SOURCE OF POWER IN POLITICS IN POLITICS

INTRODUCTION "According to Max Weber, legitimacy in politics is derived from three main sources of political powers is tradion, charisma, and legality." "When Weber believed that positions of power become legit over time, it becomes traditional." "Weber also stressed the importance of personality in creating political legitmacy. A Great popularity of sine leaders is due in part to their personal magnitism, or charisma." "Finally, Weber pointed to the importan ce of law in creating legitimacy. Some of the personal activities are considered legitimate simply because they are legal (legality)."French and Raven developed what is regarded as a classic scheme for categorizing the various bases of power in politics. Their work was first presented in an article in Studies of Social Power in politics in 1959, titled "The Bases of Social Power in politics". They identified five distinct bases of power in politics: legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent. These five power in politics bases were expanded on by Hershey and Blanchard in their text, "Management of Organizational Behavior" (1982) in which they added two more bases of power in politics that are relevant to this discussion. The two additional power in politics bases are: connection and information. The seven power in politics bases can easily be separated into two broad categories of power in politics: positional and personal Positional Power in politics Legitimate power in politics (sometimes called authority or formal power in politics) is that which is derived from the person's position in the organization. It exists because organizations find it advantageous to assign certain power in politicss to individuals so that they can do their jobs effectively. All managers have some degree of legitimate power in politics. Reward power in politics is based on the individual's ability to reward desirable behavior. It stems partly from legitimate power in politics. Managers because of their positions have control over certain rewards, such as pay increases, promotions, work schedules, status symbols and recognition awards, which they can use to reward desirable behavior. Coercive power in politics is the opposite of reward power in politics, and is based on the ability of the individual to sanction (punish) or prevent someone from obtaining desirable rewards. Rewards and punishment are power in politics motivational tools, and leaders are generally better served by the exercise of reward power in politics than by the exercise of coercive power in politics. But only if reward power in politics is used effectively. Look at these three types of power in politics as POSITIONAL power in politics and conferred on one from the ORGANIZATION, e.g., they come with the position of manager, and each manager has at least some of each of the three "power in politicss of office." The remaining four, however, are in a different domain entirely. A. Sources of Political power If political power in politics is not intrinsic to the power in politics-holder, it follows that it must have outside sources. In fact, political power in politics appears to emerge from the interaction of all or several of the following sources: 1. Authority The extent and intensity of the ruler’s authority among the subjects is a crucial factor affecting the ruler’s power in politics. Authority may be defined as the “. . . right to command and direct, to be heard or obeyed by others,”10 voluntarily accepted by the people and therefore existing without the imposition of sanctions. The possessor of authority may not actually be superior; it is enough that he be perceived and accepted as superior. While not identical with power in politics, authority is nevertheless clearly a main source of power in politics. 2. Human resources A ruler’s power in politics is affected by the number of persons who obey him, cooperate with him, or provide him with special assistance, as well as by the proportion of such persons in the general population, and the extent and forms of their organizations. 3. Skills and knowledge The ruler’s power in politics is also affected by the skills, knowledge and abilities of such persons, and the relation of their skills, knowledge and abilities to his needs. 4. Intangible factors Psychological and ideological factors, such as habits and attitudes toward obedience and submission, and the presence or absence of a common faith, ideology, or sense of mission, all affect the power in politics of the ruler in relation to the people. 5. Material resources The degree to which the ruler controls property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, means of communication and transportation helps to determine the limits of his power in politics. PART ONE: POWER IN POLITICS AND STRUGGLE 12 6. Sanctions The final source of a ruler’s power in politics is the type and extent of sanctions at his disposal, both for use against his own subjects and in conflicts with other rulers. As John Austin wrote, sanctions are “an enforcement of obedience,”11 used by rulers against their subjects to supplement voluntary acceptance of their authority and to increase the degree of obedience to their commands. They may be violent or not; they may be intended as punishment or as deterrence. Citizens may sometimes apply sanctions against their governments or against each other (these will be discussed below). Still other sanctions may be applied by governments against other governments and may take a variety of forms, such as the breaking of diplomatic relations, economic embargoes, military invasions and bombings. Violent