NA L A C I T POLI P I H S R E D LEA S E R U T C U STR 1. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION A. BANDS B. TRIBES C. CHIEFDOMS D. STATES 2. AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY A. AUTHORIY VIS-À-VIS LEGITIMACY B. TYPES OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY • TRADITIONAL • CHARISMATIC • RATIONAL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION Bands and Tribes 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 A 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. Thus, the main source of integration is kinship either blood or affinity. The power structure within a band is less hierarchical as member families are seen to be equal and there is 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 is produced 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. 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 As the bands 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 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 leads to fissioning and eventual break-up is the presence of social discord that the informal leadership could no longer contain. At present, there is practically no band that INUIT (Eskimo) Dobe Jo/hoansi (!KUNG) TRIBE 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 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, even if it is more complex than a band. This complexity results from the fact that the The manner by which tribes are organized is through the presence of pantribal associations, or what anthropologists refer to as 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 displacement of women leaders. This is also partly due to the shift from Tribe 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. Headman of the village of Rusirani Juari Most tribes remain egalitarian, where families and groups are considered politically and economically equal, even those of headmen. Tribes are also seen economically self-sufficient and are larger and more integrated than bands. However, contact with modern societies led to eventual collapse of tribal systems as tribes were unable to SAMBIA CHIEFDOM A chiefdom is defined as a political organization that more defined. It is a form of hierarchical organization in nonindustrial 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 by a highly ranked incumbent of an inherited political role, chief: chiefs lead because of their ascribed status, not their achieved status. SIMPLE CHIEFDOM It 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 a subsidiary leader subservient to the central ruler. 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 chief 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. Research shows 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 modernity has made the process of consolidating different individuals into one political community more difficult and complex. The expansion of chiefdoms was punctuated by their collapse. Out of the breakdown of political organizations, what emerged was the presence of groups of people that shared a common history, language, traditions, customs, habits and ethnicity. Benedict Anderson considers a nation as “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 common history and identity. Thus even if people may be scattered in different places, Paul James considers a nation as “ABSTRACT” Paul James considers 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 Filipino identify strongly with other Filipinos. 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 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 of a government that has sovereignty presiding over a group of people and a well-defined territory and is thus the highest form of political NATION-STATE When the citizens of a state belong to only one nation, such state. However, the reality is that there are 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 treated unequally, and where a dominant group It can also be argued that the Moros in Mindanao are technically considered as a nation within the Philippine state since they have a distinct cultural identity and history. Hence, clearly the Philippines could not be consider as a nation-estate. NATION AND STATEZ 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. No 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 task of organizing a political community requires the existence of leaders. Leaders, in order to be effective, need to possess authority that is considered legitimate by the members of the community. 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 such is perceived to be justified and proper. Legitimacy is not automatically acquired just because one has 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 understanding of power due to lack of qualifications. Hence, for authority to be binding and stable, it WEBER AND THE TYPES OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY Max Weber identifies three types of authority based on the source of their legitimacy, the traditional authority, the charismatic authority and the rational legal authority. TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY Legitimacy is derived from wellestablished customs, habits, and social structures. Monarchical rule or the rule of elites in a chiefdom are examples of leadership systems that have traditional authority. CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY 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 right of Kings. The possession of this charisma enables one to be accorded authority despite of the absence of cultural or even legal justification. In some instances, charismatic authority even is able to negate the standards provided by culture and tradition, or by laws. Religious leaders, or even popular icons such as movie actors, are examples of people who may end up possessing charismatic authority. 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. Self-Confident Inspirational Articulate Revolutionary Supportive