Let's now have a look at a passage from an interesting book entitled “Politics” by Larry Johnston. Please note that this book is a university level text book and not a simplified novel. We will revisit our friend Shakespeare later 
./0
I have made all the reading comprehension questions which I have posted so far in this forum myself. I have attached the text in PDF format also which is easier to read./00
OBLIGATION and LEGITIMACY are two sides of the same coin: if you
recognize the legitimacy of government, then you are obliged to obey it.
Conversely, if you feel obliged to obey, then you have conceded legitimacy.
Obligation is a statement about what you feel you "ought" to do, but in a special
sense of the word "ought."/1
Let's suppose the penalty for petty theft is the loss of your hand; you are likely to
conclude that in this case you ought not to steal. Here the "ought" is tied to a
punishment; if the penalty for petty theft were a very small fine, you might well
calculate that theft is worth the risk of being caught and punished. The point of
obligation, by contrast, is that you feel there is a good reason not to steal,
regardless of the magnitude of the penalty. When you are obliged, you have
concluded, for one reason or another, that the rule "do not steal" is a legitimate
one. We have said that authority implies consent, in other words, authority rests
on a foundation of obligation; for some reason or another people accept the
legitimacy of the decision, and obey because they believe they "ought" to, no
matter what the penalty for disobeying. Conversely, it is where judgments of
obligation are lacking, or legitimacy is denied, that power—the implementation
of force—is required./2
So far we have been vague about what informs or causes the consent people give
to authority, that is, about why people feel obliged to obey, or to recognize the
state as legitimate. One influential treatment of this topic was provided by the
German sociologist Max Weber, who suggested that three grounds of legitimacy
are present in different societies./3
The first of these is TRADITIONAL legitimacy, that is, rule which is
justified on the basis of its long history and a "habitual orientation to conform."
(1958: 79). In other words it is custom, and the fact that things have always been
done this way makes them right under traditional legitimacy./4
Second, there is CHARISMATIC legitimacy, where it is believed that the
ruler possesses extraordinary personal qualities which justify his/her rule. This is
more than the view that such individuals are gifted; it is the claim that they are
uniquely gifted, and those who have convincingly claimed to be divinely chosen
have been among the most successful charismatic leaders. At any rate, Weber's
special use of "charismatic" here is altogether different from what we indicate by
calling politicians "charismatic" who are able to ignite public emotion./5
Finally, Weber spoke of LEGAL-RATIONAL authority, where legitimacy
derives from "belief in the validity of legal statute and functional 'competence'
based on rationally created rules" (1958:
79). Where authority is sanctioned by its basis in law, and assumed through a
rule-governed process, such as an election, its legitimacy is legal-rational. Thus,
while Pierre Trudeau was characterized as a "charismatic" politician in 1968, the
legitimacy of his government (like that of all Canadian governments) rested on a
legal-rational foundation./6
Legal-rational authority grounds the claims to obligation of most contemporary
states, although, in the past, states or their rulers frequently claimed authority on
traditional or charismatic grounds. /7
a. When someone feels obliged to obey a
governmental law
I. He does so, because he is afraid of the punishment
which would follow the disobedience
II. He does so because he is a good citizen
III. He does so because he recognizes the legitimacy of
the government
IV. He does so because he conceals the legitimacy of the
government
b. Coercion is necessary when
I. Legitimacy is recognized
II. Judgments of obligation are eminent
III. Legitimacy is not recognized
IV. Theocracy is chosen
c. Some may argue that the best form of political
system in Britain is monarchy. They reason that since
monarchs have ruled for many years in this land
so monarchy is the best suited political system for Britain
Which form of legitimacy does this group of people use
to justify their claim?/3
I. Legal rational
II. Traditional
III. Charismatic
IV. None of the above
d. Weber believes that a charismatic leader is someone
who
I. is honest
II. is gifted
III. can ignite public emotions
IV. is extraordinarily gifted
e. What kind of legitimacy was Pierre Trudeau’s
government based on?/4
I. Charismatic
II. Legal-rational
III. Traditional
IV. All of the above
./0I have made all the reading comprehension questions which I have posted so far in this forum myself. I have attached the text in PDF format also which is easier to read./00
OBLIGATION and LEGITIMACY are two sides of the same coin: if you
recognize the legitimacy of government, then you are obliged to obey it.
