Politics is power. Quite simply, power is
politics, politics is power. As Ball notes, `power is arguably the single most
important organising concept in social and political theory'.
The concept of power links it to the ability to
achieve a desired outcome, sometimes referred to as power to. The concept of
power has long been studied by political thinkers: For Machiavelli, power is an
end in itself, and whatever means are necessary for a prince to acquire and
maintain political power are justified. Thomas Hobbes however saw that competition
for goods of life becomes a struggle for power because without power one cannot
retain what one has acquired. One cannot retain power without acquiring more
power. German sociologist Max Webber linked power of authority and rules, and
focused on structures and bureaucracy. Robert Dahl continues Weber’s approach,
both in the definition of power and in the attribution of it to a concrete
human factor. In “The Concept of Power”
(1957), Dahl developed a formal definition of power, “A has power over B
to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. Dahl
treated power as the ability to influence the decision-making process, an
approach he believed to be both objective and quantifiable.
Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962)
developed a model as a response to Dahl—the two faces of power (way decisions
are made, and ways that they are not made). For example, on what basis can
‘key’ decisions, which are studied, be distinguished from ‘routine’ ones, which
are ignored. Bachrach and Baratz described non-decision-making as the ‘second
face of power. Although Bachrach and Baratz accepted that power is reflected in
the decision-making process, they insisted that ‘to the extent that a person or
group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the
public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power’
In the 1970s, Steven Lukes (1974) developed
Bachrach and Baratz’s approach further. His devised the three dimension of
power. In the first face, the decision making process, A’s power over B is
manifested to the extent that A can make B do something which B would not have
done had it not been for A. In the second face, agenda setting, certain
subjects or participants are excluded from the process. In addition to the
resources of the first dimension, the people with power mobilize game rules
which work in their favor, at others’ expense. Decision-making may be prevented
by the exertion of force, the threat of sanctions, or the mobilization of bias which
creates a negative approach to the subject.
The third, latent dimension that of the true
interests, explains that B does things that he would not have done had it not
been for A because A influences, determines and shapes B’s will. Media, advertisement,
political campaigns, education, mass action and others are but example of the subtle
influence of public opinion.
Nowadays, we see a fourth face of power: the ability
to embrace ambivalence and accept shallow truths. A headline is enough of
information; a quick YouTube animated video can provide a sound justification
for a policy; beautifully worded accusations masked with humanitarian values
are adopted; and complete ambivalence to events - whether near or far – are perfectly
acceptable.
Political power currently rests on that four face
– a dangerous, lonely, and self-destructive facade.
