The Legitimacy Theory of Power

From a constitutional point of view, the state is an organization of power, and the organization is a set of state equipment which is an integrity, a set of procedures which describes the relationship and division of duties and obligations between each state equipment to achieve a specific purpose.

But in fact they are not the only ones who question the legitimacy of that power, because from the beginning, that is, since people have gained the freedom to think and begin to think about the state and the law, has also discussed the issue.

So regardless of the opinion of whether the country is an organization or is an organism, or is a family, or is a tool, or is what else is clear is that the country in which there is power.

This means asking about where the origin or source of power is in the country? This is one of the questions that really raises questions about legitimacy. And this question in the science of the country in principle gets two kinds of answers.

First. The first answer is given by the theory of theocracy, which states that the origin or source of that power is from God. This theory developed in the Middle Ages, from the V century to the XV century. Believers in this theory, among others, we have talked about, are: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Marsilius. Therefore, here, there should be no need to talk anymore.

Second. The second answer is given by the theory of natural law. This theory states that the power comes from the people. Already from the stream or monarchomaken people pioneered by Johannes Althusius, it has been said that power comes from the people and the origin of the power that exists in this people is no longer considered from God, but from nature.

Then the power of the people was handed over to someone, called the king, to maintain the interests of the people. Regarding the surrender of power from the people to this king, in the theory of natural law itself there are differences of opinion.

Among other things, the opinion of Rousseau who stated that the power was in the community, then through a community agreement, the power was handed over to the king. Remember that here what is handed over is power, not sovereignty. So first the power is in the people, then by each of these people, the power is handed over to the community as a union, and then through a community agreement, the power is handed over to the king. So the surrender of power or community agreement here is multi-tiered.

Meanwhile, according to Thomas Hobbes, the power from each person is directly handed over to the king through a community agreement. So the nature of the surrender of power from those people to the king, or the agreement of his people, is direct. Next try to recall the attributes from the community agreement we have talked about in advance.

It means that the highest power or sovereignty is who owns and or holds in that country. So in fact this question is double. Why is that ? Because here the question is, in the country who holds the highest power or sovereignty, in it is also concluded the question of who owns, so it also means the source, from the highest power or sovereignty. This is the second consequence of the problem or question of the legitimacy of state power.

Or clearly, again, who is the source, the owner and at the same time holds from the existing power in the country. To answer this question we must first think about what is meant by the supreme power is the same as the meaning of sovereignty, Souveränität, Souvereiniteit.

Regarding the first issue, it is acceptable to have an opinion that states that sovereignty means the highest power in a country. In his explanation it is said that sovereignty is the highest power. But there is no further explanation of the supreme power for what and how it is.

The next question is, whether the meaning of sovereignty is the same as the meaning of souvereiniteit, that there should not be a consensus of scholars.

One of the scholars who once gave a formulation of sovereignty, and how the attributes of sovereignty, was a French scholar living in the sixteenth century named Jean Bodin. Jean Bodin says that sovereignty is the highest power to determine the law in a country, which is: singular, original, eternal, and indivisible.

But the formulation, or assertion of Jean Bodin definition of sovereignty for the present, could not be carried out consequently, for at that time he was only reviewing souvereiniteit in relation to the people within the country. So the formulation is internal. This is understandable, because at that time relations between countries were not as intensive as they are today. What is certain for today, where the relationship between one country and another is so wide, whether or not a country must be affected by the relationship between those countries.

So if Jean Bodin only uses the notion of souvereiniteit in his inner relationship only then it can be understood. But then in addition it can be questioned the meaning of souvereiniteit to other countries.

According to Jean Bodin the interne souvereiniteit that owns is the state.

But keep in mind here that Jean Bodin did not explicitly distinguish between the notion of state and the notion of government.

It was said that sovereignty is the highest power in a country. So now what is the meaning of the term power itself. In this regard, it may be acceptable to say that power is the ability of a person or a group of people to change various habits or attitudes in a habit, according to his wishes, and to prevent changes in habits or attitudes that are not his wishes in a habit.

Now the question is who has that power. Either that power is absolute, or it is limited.

It means the highest power in a country, that is, the power that can determine in the highest and last level. And in this matter must be remembered what has been determined above, namely that this matter is dual in nature.

To this problem or problem there are several understandings or theories that provide answers, each of which will later give rise to a teaching or theory, namely the teaching or theory of sovereignty.