Specific examples of traditonal, charismatic, and rational-legal authority

Traditional authority: monarchies.

Charismatic authority: populist leaders.

Rational-legal authority: modern democracies.

Explanation:

Max Weber was a German sociologist who created a classification of the ideal types of authority according to the source of said authority. These three types are:

Traditional authority: this type derives its authority from tradition. People follow traditional authority because they represent a link to the past, because things have always been the way they are, and because traditional rulers have always been rulers and they continue to be. There are many examples of traditional authority, but one of the most representative are monarchies. Royals is most monachies represent tradition that stands the test of time, and they are often considered to embody the spirit of their nations.

Charismatic authority: in this type, leaders derive their authority from the faith that their followers have in them. Through a combination of charisma, charm, and a popular message, charismatic leaders seduce their followers with the power of their personality. Examples of this type of authority are popular political leaders, such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Hugo Chávez, and even Adolf Hitler. Through the authority that their unique charm and their message gave them, they amassed a mass following that enabled them to have a great reach.

Rational-legal authority: in this type, authority doesn't come from the person or from custom, but from the law. The rational-legal authority holds power because of his position within an institution that is legally and rationally recognized as having a right to have that authority. Authority is given to institutions, not to specific people. The best examples of this type of authority are the bureaucracies of modern democracies. Here, officeholders have authority because of the position they have in the bureaucratic system.

panem is a communist totalitarian dictatorship where all the resources and how they are allocated belongs to the capitol. the districts exist only to provide goods and services for the capital and most of the citizens live in poverty. it is a police state where the "peacekeepers" use force and threats to keep the people under control. dissent is outlawed and those who disobey the law are executed, flogged, or turned into avoxes. the games are another means in which the ruling elite in the capitol exert their power over the districts. when reading the books i drew parallels between panem and the soviet union and north korea. in no way is panem capitalist. the people in the capitol are wealthy but the majority of them are involved in the government somehow. it was the same way in the former soviet union where bigwigs in the communist party and high ranking government officials were given access to goods, services, medical treatments not available to the general public. if you think panem has a capitalist economy you need to brush up on your economics.