Political power
Political power (
imperium in Latin) is a type of
power held by a person or group in a
society. There are many ways to hold such power. Officially, political power is held by the
political leader of a
state, such as a
president,
prime minister, or
monarch, as representatives or holders of the
sovereignty. Political powers are not limited to heads of states, however, and the extent to which a person or group holds such power is related to the amount of
societal influence they can wield, formally or informally. In many cases this influence is not contained within a single state and it refers to
international power.
Political scientists have frequently defined power as "the ability to influence the behaviour of others" with or without resistance. Political power is ultimately derived from military control underlying the legal and taxation systems of states.
Throughout history there have been many examples of the destructive or senseless use of political power. This has happened most frequently when too much power has been concentrated in too few hands, without enough room for
political debate, public criticism, and other types of correctives. Examples of such regimes are
despotism,
tyranny, and
dictatorship. To counter these potential problems, people have devised and practised different solutions, most of them related to the sharing of power (as in
democracy), the placing of limitations on the extent of power one individual or group can have, and the creation of protective rights for individuals through legislation or charters (such as
human rights).
Charles de Montesquieu claimed that without following a principle of containing and balancing
legislative,
executive and
judiciary powers, there is no freedom and no protection against abuse of power. This is the
separation of powers principle.
Within normative political analysis, there are also various levels of power as described by academics that add depth into the understanding of the notion of power and its political implications.
Robert Dahl, a prominent American political scientist, first ascribed to political power the trait of decision-making as the source and main indicator of power. Later, two other political scientists,
Peter Bachrach and
Morton Baratz, decided that simply ascribing decision-making as the basis of power was too simplistic and they added what they termed a 2nd dimension of power, agenda-setting by elites who worked in the backrooms and away from public scrutiny in order to exert their power upon society. Lastly, British academic
Steven Lukes added a 3rd dimension of power, preference-shaping, which he claimed was another important aspect of normative power in politics which entails theoretical views similar to notions of
cultural hegemony. These 3 dimensions of power are today often considered defining aspects of political power by political researchers.
Post-modernism has debated over how to define political power. Perhaps, the best known definition comes from the late
Michel Foucault, whose work in
Discipline and Punish (and other writings) conveys a view of power that is organic within society. This view holds that political power is more subtle and is part of a series of societal controls and 'normalizing' influences through historical institutions and definitions of normal vs. abnormal. Foucault once characterized power as "an action over actions" (
une action sur des actions), arguing that power was essentially
a relation between several dots, in continuous transformation as in
Nietzsche's philosophy. His view of power lent credence to the view that power in human society was part of a training process in which everyone, from a Prime Minister to a homeless person, played their role within the power structure of society.
Jürgen Habermas opposed himself to Foucault's conception of
discourse as a battlefield for power relations, arguing that it should be possible to agree on a basic
consensus on the fundamentals rules of discourse, in order to achieve a transparent and democratic
dialogue. Henceforth, he argued against Foucault and
Althusser that power was not immanent to discourse, and that philosophy could be completely distinguished from
ideology.
More recently, there has been a move among academics to differentiate power from a new concept of
luck. Under some conditions (particularly the when examining the third dimension of power) it becomes necessary to determine who obtains a favourable result through the wielding of genuine power and who is simply "lucky". An example might be an ethnic minority who receive favourable treatment while not intentionally seeking it. A person promoted through positive discrimination would be considered "lucky" rather than "powerful". The eventual aim of such discrimination would be to eventually convert some (or all) of that luck into power. Some groups remain serially lucky without ever obtaining power.
Note: The 3 dimensions of power may also be known as the 3 Faces of Power.
*Langton, Rae (Fall 1993). "Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts",
Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 22: no.4, p.293-330
