Is Politics Losing its Legitimacy?
Author: Dr Martin Leet
Date: 02 June 2010
Federal politics in Australia continues to play itself out like a soap opera. The actors come and go, but the script and basic plot remain remarkably formulaic. With no end in sight to the tiring machinations of politicians, Martin Leet asks whether politics is losing its legitimacy.
Why do people have faith in a particular political order and consent to political authority? The German philosopher and sociologist, Max Weber, argued that there are three main sources of legitimacy in politics. People accept a type of political rule because: a) it has existed for a long period (tradition); b) they have confidence in the rulers (charisma); or c) they believe it conforms to established principles and laws, such as those written down in a constitution (rational authority). Weber believed that legitimacy of one of these kinds was required for long-term social stability.
Proud Western democracies have long purported to be grounded in the third type of legitimacy. The exercise of political power is regulated by the rule of law, is subject to periodic review by the citizenry in elections, and is supposed to represent the articulated views and interests of the population. Belief in this kind of authority also often entails a moral claim that it is aligned with universal human interests such as choice and freedom of expression. The confidence in such political rule has supported military interventions into other countries where political authority is seen to be unstable or illegitimate.
Belief in “rational authority” has been a major source of legitimacy in western democracies. It probably reached its highest intensity when democracies were breaking free of their feudal past. It has been reignited during times of threat, such as the period of the World Wars and the Cold War, when alternative types of political authority sought to assert themselves. And belief in “rational authority” still receives inspiration from the identification of “rogue” countries which appeal to “charisma” or “tradition”.
Over time, however, any political regime is likely to lose touch with its founding convictions. Politics settles into a routine such that tradition – doing things out of habit – becomes the de facto source of legitimacy. Politicians repeat the same mantras, the media follow up with familiar questions and criticism, and citizens by and large switch off but continue to vote. The reality of traditional authority lies behind an appearance of rational authority.
What occasionally passes for the revitalisation of our democracy is actually charismatic politics. Potential leaders appear on the horizon with an aura that transcends Machiavellianism. They have an air of conviction, and resuscitate hope by articulating new stories of progress. The personality-driven politics of a media age intensifies this element of charisma in politics. But over time these figures of hope generally diminish in stature. Their strategies and ploys are soon exposed as cleverness and mere politics, so that faith in political authority tapers once again.