Four Types Of Authority In 'Who Should Govern?'

“Who governs?” “Who should govern?” (Skogstad 955) Grace Skogstad proves in her article, “Who Governs? Who Should Govern?: Political Authority and Legitimacy in Canada in the Twenty-First Century”, the response to these questions is quite complex. There are four types of authority; state-centred political, expert, private (market-based), and popular. The article explores these types of authority, their purpose and degree of effectiveness, as well as the conflicts that arise between each of them in decisions regarding the state. The author finishes the article with proposing a solution of how these four forms of authority can cooperate and work together. State-centred political authority is the representative democratic form of authority.

It calls upon experts to legitimize actions and policies. People are more likely to trust decisions made for their country if they are coming from a source of knowledge on the subject. Referring to Canada’s belief in social justice that was mentioned earlier, one example of expert authority is judges and courts. These are the people and institutions that fight for justice everyday, and “since the 1982 constitutionalization of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unelected and non-accountable judges are able to trump the decisions of democratically elected and directly accountable political representatives to an unprecedented degree” (960). This means that in some cases, expert authority has more power than state-centred authority. Other examples of expert authority include the Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which can give the state valuable information about the economy and food safety. It is also “strengthened by economic and political globalization” (961). Although expert authority’s “legitimacy derives […] from state-centred authority” (960), it is similar to private (market-based) authority in the sense that both are strengthened by globalization. Remember that globalization “seeks to limit politicians’ capacity to implement barriers to the flow of goods, services and capital across borders”

With the government caught between “legitimation standards [of] domestic constituency […] and the powerful economic and political actors beyond its borders” (966), the tension that all these authorities create is clear. Skogstad’s argues that “state-centred authority remains [the country’s] best bet for effective governing in Canada” (969), but she thinks that their should be a larger discussion about how the state’s institutions (specifically state-centred political authority) can reform “to become more authentic members of representation and deliberation” (969). Based on the evidence in the article, the author’s conclusions are justified and sensible. The suggestion to “[loosen] party discipline” (970) to create a more open political atmosphere for new ideas from different authoritative perspectives is well-thought out and