Conversely, if you feel obliged to obey, then you have conceded legitimacy.
Obligation is a statement about what you feel you "ought" to do, but in a special
sense of the word "ought."/1
Let's suppose the penalty for petty theft is the loss of your hand; you are likely to
conclude that in this case you ought not to steal. Here the "ought" is tied to a
punishment; if the penalty for petty theft were a very small fine, you might well
calculate that theft is worth the risk of being caught and punished. The point of
obligation, by contrast, is that you feel there is a good reason not to steal,
regardless of the magnitude of the penalty. When you are obliged, you have
concluded, for one reason or another, that the rule "do not steal" is a legitimate
one. We have said that authority implies consent, in other words, authority rests
on a foundation of obligation; for some reason or another people accept the
legitimacy of the decision, and obey because they believe they "ought" to, no
matter what the penalty for disobeying. Conversely, it is where judgments of
obligation are lacking, or legitimacy is denied, that power—the implementation
of force—is required./2
So far we have been vague about what informs or causes the consent people give
to authority, that is, about why people feel obliged to obey, or to recognize the
state as legitimate. One influential treatment of this topic was provided by the
German sociologist Max Weber, who suggested that three grounds of legitimacy
are present in different societies./3
The first of these is TRADITIONAL legitimacy, that is, rule which is
justified on the basis of its long history and a "habitual orientation to conform."
(1958: 79). In other words it is custom, and the fact that things have always been
done this way makes them right under traditional legitimacy./4
Second, there is CHARISMATIC legitimacy, where it is believed that the
ruler possesses extraordinary personal qualities which justify his/her rule. This is
more than the view that such individuals are gifted; it is the claim that they are
uniquely gifted, and those who have convincingly claimed to be divinely chosen
have been among the most successful charismatic leaders. At any rate, Weber's
special use of "charismatic" here is altogether different from what we indicate by
calling politicians "charismatic" who are able to ignite public emotion./5
Finally, Weber spoke of LEGAL-RATIONAL authority, where legitimacy
derives from "belief in the validity of legal statute and functional 'competence'
based on rationally created rules" (1958:
79). Where authority is sanctioned by its basis in law, and assumed through a
rule-governed process, such as an election, its legitimacy is legal-rational. Thus,
while Pierre Trudeau was characterized as a "charismatic" politician in 1968, the
legitimacy of his government (like that of all Canadian governments) rested on a
legal-rational foundation./6
Legal-rational authority grounds the claims to obligation of most contemporary
states, although, in the past, states or their rulers frequently claimed authority on
traditional or charismatic grounds. /7
a. When someone feels obliged to obey a
governmental law
I. He does so, because he is afraid of the punishment
which would follow the disobedience
II. He does so because he is a good citizen
III. He does so because he recognizes the legitimacy of
the government
IV. He does so because he conceals the legitimacy of the
government
b. Coercion is necessary when
I. Legitimacy is recognized
II. Judgments of obligation are eminent
III. Legitimacy is not recognized
IV. Theocracy is chosen
c. Some may argue that the best form of political
system in Britain is monarchy. They reason that since
monarchs have ruled for many years in this land
so monarchy is the best suited political system for Britain
Which form of legitimacy does this group of people use
to justify their claim?/3
I. Legal rational
II. Traditional
III. Charismatic
IV. None of the above
d. Weber believes that a charismatic leader is someone
who
I. is honest
II. is gifted
III. can ignite public emotions
IV. is extraordinarily gifted
e. What kind of legitimacy was Pierre Trudeau’s
government based on?/4
I. Charismatic
II. Legal-rational
III. Traditional
IV. All of the above
BASc Electrical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