domestic sanctions, such as imprisonment or execution, are commonly intended to punish disobedience, not to achieve the objective of the original command, except insofar as such sanctions may inhibit future disobedience by other persons. Other violent sanctions sometimes, and most nonviolent sanctions usually, are intended to achieve the original objective; this is often the case in conventional war, strikes, political noncooperation and boycotts. Sanctions are usually a key element in domestic and international politics. It is always a matter of the degree to which some or all of these sources of power in politics are present; only rarely, if ever, are all of them completely available to a ruler or completely absent. But their availability is subject to constant variation, which brings about an increase or decrease in the ruler’s power in politics. Baron de Montesquieu observed that “those who govern have a power in politics which, in some measure, has need of fresh vigor every day . . .”12 To the degree that the sources of power in politics are available without limitation, the ruler’s power in politics is unlimited. However, the opposite is also true: to the degree that the availability of these sources is limited, the ruler’s political power in politics is also limited THEORETICAL SOURCE OF POWER IN POLITICS IN POLITICS Theories of power in politics Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) defined power in politics as a man's "present means, to obtain some future apparent good" (Leviathan, Ch. 10). The thought of Friedrich Nietzsche underlies much 20th century analysis of power in politics. Nietzsche disseminated ideas on the "will to power in politics", which he saw as the domination of other humans as much as the exercise of control over one's environment. Some schools of psychology, notably that associated with Alfred Adler, place power in politics dynamics at the core of their theory (where orthodox Freudians might place sexuality). Rational choice framework Game theory, with its foundations in the theory of Rational Choice, is increasingly used in various disciplines to help analyze power in politics relationships. One rational choice definition of power in politics is given by Keith Dowding in his book Power in politics. In rational choice theory, human individuals or groups can be modelled as 'actors' who choose from a 'choice set' of possible actions in order to try to achieve desired outcomes. An actor's 'incentive structure' comprises (its beliefs about) the costs associated with different actions in the choice set, and the likelihoods that different actions will lead to desired outcomes. In this setting we can differentiate between: 1. outcome power in politics – the ability of an actor to bring about or help bring about outcomes; 2. social power in politics – the ability of an actor to change the incentive structures of other actors in order to bring about outcomes. This framework can be used to model a wide range of social interactions where actors have the ability to exert power in politics over others. For example a 'power in politicsful' actor can take options away from another's choice set; can change the relative costs of actions; can change the likelihood that a given action will lead to a given outcome; or might simply change the other's beliefs about its incentive structure. As with other models of power in politics, this framework is neutral as to the use of 'coercion'. For example: a threat of violence can change the likely costs and benefits of different actions; so can a financial penalty in a 'voluntarily agreed' contract, or indeed a friendly offer. Marxism In the Marxist tradition, the Italian writer Antonio Gramsci elaborated the role of cultural hegemony in ideology as a means of bolstering the power in politics of capitalism and of the nation-state. Drawing on Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, and trying to understand why there had been no Communist revolution in Western Europe, whilst there had been in Russia, Gramsci conceptualised this hegemony as a centaur, consisting of two halves. The back end, the beast, represented the more classic, material image of power in politics, power in politics through coercion, through brute force, be it physical or economic. But the capitalist hegemony, he argued, depended even more strongly on the front end, the human face, which projected power in politics through 'consent'. In Russia, this power in politics was lacking, allowing for a revolution. However, in Western Europe, specifically in Italy, capitalism had succeeded in exercising consensual power in politics, convincing the working classes that their interests were the same as those of capitalists. In this way revolution had been avoided. While Gramsci stresses the significance of ideology in power in politics structures, Marxist-feminist writers such as Michele Barrett stress the role of ideologies in extolling the virtues of family life. The classic argument to illustrate this point of view is the use of women as a 'reserve army of labour'. In wartime it is accepted that women perform masculine tasks, while after the war the roles are easily reversed. Therefore, according to Barrett, the destruction of capitalist economic relations is necessary but not sufficient for the liberation of women.[2] Hohfeld Professor of jurisprudence Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld defined power in politics more narrowly as the ability to unilaterally alter rights.[3] [4] [5] Without requiring all right-holders' consent, such an alteration necessarily entails the use or threat of force, whether legitimate or not. MIT professor of philosophy Judith Jarvis Thomson uses this definition extensively in her book The Realm of Rights.