How do the concepts of power, authority, legitimacy and social control change with changing political organization? Discuss in detail giving suitable examples. (Answer in 350 words)

- How do the concepts of power, authority, legitimacy and social control change with changing political organization? Discuss in detail giving suitable examples. (Answer in 350 words)
Introduction
Power, authority, legitimacy and social control are constants of political life, but the forms they take vary systematically with political organisation. Following Service's sequence from band to state, what changes is the source of legitimacy and the organisation of sanction.
Body
1. The four distinguished: Weber defined power as the capacity to impose one's will despite resistance, and authority as power accepted as rightful. Legitimacy is the belief sustaining that acceptance, resting on tradition, charisma or legal-rational rules; social control is the whole set of mechanisms, diffuse or organised, securing conformity.
2. Uncentralised systems: among the Ju/'hoansi band, leadership carries influence without command, and a headman who presses his advantage is deserted. In Evans-Pritchard's segmentary Nuer, the leopard-skin chief mediates feud without power to enforce settlement, and the political field is the balanced opposition of lineages. Melanesian big men, in Sahlins' account, build followings by feast-giving and lose them as readily. Legitimacy here is personal, achieved and revocable, and control is diffuse, working through gossip, ridicule, witchcraft accusation and the threat of self-help.
3. Ranked and centralised systems: in Polynesian chiefdoms rank becomes ascribed and hereditary, sanctified by genealogy and mana, and expressed through tribute and redistribution; authority is now attached to a position rather than to a person. Fortes and Evans-Pritchard's African Political Systems set these against the Zulu and Ashanti states, where administrative office is permanent, force is monopolised, taxation is regular and courts adjudicate, as Gluckman documented among the Barotse. Charismatic and traditional legitimacy give way to legal-rational grounds, and sanctions become organised and delegated to specialists.
4. What the comparison shows: legitimacy migrates from kinship, age and ritual standing towards office and finally towards constitutional rule; sanction moves from retaliation to adjudication and policing. Neither displaces the other cleanly. India shows the layering in force, with the Ho manki-munda and the Naga village council still exercising customary authority inside a constitutional order, protected by Article 371A and mandated consultation under PESA 1996.
Conclusion
Power is present everywhere; what centralisation adds is a permanent office to hold it and an organised sanction behind it. Legitimacy is the variable that decides whether that office survives.