e - CIFAS

18 GOVERNMENT IN ZAZZAU
the operative system ofpolitical action consistsinrelations between
the controlling and controlled groups. These conc1uaiom follow
from the fact that politi.cal action and process are defined by the
relarivity of power relations a.mong the competing components,
and such relativism is neither consistent with an exhaustive concentration
ofpower, nor with the cessation of political competition.
What one does find historically are situations in which an overriding
power is entrenched under conditions which permit autocracy
or absolutism, but even in such conditions the component
units of this overriding power compete among themselves for
supremacy. Since political action is characteristically defined by
and expressed through competition for power, it is in the final
analysis, competition for the supreme power which is diacritical,
that is, for the capacity to make decisions on policy affecting the
total population ofthe unit concerned,
In contrast with this inherently segmentary mode of political
relations and activities, administrative action is overtly characterized
by lack of formal contraposition at any level, having on the
contrary an inherently hierarchic mode of organization. This contrast
between political and administrative relations and actions
merely reflects their contrary preoccupation with different values,
forms, aspects, and problems ofsocial control, namely, with power
and authority, in terms of which these two structures and processes
are distinguished and defined. Just as political action is
based and focused on the appropriation ofpower, so adminiStrative
action derives from, and remains preoccupied with, authority
and its problems. Thus the legality of new administrative procedures
is conferred by virtue of the policy decisions tltese are intended
to execute, and for which in some tlteories the administration
is not ultimately responsible.!
(b) Po"", and Authority
The distinction between political and administrative action set
out above derives from the distinction between power and
authority. Authority is, in the abstract, the right to make a particular
decision and to command obedience, since tlte act of command
always involves at least one such decision. Power, in the
abstract, isthe ability to act effectively on persons or things, to take
1 This seems to have been om: of the points at issue in the Nuremberg trials,
J945---7.
THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT 19
or secure favourable decisions which are not of right allocated to
the individuals or their roles,1 The modes of action by which
power is expressed range from coercion and force through
persuasion, influence, manipulations of various sorts and factors,
bargaining, to simple suggestion or bluff. Substantively, authority
is a derived or delegated right, while power is the possession of
manifest or latent control or influence over the actions of persons
including oneself. We frequently speak of authority as delegated
'powers' when what we mean is a delegated right, as for instance
when we talk of judicial or military powers, all of which are derived
and delegated rights, in contrast to political power, Similarly,
we often describe politically dominant groups or persons as
authorities, for instance, when African rulers and chiefs are described
as 'Native Authorities'. Whereas legitimacy in the sense of
legality is crucial to the constitution and definition of authority or
'power', power itself is not subject to such limitations.
The confusions which result from imprecise conceptions and
the improper use of tenns may be deliberate or accidental; but
they are certainly numerous and important. If the essentials of
government are power and authority, their initial confusion
severely limits the chances of systematic analysis in this field, To
sharpen the distinction between these principles, and point up the
consequences of their confusion, a simple illustration will suffice.
The command which an army officer issues to his subordinate is
legally enforceable only if it is issued in accordance with the rules
defining and governing the exercise and scope of the officer's
authority. Should the command be ultra vires and none the less
obeyed, the response reflects the officer's power, that is, his ability
to control the subordinate and to influence him to make a favourable
decision to carry out an order beyond the officer's scope of
authority conferred.
If we focus attention on the formal aspects ofthe differences be-
1 It will be remembered that we defined authority as the right to take tertain
decisions, whereas power is the ability to effect or secul'tlsuch dedsions as one
wishes, although th~e riecisions are either not allocated II.S rights, or are the
rights of other petlIons. Concretely this means that if A has authority to decide
an issue involving B's interests 8I1d does so independendy of B, A exercisea an
authority which appears to B as power. Ifon the other hand B is able to secure
from A the deciSion that B desll"e8, then B has displayed power through A's
authority. In many situations decisions have to be taken although there is no
clear allocation of authOrity to make them. These decisions reveal. the play of
power, but they are not the only llOrtS of decisions. governed by power. Cases
like that of B influencing- A may well be far more important and usual.