[6] Tarnow Tarnow[7] considers what power in politics hijackers have over air plane passengers and draws similarities with power in politics in the military. He shows that power in politics over an individual can be amplified by the presence of a group. If the group conforms to the leader's commands, the leader's power in politics over an individual is greatly enhanced while if the group does not conform the leader's power in politics over an individual is nil. Lukes In Power in politics: A radical view (1974) Steven Lukes outlines two dimensions through which power in politics had been theorised in the earlier part of the twentieth century (dimensions 1 and 2 below) which he critiqued as being limited to those forms of power in politics that could be seen. To these he added a third 'critical' dimension which built upon insights from Gramsci and Althusser. One-dimensional • Power in politics is decision making • Exercised in formal institutions • Measure it by the outcomes of decisions In his own words, Lukes states that the "one-dimensional, view of power in politics involves a focus on behaviour in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as express policy preferences, revealed by political participation." Two-dimensional: 1D plus: • Decision making & agenda-setting • Institutions & informal influences • Measure extent of informal influence • Techniques used by two-dimensional power in politics structures: o Influence o Inducement o Persuasion o Authority o Coercion o Direct force Three-dimensional: Includes aspects of model 1 & 2, plus: • Shapes preferences via values, norms, ideologies • All social interaction involves power in politics because ideas operate behind all language and action • Not obviously measurable: we must infer its existence (focus on language) • Ideas or values that ground all social and political activity o E.g. religious ideals (Christianity, secularism) o Self-interest for economic gain • These become routine – we don’t consciously ‘think’ of them. • Political ideologies inform policy making without being explicit, e.g. neoconservatism. Clegg Stewart Clegg proposes another three dimensional model with his "circuits of power in politics"[8] theory. This model likens the production and organizing of power in politics to an electric circuit board consisting of three distinct interacting circuits: episodic, dispositional, and facilitative. These circuits operate at three levels, two are macro and one is micro. The episodic circuit is the micro level and is constituted of irregular exercise of power in politics as agents address feelings, communication, conflict, and resistance in day-to-day interrelations. The outcomes of the episodic circuit are both positive and negative. The dispositional circuit is constituted of macro level rules of practice and socially constructed meanings that inform member relations and legitimate authority. The facilitative circuit is constituted of macro level technology, environmental contingencies, job design, and networks, which empower in politics or disempower in politics and thus punish or reward, agency in the episodic circuit. All three independent circuits interact at “obligatory passage points” which are channels for empower in politicsment or disempower in politicsment. Toffler Alvin Toffler's Power in politicsshift argues that the three main kinds of power in politics are violence, wealth, and knowledge with other kinds of power in politics being variations of these three (typically knowledge). Each successive kind of power in politics represents a more flexible kind of power in politics. Violence can only be used negatively, to punish. Wealth can be used both negatively (by withholding money) and positively (by advancing/spending money). Knowledge can be used in these ways but, additionally, can be used in a transformative way. Such examples are, sharing knowledge on agriculture to ensure that everyone is capable of supplying himself and his family of food; Allied nations with a shared identity forming with the spread of religious or political philosophies, or one can use knowledge as a tactical/strategic superiority in Intelligence (information gathering). Toffler argues that the very nature of power in politics is currently shifting. Throughout history, power in politics has often shifted from one group to another; however, at this time, the dominant form of power in politics is changing. During the Industrial Revolution, power in politics shifted from a nobility acting primarily through violence to industrialists and financiers acting through wealth. Of course, the nobility used wealth just as the industrial elite used violence, but the dominant form of power in politics shifted from violence to wealth. Today, a The Third Wave (Toffler) of shifting power in politics is taking place with wealth being overtaken by knowledge. Gene Sharp Gene Sharp, an American professor of political science, believes that power in politics depends ultimately on its bases. Thus a political regime maintains power in politics because people accept and obey its dictates, laws and policies. Sharp cites the insight of Étienne de La Boétie. Sharp's key theme is that power in politics is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power in politics. For Sharp, political power in politics, the power in politics of any state - regardless of its particular structural organization - ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power in politics structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power in politics.