Political power (imperium in Latin) is a type of power held by a group in a society which allows administration of some or all of public resources, including labour and wealth. There are many ways to obtain possession of such power. At the nation-state level political legitimacy for political power is held by the representatives of national sovereignty. Political powers are not limited to heads of states, however the extent to which a person (such as Joseph Kony, Subcomandante Marcos, or Russell Means) or group such as an insurgency, terrorist group, or multinational corporation possesses such power is related to the amount of societal influence they can wield, formally or informally. In many cases this 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.
For analytical reasons, I.C. MacMillan[1] separates the concepts power
Power is the capacity to restructure actual situations.—I.C. Macmillan
.
One of the most famous references to power comes from the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong
Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.— Mao Zedong
This quote has been widely misinterpreted, however. Mao explained further that, "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
In contrast to Mao Zedong, Hannah Arendt claims that power and violence are opposites and that power is:
"the human ability...to act in concert."[2]
Contents |
Some opinions representative of Enlightenment, 19th century, modern, and post-modern views on the relationship between political power and concepts of justice, good and evil:
[J]udicial power, that sure criterion of the goodness of a Government...is, in a word, a necessary evil.
The power to rule is a necessary evil, and by this same token, alas, it can be called a good.
Constituted power is concentrated power.
[Constituted power] is the product of a grey, incessant alchemy in which good and evil and, along with them, all the metals of traditional ethics reach their point of fusion. It thus becomes a question of irresponsibility and “impotentia judicandi” [the inability to judge]...though one that is situated not beyond good and evil, but rather before.
Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu claimed that without following a principle of containing and balancing power, the world is constantly at risk. Separation of power must be in such grade, that any of the branches can operate without excessive limitations from the others; but interdependecy between them must also be in such grade, that one single branch cannot rule out the other's decisions. This is the separation of powers principle.
== Division of power a A similar concept, termed "division of power", also consists of differentiated legislative, executive, and judicial powers. However, while separation of powers prohibits one branch from interfering with another, division of power permits such interference. For example, in Indonesia, the President (who wields executive power) can introduce a new bill, but the People's Consultative Assembly (holding legislative power) chooses to either legalize or reject the bill. The model here is the Checks and balances system introduced in the United States Constitution.
This ability is a crucial element of a state's power in international relations. Any state able to direct its military forces outside the limited bounds of its territory might be said to have some level of power projection capability, but the term itself is used most frequently in reference to militaries with a worldwide reach (or at least significantly broader than a state's immediate area). Even states with sizable hard power assets (such as a large standing army) may only be able to exert limited regional influence so long as they lack the means of effectively projecting their power on a global scale. Generally, only a select few states are able to overcome the logistical difficulties inherent in the deployment and direction of a modern, mechanized military force.
While traditional measures of power projection typically focus on hard power assets (tanks, soldiers, aircraft, naval vessels, etc.), the developing theory of soft power notes that power projection does not necessarily have to involve the active use of military forces in combat. Assets for power projection can often serve dual uses, as the deployment of various countries' militaries during the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake illustrates. The ability of a state to project its forces into an area may serve as an effective diplomatic lever, influencing the decision-making process and acting as a potential deterrent on other states' behavior.
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 second 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 third 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 three dimensions of power are today often considered defining aspects of political power by political researchers.
A radical alternative view of the source of political power follows the formula: information plus authority permits the exercise of power. Political power is intimately related to information. Sir Francis Bacon's statement: "Nam et ipsa scientia potentia est" for knowledge itself is power, assumed authority as given.
Hannah Arendt begins by commenting that political theorists from right to left all seem to agree that violence is "the most flagrant manifestation of power."[7] Arendt says that violence and power are opposites and defines power as the ability of citizens to act in concert. "Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to the group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. When we say of somebody that he "is in power" we actually refer to his being empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name."[8] From her perspective that power and violence are opposites, Arendt correctly judged that the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was a sign of the diminishing power of the Soviet Union and not a sign of power.
|
||||||||||||||||||||