are associated with the divine
right of kings.
Ex. Religious leaders and popular icons such as movie actors.
RATIONAL-LEGAL OR BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITY – this kind of authority draws its legitimacy
from formal rules promulgated by the state through its fundamental and implementing
laws. This is the most dominant way of legitimizing authority in modern states, and this is from
where government officials draw their power.
Reference: UNDERSTANDING CULTURE, SOCIETY, AND
POLITICS PAGES 176-181, BY ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS, PHD,
ARLEIGH ROSS D. DELA CRUZ, PHD, DENNIS S. ERASCA, PHD,
CECILE C. FADRIGON, PHD CAND.
PROJECT DIRECTOR: RONALDO B. MACTAL, PHD.

FOR MORE UPDATES. DON’T FORGET TO SUBSCRIBE! THANK

YOU!