The Relevance of Influence, Power, and Legitimacy in the inquiry of

Political system

In looking at the political system, one can see the parts that
makeup such the system and a deeper look will show the binding
force which characterizes each part; this is influence and power.
Influence has baffled man since time memorial. Plato in his
Republic discusses types of government in which distinction
depends on the allocation of influence to groups. Another, Niccolo
Machiavelli discuss in-detail the manner influence and power be
maintained, used, or gained. This past literature implies that the
association of influence and power is necessary for any discussion
on government or sovereign state. Yet, the problem remains in the
definitions of influence and power. There is still doubt in the
difference of influence and power, whether the two are
synonymous or not. For the sake of discussing influence and power,
this essay will use the terms in the same usage of Robert Dahl in
his book Modern Political Analysis. In doing so, I would be spared
in arbitrarily using terms like power, influence, and legitimacy.
Though, I must state that by adapting the same usage as Dahl, this
essay will show ideas that are similar in some way to that of Robert
Dahl. In summing it all up, this essay will be discussing the
relationship of influence, power and legitimacy, and their
connection to the inquiry of political system.

Robert Dahl defines influence as a "relation actors such that

the wants, desires, preferences, or intentions of one or more actors
affect the actions, or predisposition to act, of one or more other
actors." In looking at this definition, influence has actors that cause
others to do things for the actor's desires. The influence thus is a
tool for fulfilling one's aims. In application, one can see that
influence is unevenly distributed and that it some are more
influential than others. However, as a tool for an end, influence is
sought for by many. Also, the usage of influence requires the
spending of political resources such as money, or personnel. In
connecting these facts, the natural tendency of the influential and
the less influential is that: the influential will seek to maintain or
increase his influence while the less influential will seek to increase
the cost of influencing him and at the same, increase his influence.
A perfect example of this in the current times is the 2019
Anti-Extrajudicial Bill in Hongkong, in which the protesters
increased their influence by joining collectively in a way that can
match the influence of the ruling body in Hongkong. Due to this, the
Hongkong administration has to make concessions to curb the now
formidable influence of the Hongkong protesters. Another example
is the French Revolution of 1792, this involves a battle between the
have less and have more in influence. In the events that followed,
the inability of the government to reach a compromise led to the
overthrow of the ruling regime and the emergence of the common
people as dominant. These examples that I have given shows the
tendency of people in interaction with influence, that in domestic
and international affairs can be seen as the source of either
compromise or conflict. Also, this shows how influence is diffuse
and liquid, that is, it is never permanent to a certain holder.

In the previous paragraph, I have used influence as the most

prominent term in politics. However, there is a term which has been
prominent in politics and that is power. Power has been used by
different political theories to define the difference between the
rulers and his constituent. It was used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,
Cicero, and Machiavelli. For the sake of discussion, I would like to
define power as the ability to influence others using punishments of
differing degree. In this way, the definition pertains to that social
and political power as opposed to power defined by natural science.
Besides, the definition shows causation which suggests that power
is a form of influence. Going back to the description of power,
power is a necessary tool for all political leaders, and that it is
always endowed in them. However, as opposed to legitimate power,
there is also power in influential non-state actors such as drug lords
and businessman who have a significant amount of resources
available to them that can be either used illegally or legally. Take
this for example, while the president has the power to prosecute the
drug personnel, the influential drug personnel can threaten the law
enforcers which is power in a term called coercion. On the
international realm, power generally appears to the disposal of
every state yet the degree of power is uneven. The United States,
for example, can influence the actions of North Korea with the use
of its military and financial resources in producing punishments
such as embargo or economic sanctions. Though North Korea and
Iran can induce punishment through its military and economic
resources, it is of the lower degree to that of the United States
which as seen is a primary international hegemon. Like influence,
however, power can shift from one state to the other.

As discussed earlier, there is a cost in influencing others. For

this reason, people or state look for efficient ways of spending
influence. One of which is legitimacy. Legitimacy can be defined as
the right to rule which is accepted by the majority of all that it
encompasses. Legitimacy, in my opinion, is social perception. That
it does not only base its legitimacy with morality, religion, or laws,
but also the impression of a group to another group. This is
apparent in The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. In his book, he
shows the weakness of a ruler that rose to prominence from a
noble due to the nobility's decision. In here, the perception that
noble that he is equal to the monarch simply because they were
once equal before, can lower the legitimacy of the monarch. This
happened in many previous states. Take, for example, the War of
Roses (1455-1485) in England, which involves years of conflict due
to the seizing of the throne by a cadet house of the royal dynasty.
For this reason, the lords and other cadet houses of the royalty
revolted due to the perception that they are equally rightful to rule
for the new monarchs were previously nobles. The message that I
want to convey is that legitimacy as an efficient tool in using
influence is just a social perception built not just on laws, morality or
religion but also individual or group perception to the influence or
power holder.

Now that the influential terms have been discussed I would like
to connect this to the political system. The political system as used
by Dahl is the arrangement or structure of sovereign states,
government, non-state actors, or family. In a political system,
influence is naturally endowed though it is uneven, one has more
and others have less. Legitimacy is used to efficiently handle the
individual or groups that have less. It might come from existing laws
or social norms or it might be in the ideology that a ruling body
introduce. Take Soviet Russia for example, Joseph Stalin couldn't
have achieved his zenith without the use of the collection of belief
or the ideology of communism. All of these connections to political
system implies that in the analysis of sovereign state or
governments we must understand the holders of influence that can
be in the form of power, persuasion, or coercion. Also, we must
inquire about the belief system which legitimizes and enables
influence-holders to use influence. It is in this way that we can, if we
want to, produce an effective remedy to certain social ills such as
crimes or terrorism. Perhaps, in following this model of inquiry, we
can go create a better form of government.

In conclusion, influence is the tool which characterizes the

leaders to the citizens. For leaders, they have at all times the use of
power which is a form of influence. Though, it is arguable that
power is also present with non-state actors. The use of these two,
however, cost someone political resource. For this reason,
legitimacy is established to efficiently influence others in minimal
use of political resources. All of these terms, influence, power, and
legitimacy are the things or ideas which characterize the political
system. For it is inside the political system that the game of
influence and the usage of legitimacy occurred. Thus, in any
political inquiry, it is important to focus on influence and the
ideology which provides legitimacy. There is no jest that societies
of the past until the present are plagued by social ills, for this
reason, there is importance in studying influence and its connection
to the political system. I believe that social ill has its roots in the
interplay of influence and power inside our society or political
system.