Legitimacy as a principle of action of legal domination

In this essay I hope to offer the reader the specific concept of legitimacy as a principle of action of legal domination, this domination will come to be based on the social relations of power that consists of the probability of mutually referring several subjects in their actions in it. case, dominated and dominant. The power of domination can be exercised by an authority, and there are different ways to exercise it, but the important thing is that there is an interest in obeying and a willingness to obey.

Obedience means that the action of the one who obeys takes place as if the content of the command had become, by itself, the maxim of his conduct.

Domination, defines Weber, is the probability of finding obedience within a given group for specific commands. With this Weber refers to a relationship of power, that is, where there is a dominated and a dominant, this can be seen at every moment in daily life, for example the relationship that is maintained between the owner of the house and the A lady hired to fix the house and cook, it is a relationship of domination since obedience is found and specific mandates are carried out.

Legitimacy is a term used in the Theory of Law, Political Science and Philosophy that defines the quality of being in accordance with a legal mandate, justice, reason or any other certain mandate. The process by which a person obtains legitimacy is called legitimation.

In Political Science it is the concept with which the ability of a power to obtain obedience is judged without the need to resort to coercion that involves the threat of force, in such a way that a State is legitimate if there is a consensus among the members of the the political community to accept the existing authority. In this sense, the term has its origins in private inheritance law and appears linked to politics in relation to the monarchical restoration after the French Revolution. This initial appeal to traditional criteria as an ethical justification for the personal exercise of power is accepted by Max Weber as one of the three types of legitimacy along with charismatic legitimation (subordinates accept power on the basis of holiness,heroism or exemplarity of the person who exercises it) and rational legitimation (subordinates accept power according to objective and impersonal motivations); making it practically synonymous with legality.

This essay exposes the political sociology of Max Weber while developing an original perspective on his theory of domination. First it establishes a necessary link between typical forms of political domination and social interests, so that all political action must be legitimized as a generalized interest. He then explains legitimation crises as a response to identity changes in the social base of political domination, in such a way that a dynamic concept of legitimacy is introduced. Finally, it postulates that the values that inhabit the legitimate forms of political domination are used as symbolic orientations by particular political actions, in such a way that every form of legitimation of authority encloses, in its own premises,the arguments that justify struggles towards the modification of domination schemes.

By "domination" is understood the probability of finding obedience to a command within a given group. This domination rests on various motives of submission from custom to rational considerations according to ends, where there is a will to obedience to authority. All domination requires an administrative table, which contains the probability of obedience in terms of which the mandates directed to a group of men will be carried out. The administrative cadre may be linked to the obedience of the lord either in an affective way, by material interests or ideal motives according to values. These motives determine the type of domination. In the everyday, material interests prevail as utilitarian in any relationship. But the custom and the situation of interests,no less than rational motives according to ends can be the foundations on which domination rests, for which another factor is added such as legitimacy. Consequently, according to the kind of legitimacy that is sought, the type of obedience is different, as is the character acquired by the exercise of domination and the effects it causes.

There are several typical claims of legitimacy: The results obtained can justify a starting point in that legitimacy, which is not purely "ideal"; not every legally guaranteed “claim” will be called a “domination relationship”, like the contract for example, therefore it cannot be called “domination” since there is no immediate obedience relationship as a result of the claims and the probability that they are respected they must be as such and controlled in their execution; The “legitimacy” of a domination should be treated as a probability, where its own claim to legitimacy, due to its nature, makes it “valid”, where its existence is consolidated and the nature of the means of domination is co-determined;By "obedience" we mean that the action to which it is obeyed takes place as if the command had become the maxim of its conduct on the merits of the formal relationship of obedience, regardless of the value of the command; The fact that the leader and the administrative staff of an association are understood as “servants” of the dominated, shows nothing regarding the character of “domination”.

Domination: probability of finding obedience within a given group for specific commands. Any domination over a plurality of men requires an administrative cadre. All types of domination seek to awaken and foster belief in their legitimacy. Depending on the type of legitimacy sought, both the type of obedience and the administrative framework intended to guarantee it, as well as the character that the exercise of domination takes, is different.

There are three pure types of legitimate domination. The basis of its legitimacy can be:

Of a rational nature: it rests on the belief in the legality of statutory ordinations and of the command rights of those called by those ordinations to exercise authority.Traditional character: it rests on the daily belief in the sanctity of the traditions that ruled from afar times and in the legitimacy of those indicated by that tradition to exercise authority.

Domination is traditional when its legitimacy rests on the sanctity of ordinations and powers of command inherited from distant times.

The relations of the administrative cadre with the sovereign are determined by the personal fidelity of the servant. The person called by tradition is obeyed and the commands of this person are legitimate in two ways:

By the force of the tradition that indicates the content of the ordinances. By the free will of the Lord.

Charismatic in nature: it rests on the extra-everyday dedication to the holiness, heroism or exemplary nature of a person and the ordinations created or revealed by them.

The ideal type of legal domination is bureaucracy.

The purest type of legal domination is that which is exercised through a bureaucratic administrative framework. The entire cadre is made up of individual officials, which are only due to the duties of their position; in strict administrative hierarchy; with fixed powers; under a contract, on the basis of free choice according to; the professional qualification that bases his appointment; they are paid in cash with graduated salaries in relation to hierarchical rank and responsibilities; they exercise the position as their sole or main profession; have promotion prospects; they work separately from the administrative means and without appropriation of the position; subject to administrative discipline and surveillance.

Bureaucratic domination means domination thanks to knowledge, this represents its rational character. Bureaucratic domination means:

Tendency to level in the interest of recruiting the most qualified Tendency to plutocratization in the interest of professional training The domination of impersonality, subjected to the pressure of strict duty.

conclusion

It seems to me that domination is based on the fact that there must always be two parties, the one that dominates and the one that is dominated, between the two to reach the objective that must be had as a short-term goal. I consider that the principle of legitimacy of legal domination is the one practiced in the modern era, the most common form of legitimacy today is the belief in legality.

Weber insists, analyzing its content, that legitimacy consists of a belief (glaube) and a probability (chance) and not always or primarily all obedience is based on such belief.

Obedience can be given out of opportunism, interest, material, or even in the form of almost inevitable acceptance for reasons of weakness.

It is the claim of legitimacy itself that makes domination valid, consolidates it and co-determines the mode of exercise of power.