Marx talks about three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. Traditional authority refers to authority that comes from customs in family, cultural, or religious institutions. So this is anything that has been around “forever, and the continuing of things as they have always been. The legitimacy of the authority comes from the beliefs of the followers. Charismatic revers to authority that someone has because of the way they carry themselves, but this only applies when their group of followers defines them as “supernatural”, “superhuman”, or just has someone who is extraordinary. Without the followers their authority would not be legitimate. Rational- legal is the type of authority that is received from the position one is put in. So the followers do not care so much about who is in the position, but what position it is. The only way any of these authorities gets legitimized is through the followers, because without them these authoritative positions would not be existent. So the authority depends on the social relationships that are present within it.
In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. This had much support of the U.S. population because President George W. Bush insisted that there were weapons of mass destruction there and that the Iraqi people needed to be freed from the control of Sadam Hussein. Without the position of President of the United States, which also made Bush the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. This demonstrates a type of rational- legal positional authority. Without the votes of the U.S. population, Bush would not be in the presidential position, therefore not having legitimate authority to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Although many may not believe Bush to be a charismatic authority, it could be argued that he was. Without the backing of a large part of the U.S. population, who would be his “followers”, the invasion of Iraq would have been much harder to initiate. Many U.S. citizens considered what Bush was doing and saying to be legitimate, so they were supportive.
What really demonstrates how Bush’s authority was legitimized was of how many of the things that Bush stated to be in Iraq were not actually there or true. So because of whom he was made to be by the U.S. population, and his position, Bush was able to initiate the invasion of Iraq. Bush, like many charismatic leaders, was able to convince the U.S. population that all of these things were going on and what was necessary, and they backed him on it. Desmond Tutu has stated that he thinks Bush should pay for his role in what has happened in Iraq. He talks about how the main claim of there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the main reason why the war there was backed, but no weapons were ever found. He also discusses how the destruction that has occurred in Iraq and to its people in addition to all the U.S. soldiers killed and injured, that Bush needs to answer for it. So when looking at this situation, it is obvious that leaders that have legitimized authority, whether it be traditional, charismatic, or rational-legal may not always be doing the best thing. It is only because their followers have legitimized their authority that they are able to do the things that they do. It could be said that many leaders like Bush with any type of authority take advantage of the power that they have to do things that are not necessarily good.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/world/europe/desmond-tutu-oped
In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. This had much support of the U.S. population because President George W. Bush insisted that there were weapons of mass destruction there and that the Iraqi people needed to be freed from the control of Sadam Hussein. Without the position of President of the United States, which also made Bush the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. This demonstrates a type of rational- legal positional authority. Without the votes of the U.S. population, Bush would not be in the presidential position, therefore not having legitimate authority to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Although many may not believe Bush to be a charismatic authority, it could be argued that he was. Without the backing of a large part of the U.S. population, who would be his “followers”, the invasion of Iraq would have been much harder to initiate. Many U.S. citizens considered what Bush was doing and saying to be legitimate, so they were supportive.
What really demonstrates how Bush’s authority was legitimized was of how many of the things that Bush stated to be in Iraq were not actually there or true. So because of whom he was made to be by the U.S. population, and his position, Bush was able to initiate the invasion of Iraq. Bush, like many charismatic leaders, was able to convince the U.S. population that all of these things were going on and what was necessary, and they backed him on it. Desmond Tutu has stated that he thinks Bush should pay for his role in what has happened in Iraq. He talks about how the main claim of there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the main reason why the war there was backed, but no weapons were ever found. He also discusses how the destruction that has occurred in Iraq and to its people in addition to all the U.S. soldiers killed and injured, that Bush needs to answer for it. So when looking at this situation, it is obvious that leaders that have legitimized authority, whether it be traditional, charismatic, or rational-legal may not always be doing the best thing. It is only because their followers have legitimized their authority that they are able to do the things that they do. It could be said that many leaders like Bush with any type of authority take advantage of the power that they have to do things that are not necessarily good.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/world/europe/desmond-tutu-oped