POLIT I CA L

LE A D E R S H I P
STR U C T U R E S
 1 . POLITICAL 2 . AUTHORITY AND
ORGANIZATION LEGITIMACY
A. BANDS A.AUTHORIY VIS-À-VIS
B. TRIBES LEGITIMACY
C. CHIEFDOMS B.TYPES OF LEGITIMATE
D. STATES AUTHORITY
• TRADITIONAL
• CHARISMATIC
• RATIONAL
 POLITICAL
ORGANIZATION
 Bands and
Tri b e s
B a n d s a n d tribes are c o n s i d e re d
a s t h e s i m p l e s t political s y s t e m s .
They are o f t e n p e rc e i v e d to b e
“ a c e p h a l o u s ” or without a well-
defined system of leadership.
 BAN
A band is typically formed by several
D living together based on
families marriage
ties, common descendants, friendship affiliations,
and members usually have a common
interest, orenemy. Thus, the main source of
integrationis kinship either blood or affinity.
The power structure within a band is less
hierarchical as member families are seen to be
equal.
 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 depend on
hunting, or in pastoralist-
agricultural bands where food
 Informal leadership is accorded to members
who possess certainskills and knowledge
such as the gift of memory, hunting or
healing skills, orthose other special ability.
For example, being a gifted speaker can
elevate a band member to the status of being an
informal leader. In any event, accession to the
status of informal leadership is reached by
consensus rather than by a formal process of
election. The small size of band enables this
relatively informal process. An informal leader
does not possess absolute political
 As the bandsincrease in size, the
tendencyfor conflict increases, which
lead to the band splitting along
family lines.
This process is known as “band
fissioning”. Eventually, this could lead to
some leaving the band to form their own,
which is referred as “social velocity”.
 Evidence suggests that while
food scarcity can be a trigger
for conflict, what usually leadsto
fissioning andeventual break-up isthe
presence of social discord
that the informalleadershipcould no
longer contain.
INUIT (Eskimo)
Dobe Jo/hoansi (!KUNG)
 TRIB
E A band
velocity,
that survives fissioning and
evenas it experiencesincreasing
social

population and a shift from a foraging and

hunting community, to one where there I
now a presence of multiple communities
engaged in pastoral or horticultural forms of
livelihood, eventually becomes a tribe.
A tribe is still considered an acephalous
political system, evenif it is more complex
thana band. This complexity results from
 The manner by which tribes are
organized is through the presence
of pantribal associations, or
what anthropologists refer toas
sodalites.
These come in the form of
councils of tribal leaders. It was
noticed that the emergence of
more complex ways of organizing a
tribe eventually led to the eventual
 H e ad ma n o f the
v i l l a g e o f Rusi r ani
Tribe are Juari
often by a village
headed
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 politicallyand economically
equal, even those of headmen.
Tribesare also seen economically
self-sufficient and are larger and
more integrated than bands.
However,contact with modern
societies led toeventual collapse of
SAMBIA
 CHIEFDO
A chiefdom is defined as a political organization
MIt is a formof hierarchical organization
that more defined.
in non- industrial societies usually based on kinship,
and in which formal leadership is monopolized
by the legitimate senior members of select families or
'houses'. These elites form a political-ideological aristocracy
relative to the general group.
A chiefdom is led bya highly ranked
incumbent of an inherited political role,
chief: chiefs lead because of their ascribed
 SIMPLE CHIEFDOM
Itis 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 a
 COMPLEX CHIEFDOM
It 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 commoner
to a system that is called “tributary system”.
 Lesser chiefare then obligedto give tribute to
the paramount chief. In return, the paramount
chiefcarries out rituals and performs functions
over which hehas sole authority,such as the
conduct of symbolic redistribution of material
goods, and the awarding of titles and other symbolic
rewards.
Researchshows that chiefdoms are highly unstable
and are prone to cycles of disintegration and
integration.
TROBIANDERS OF PAPUA NEW
GUINEA
 NATIONS AND STATES
The advent of modernityhas made the
process of consolidating different individuals
into one political community more difficult
and complex.
The expansion of chiefdoms was
punctuated by theircollapse. Out of the
breakdown of political organizations, what
emerged was the presence of groups of
 B e n e d i c t Anderson c onsi de rs a n a t i o n
a s “IMAGINED”
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
 P a u l J a m e s co ns i de rs a n a t i o n a s
“AB S TRACT”
Paul James
considers a nation as
“ABSTRACT”. Heargues
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 Filipino
 NATION

A nation, despite its

being historically constituted
and having a common sense of
identificationamong its
members,as well as the
consciousness of having
thee potential to be
autonomous, nevertheless do not
possess political sovereignty.
As such, it remains a political
entity that does not possess the status
of being recognized as an independent
political entity.
 STATE

