In politics, authority (Latin auctoritas, used in Roman law as opposed to potestas and imperium) is often used interchangeably with the term "power". However, their meanings differ: while "power" refers to the ability to achieve certain ends, "authority" refers to a claim of legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that power. For example, whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, such as through lynching, many people consider only the courts have the authority to order capital punishment.
Since the emergence of social sciences, authority has been a subject of research in a variety of empirical settings; the family (parental authority), small groups (informal authority of leadership), intermediate organizations such as schools, churches, armies, industries and bureaucracies (organizational and bureaucratic authority) and society-wide or inclusive organizations ranging from the most primitive tribal society to the modern nation-state and intermediate organization (political authority).
The jurisdiction of political authority, the location of sovereignty, the balancing of freedom and authority (cf. Cristi, 2005), and the requirements of political obligations have been core questions for political philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to the present.
Most religions have always considered God or the gods as the supreme authority. All the religious scriptures have considered God to have authority and wisdom that are infinitely superior to any human authority or wisdom. The source or reason behind this authority usually involves tremendous power and compassion along with primacy in the physical and spiritual realms. That which is divine is usually thought of as the creator and therefore superior to ordinary creatures.
Divinity, as presented in the religious scriptures, makes claim to the final authority for all truth and reality, and provides rules and directions for the use of creation. The question of authority in such a system is "what does God want from me and how do I know this?" Within varying religious traditions, the answer may come from a venerated set of scriptures such as the Bible, the Quran, or Bhagavad Gita, or may come from a living person, such as a priest or philosopher. The written scriptures offer an opportunity for readers to consider information, determine if it is underwritten authoritatively, and then determine to obey. Obedience is the essence of human action toward authority.
For example, the act of observing the communion or the Lord's supper comes from direct divine command. Jesus directly states to His disciples that they are to partake of this examination (found in the Gospels and rehearsed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians); there is an example of an apostle and others participating in this act of worship and obedience in the Book of Acts.St.Jude Catholic school.
Max Weber, in his sociological work, identified and distinguished three types of legitimate domination (Herrschaft in German, which generally means 'domination' or 'rule') that have sometimes been rendered in English translation as types of authority, because domination isn't seen as a political concept in the first place. Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of people. Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled. Weber divided legitimate authority into three types:
The first type discussed by Weber is Rational-legal authority. It is that form of authority which depends for its legitimacy on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down, and are often very complex. The power of the rational legal authority is mentioned in the constitution. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority. Government officials are the best example of this form of authority which is prevalent all over the world.
The second type of authority is Traditional authority, which according to him derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another then it is known as traditional authority. The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example. There are several examples in this regard. The Tudors in England, and the ruling families of Mewar in Rajasthan (India) are some examples of traditional authority.
The third form of authority is Charismatic authority. Here, the charisma of the individual or the leader plays an important role. Charismatic authority is that authority which is derived from "the gift of grace," or, when the leader claims that his authority is derived from a "higher power" (e.g. God or natural law or rights) or "inspiration" that is superior to both the validity of traditional and rational-legal authority, and followers accept this and are willing to follow this higher or inspired authority in the place of the authority that they have hitherto been following. Some of the most prominent examples of charismatic authority can be politicians or leaders who come from a movie or entertainment background. These people become successful because they use their grace and charm to get more votes during elections. Examples in this regard can be NT Rama Rao, a matinee idol who went on to become one of the most powerful Chief Ministers of Andhra Pradesh. History has witnessed several social movements or revolution against a system of traditional or legal-rational authority, which are usually started by Charismatic authority. What distinguishes authority from coercion, force, and power on the one hand and leadership, persuasion and influence on the other hand is legitimacy. Superiors feel that they have a right to issue commands; subordinates perceive an obligation to obey. Social scientists agree that authority is but one of several resources available to incumbents in formal positions. For example, a Head of State is dependent upon a similar nesting of authority. His legitimacy must be acknowledged not just by citizens but by those who control other valued resources: his immediate staff, his cabinet, military leaders and in the long run administration and political apparatus of the entire society.
Every state has a number of institutions which exercise authority based on longstanding practices. In India, the British created the institution of the Civil Service, which is still in place after 150 years. The Armed Forces of India is another institution which is subordinate to the government but is a very old and prominent institution. Apart from this, every state sets up agencies which are competent in dealing with one particular matter. All this is set up within its charter. One example can be that of a port authority like the Port of London Authority. They are usually created by special legislation and are run by a board of directors. Several agencies and institutions are also created along the same lines and they exercise autonomy in certain matters. They are also usually required to be self-supporting through property taxes or other forms of collection or fees for services.
The use of authority by contemporary social scientists is not dispute free. According to La swell and Kaplan, authority is formal power. But Friedrich rejected their definition and defined authority as the quality of a communication which is capable of reasoned elaboration. La swell and Kaplan believed that power is a form of influence whereas Friedrich maintained that influence is a kind of power, indirect and unstructured. According to him, it seems of unlimited value to pursue a definition of authority as a special case of power or influence. Social Scientists are by no means agreed on how the concept should be used. According to Michaels, in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, authority is the capacity, innate or acquired for exercising ascendancy over a group. But Kiersten's argues that authority is not a capacity, it is a relationship. It is sanctioned power, institutionalized power.
The jurisdiction of political authority is widely discussed in democractic societies, including the United States. The current Iraq war is a pertinent example of this. Because the Founding Fathers intended a system of checks and balances which ideally limits concentration of power in any one of the three branches, there is an ongoing discussion in U.S. politics regarding the legitimate extent of governmental authority in general. While there has been an ongoing trend toward consolidation of power in the federal government, and in the executive branch in particular, many critics argue that the Founders intended a system which afforded the populace with as much freedom as reasonable, and that government should limit its authority accordingly.