On legitimacy, authority, and sovereignity.

Legitimacy.

We took a long time in trying to understand the real meaning of legitimacy. We’ve actually even need to open the dictionary ‘Collins Cobuild’ to look out its meaning.

‘Legitimacy’  (nouns) : something is acceptable according to the law.

Digging more into every ways to gain legitimacy, seems like government shall not lived by approval from the citizens itself. What sort of government that don’t have any support from its citizens? Government, albeit its corruption or any conflicts that exist in Malaysia, shall ever not live – without the concerns by the citizens itself – that is us. 

My respond:

Why don't the government shall not lived by approval from the citizens itself? What about the government that come into power through coup de tat? They don't necessarily need to seek approval from people, but force people to accept them. For Malaysian government case, I think to pick the lesser between two evils is more appropriate =p

Take one example, government, without enough resources, just say it money, shall having a problem in managing one community or peoples. Go far away from this, then you’ll realize that human only needs what have been stated in Maslow’s hierarchy ( foods, habitat, sex, and etc. ). Approval. Approval right? Well, just in case we do not want Malaysian government shall be called as regime. This country, democracy and liberty are filled into it, in avoidance to become dictatorial leadership.

Err .. .what this has to do with legitimacy? And, I think, in the name of legitimacy, then the government did what they do ... the people? With the apathetic attitudes? Blerghhh ... gimme a break!

Ironically, take a deep look around you, and you will realize that people does not want the good government in this country, they only want the government that can provide them with a good place, good food, and yeah, good fat money on their pockets. They don’t care about the integrity, they don’t care about the policy, they’re just care about their money. Bad society will produce a bad leader. Changing our attitudes is not late yet. Trust us my friends. ;)

Uuuu .. such a strong words you used. How would you spell the integrity of government? And, "Bad society will produce a bad leader" is another implied confession? Irony? I'd say that. 

Authority.

At first we actually think that we’ve grasp the definition of authority, but then again – when it comes to chapter 2, based on Roskin’s quote ,

“ Authority is an individual’s ability to gain respect or loyalty from people.”

How can we understand that when we already learn that the concept of respect or loyalty is actually related to INFLUENCE ?

Taking too seriously we think, on that definition – somehow we need to realize that there is always, always the meaning of these three things, ( power, authority, influence ) shall interchangeably used.

This remind us, about the simple example to describe. Take an armed robber, a teacher and a businessman.  Respectively, in this case, you shall quickly realize that armed robber is the symbol of real power, the teacher is the symbol of authority and thus, businessman, is to the influence. When you are being robbed, like it or not – they are the one who have a greater force or coercion upon you, shall have the real power. Differs to the idea of authority, authority deals with law enforcement. Legally generated. Legally enforced. Legally executed. It’s all about playing with law and policies. So what about businessman ? Well, after all, businessman cannot force you to buy his product right ? Nor they don’t have any law with them that states that it is compulsory to us to buy his product right ? So what they actually trying to do,  is, indirectly, persuading you to buy it. Owh yes, persuasive way. That’s what we call influence. But don’t limit this three terms into this concept only. Real power doesn’t mean that it only about force and coercion. Generally, when it comes to ‘power’, its subset is only real power, authority, and influence. Aih… just don’t care too much about the definition, pays more to the pragmatic things in this political science. We don’t bother theories too much, what we need is just a practical way to solve any issues related to this human matter.

Yeah ... different people have different opinions ... so does the definition. But, to play safe, just stick to those definitions given, OK?

Sovereignity.

Talk about sovereignity, we still on confusion of supreme power versus constitutional monarchy. Lets say that there is a king, whom have unlimited power – now that’s what we call the supreme power. We don’t call it as supreme if it is limited and the king cannot doing anything freely don’t we?

Thinking again - and just listened to what our lecturer have said, “We call it supreme because based on the historical data.”

*then she pointed out once upon a time about the king that slash the woman stomach that had eaten the a piece of a jackfruit without his permission*,

the king always has the unlimited power. Supreme because in this historical context. That’s all. Historical terms limit.

After all, this is just – simply a view of some novice. Don’t take these too seriously, otherwise, you might be confused. Will you?  ;)

 "Just because you do not take an interest in politics, doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you." ~ Pericles (430 BC)

[ el ferdowsi ( Firdaus ), Pian Yank, Bunny, Fatin Liyana, pizah, Liza Kecik, Mama of 6B ]