By Shashi P.B.B. Malla The concepts of power, authority and legitimacy are central to the academic discipline of political science as a whole. The relation between power, authority and legitimacy can be succinctly summed up:                   Authority  =    Legitimacy  +   Power Legitimacyis the attribute that a regime’s procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable to its citizens. The term is derived from the German sociologist Max Weber who emphasized that legitimacy constituted the basis of very real differences in the way in which power was exercised. There was a generally observable need for any power to justify itself. Obedience is owed to the legally established impersonal order. This extends to the persons occupying public office by virtue of the legality of their commands. However, their authority is confined to the scope of the office and cannot be used in a capriciousor self-interested way. In his classic study, Political Man, the distinguished American social scientist S.M. Lipset argued that: “Legitimacy involves the capacity of the political system to engender and maintain the belief that theexisting political institutions are the most appropriate ones forthe society.” It can be argued that the Nepali political system since 2006 has faced various difficult and potentially destabilizing issues:
  • Even the long process of Constitution-drafting did not genuinely address the various pressing social, economic and political problems.
  • The drafters arbitrarily introduced federalism without considering whether it was genuinely suitable to the country.
  • They also completely ignored the historical foundations of the Nepalese state and abolished unilaterally both the ancient Monarchy and Sanatan Dharma as the state religion.
The sovereign Nepalese people were not consulted in this regard, and there was no referendum – either on the Monarchy nor the new Constitution. The Constitution thus rests on shaky ground. The ability to issue commands which are seen as binding because they are legitimate is one of the central pillars of a stable political order. By no stretch of the imagination does this apply to Nepal in its current state of utter confusion, rampant corruption, political ‘musical chairs’ among alternating coalitions, and self-serving as the highest good! In the first instance, Nepal’s political system has become dysfunctional because the main political parties which were supposed to function as intermediariesbetween the sovereign people and the political institutions have completely failed in their sacred duty. Consequently, those at the apex of power have lost all legitimacy. In this miserable state of affairs, ‘what is to be done?’ as V.I. Lenin famously said. It is time for mass mobilization to produce changes in the character of both state power and personnel. This should last until the monopoly of control and force of the regressive old political parties and antiquarian old fogeys is broken and new progressive groups reconstitute the sovereign power of the state. In other words, if we are to move forward, a political revolution is on the cards! The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com