A state is
apolitical unit
consisting ofa
government that
has sovereignty
presiding over a
group of
people and a well-
 NATION-STATE

When the
citizens o f a
state belong
to o n l y o n e
nation, such
state.
 However, the reality is that
thereare many states that govern
peoples who have different
cultural identities and who are
conscious of their being distinct.
Thus they become nations
within states. This become a
problem when these nations are
 It can also be argued that the
Moros in Mindanao are
technically considered as a nation
within the Philippine state since they
have adistinct cultural
identity and history. Hence, clearly
the Philippines could not be consider
as a nation-estate.
NATION
AND
S TATEZ
 1. The elements of State and Nation are
different:

The State has four elements—population, territory, government,

and sovereignty. In the absence of even one element, a State
cannot be really a State. A state is always characterise by all these
four elements. On the contrary, a nation is a group of people who
have a strong sense of unity and common consciousness.
Common territory, common race, common religion, common
language, common history, common culture and common political
aspirations are the elements which help the formation of a nation,
and yet none of these is an absolutely essential element. The
elements which go to build a nation keep on changing.
2. State is a Political Organization while Nation is a social,
cultural, psychological, emotional and political unity:

The State is a political organization which

fulfills the security and welfare needs of its
people. It is concerned with external human
actions. It is a legal entity. On the other hand,
a Nation is a united unit of population which is
full of emotional, spiritual and psychological
bonds. A nation has little to do with the
physical needs of the people.
3. Possession of a Definite Territory is essential for
the State but not for a Nation:

It is essential for each State to possess a fixed territory.

It is the physical element of the State. State is a
territorial entity. But for a nation territory is not an
essential requirement. A nation can survive even without
a fixed territory. Love of a common motherland acts as a
source of unity. For example, before 1948 the Jews were a
nation even though they had no fixed territory of their
own. When, in 1948, they secured a definite and defined
territory, they established the State of Israel.
 4. Sovereignty is essential for State but not for
Nation:

Sovereignty is an essential element of the State. It is the soul of the State.

In the absence of sovereignty, the State loses its existence. It is the element
of sovereignty which makes the state different from all other associations of
the people. It is not essential for a nation to possess sovereignty.
The basic requirement of a nation is the strong bonds of emotional unity
among its people which develop due to several common social cultural
elements. Before 1947, India was a nation but not a State because it did not
have sovereignty. (State = Nation + Sovereignty).
After her independence in 1947, India became a State because after the
end of British imperial rule it became a sovereign entity. However, each
nation always aspires to be sovereign and independent of the control of
every other nation.
 5. Nation can be wider than the State:

The State is limited to a fixed territory. Its boundaries can

increase or decrease but the process of change is always very
complex. However a nation may or may not remain within the
bounds of a fixed territory. Nation is a community based on
common ethnicity, history and traditions and aspirations.
Obviously its boundaries can easily extend beyond the
boundaries of the State. For example in a way the French nation
extends even to Belgium, Switzerland and Italy because people in
these countries belong to the same race to which the French claim
to belong.
6. There can be two or more Nationalities living
in one State:

There can be two or more than two nations

within a single State. Before the First World
War, Austria and Hungary were one State, but
two different nations. Most of the modern
states are multinational states.
7. Nation is more stable than State:

A nation is more stable than the State. When

sovereignty ends, the State dies, but not the nation. A
nation can survive even without sovereignty. For example,
after their defeat in the World War II, both Germany and
Japan lost their sovereign statuses and outside powers
began to control them. They ceased to exist as States. But
as nations they continued to live as nations, which after
some months regained their sovereign statuses and
became sovereign independent states.
 8. A State can be created while a Nation is always
the result of evolution:

A State can be created with the conscious endeavors of the

people. Physical elements play an important role in the birth of a
State. For example, after the Second World War, Germany got
divided into two separate states West Germany and East Germany.
But Germans remained emotionally as one nation.
Ultimately in Oct., 1990 the Germans again got united into a
single state. In 1947 Pakistan was created out of India as a separate
State. A nation is a unity of the people which emerges slowly and
steadily. N o special efforts go into the making of a nation.
 9. The State uses police power (force) for preserving its unity and
integrity, the Nation is bound by strong cultural and historical links:

State has police power. Those who dare to disobey it are punished by the
state. A nation does not have police power or force or coercive power. It is
backed by moral, emotional and spiritual power. A nation survives on the power
of sense of unity of the people. A nation appeals, the State orders; a nation
persuades, a States coerces; and a nation boycotts, the State punishes. State is a
political organization, while the nation is a unity.
State and nation do not have the same boundaries, and yet there is a
tendency for a nation and state to be one. Most of the nations today stand
organized into different states. Most of the modern States are multinational
States. The modern state is called a nation-state because all the (nationalities)
living in one state stand integrated into one nation.
 A state continuously pursues the objective of
national- integration. The State tries to secure this
objective by securing a willing blending of the
majority nationality and all the minority
nationalities, through collective living, sharing of all
the ups and the downs in common and development
of strong emotional, spiritual and psychological
bonds. Unity in diversity or more really, unity in
plurality stands accepted as the guiding principle by
all the modern civilized multinational states like
India, USA, Russia, China, Britain and others.
LEGITIMACY
AND
AUTHORITY
 The t a s k of o rg a n i z i n g a political
c o m m u n i t y requires t h e e x i s t e n c e
of l e a d e r s . L e a d e r s , in order to b e
e ff e c t i v e , n e e d to p o s s e s s authority
t h a t is c o n s i d e r e d l e g i t i m a t e b y t h e
m e m b e r s of t h e c om m u n i ty.
 LEGITIMACY
AUTHORITY-is t h e power to m a k e b i n d i n g
d e c i s i o n s a n d i s s u e c o m m a n d s . It i s n e c e s s a r y for a
l e a d e r to p o s s e s s authority. What m a k e s authority
b i n d i n g a n d worthy of o b e d i e n c e is its l e g i t ima c y.
LEGITIMACY- is a m o r a l a n d e t h i c a l c o n c e p t
t h a t b e s t o w s o n e who p o s s e s s e s power t h e right to
exercise s u c h power s i n c e s u c h i s p e r c e i v e d to b e
just ifi ed a n d proper.
 Legitimacy i s not automatically a c q u i re d
j u s t b e c a u s e o n e h a s authority. This oc c ur s
w h e n t h e authority w a s o b t a i n e d t h ro u g h
improper m e a n s s u c h a s t h ro u g h v i o l e n c e or
w h e n o n e commits c h e a t i n g in a n election, or
w h e n o n e i s p e rc e i v e d to b e u n d e r s t a n d i n g
o f p ower d u e to l a c k o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .
Hence, for authority to b e b i n d i n g a n d
s t a b l e , it m u s t b e legitimate.
 WEBER AND THE TYPES OF
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

M a x Weber i d e nt i f i e s three t y p e s o f
authority b a s e d o n t h e s o u rc e o f their
legitimacy, t h e traditional authority, t h e
charismati c authority a n d t h e rational
l e g a l authority.
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY

Legitimacy i s d e r i v e d from well-

e s t a b l i s h e d c u s t o m s , h a b i t s , a n d soci al
structures . Monarchical rule or t h e rule o f
elit es in a c h i e f d o m are e x a m p l e s o f
l e a d e r s h i p s y s t e m s that h a v e traditional
authority.
CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY
Legitimacy e m a n a t e s from the c h a r i s m a
o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , w h i c h for s o m e c a n b e
s e e n a s a “ g i f t o f g r a c e ” , or t h e
p o s s e s s i o n o f “ g r a v i t a s ” or a n authority
d e r i v e d from a “ h i g h e r p o w e r ” , s u c h a s
t h o s e t ha t a re a s s o c i a t e d wi t h t h e right
of Kings.
 The p o s s e s s i o n o f t h i s c h a r i s m a e n a b l e s o ne to
b e a c c o r de d authority d e s p i t e o f the a b s e n c e o f
cultural or e v e n l e g a l justification.
In s o m e i n s t a n c e s , charismatic authority e v e n
i s a b l e to n e g a t e t h e s t a n d a r d s p ro v i d e d b y
culture a n d tradition, or b y l a w s . R e l i g i o u s
l e a d e r s , or e v e n p o pul a r i c o n s s u c h a s movie
actors, a re e x a m p l e s o f p e o p l e w h o m a y e n d u p
p o s s e s s i n g c har ismatic authority.
 RATIONAL-LEGAL OR BUREAUCRATIC

This k i n d o f Aa Uu TthHoOrRi tI Ty Yd ra w s
its l eg it ima c y from formal r u l e s
p ro m u l g a t e d b y t h e s t a t e t h ro u g h its
f u n d a m e n t a l a n d i mp l e me n t i ng l a w s .
This i s t h e mo s t d o m i n a n t w a y o f
legitimizing authority in modern s t a t e s ,
a n d t h i s i s from w h e re g o v e r n m e n t
officials d r a w their p owe r.
 Self-Confident

 Inspirati onal

 Articulate

 R e v o l u ti o na r y

 Supportive