[9] His work is thought to have been influential in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, in the 2011 Arab Spring, and other passive revolutions. Unmarked categories The idea of unmarked categories originated in feminism. The theory analyzes the culture of the power in politicsful. The power in politicsful comprise those people in society with easy access to resources, those who can exercise power in politics without considering their actions. For the power in politicsful, their culture seems obvious; for the power in politicsless, on the other hand, it remains out of reach, élite and expensive. The unmarked category can form the identifying mark of the power in politicsful. The unmarked category becomes the standard against which to measure everything else. For most Western readers, it is posited that if a protagonist's race is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is Caucasian; if a sexual identity is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is heterosexual; if the gender of a body is not indicated, will be assumed by the reader that it is male; if a disability is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is able bodied, just as a set of examples. One can often overlook unmarked categories. Whiteness forms an unmarked category not commonly visible to the power in politicsful, as they often fall within this category. The unmarked category becomes the norm, with the other categories relegated to deviant status. Social groups can apply this view of power in politics to race, gender, and disability without modification: the able body is the neutral body. Counterpower in politics The term 'counter-power in politics' (sometimes written 'Counterpower in politics') is used in a range of situations to describe the countervailing force that can be utilised by the oppressed to counterbalance or erode the power in politics of elites. [10] In the book Counterpower in politics: Making Change Happen, a definition rooted in the political science literature is offered, stating 'if power in politics is the ability of 'A' to make 'B' do something 'B' would not otherwise have done, Counterpower in politics is the ability of 'B' to resist the power in politics of 'A'. [11] A related definition has been provided by the anthropologist David Graeber as 'a collection of social institutions set in opposition to the state and capital: from self-governing communities to radical labor unions to popular militias'.[12] Graeber also notes that counter-power in politics can also be referred to as 'anti-power in politics' and 'when institutions [of counter-power in politics] maintain themselves in the face of the state, this is usually referred to as a 'dual power in politics' situation'.[12] Although the term has come to prominence through its use by participants in the global justice/anti-globalization movement of the 1990s onwards, [13] the word has been used for at least 60 years; for instance Martin Buber's 1949 book 'Paths in Utopia' includes the line 'Power in politics abdicates only under counter-power in politics'.[14]. Six bases of power in politics Social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven, in a now-classic study (1959),[15] developed a schema of sources of power in politics by which to analyse how power in politics plays work (or fail to work) in a specific relationship. According to French and Raven, power in politics must be distinguished from influence in the following way: power in politics is that state of affairs which holds in a given relationship, A-B, such that a given influence attempt by A over B makes A's desired change in B more likely. Conceived this way, power in politics is fundamentally relative – it depends on the specific understandings A and B each apply to their relationship, and, interestingly, requires B's recognition of a quality in A which would motivate B to change in the way A intends. A must draw on the 'base' or combination of bases of power in politics appropriate to the relationship, to effect the desired outcome. Drawing on the wrong power in politics base can have unintended effects, including a reduction in A's own power in politics. French and Raven argue that there are five significant categories of such qualities, while not excluding other minor categories. Further bases have since been adduced – in particular by Morgan (1986: ch.6),[16] who identifies 14, while others have suggested a simpler model for practical purposes – for example, Handy (1976),[17] who recommends three. Legitimate power in politics Also called "Positional power in politics", it is the power in politics of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate power in politics is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position. It is usually accompanied by various attributes of power in politics such as uniforms, offices etc. This is the most obvious and also the most important kind of power in politics. Referent power in politics Referent power in politics is the power in politics or ability of individuals to attract others and build loyalty. It's based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power in politics holder. A person may be admired because of specific personal trait, and this admiration creates the opportunity for interpersonal influence. Here the person under power in politics desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower. Nationalism and patriotism count towards an intangible sort of referent power in politics. For example, soldiers fight in wars to defend the honor of the country. This is the second least obvious power in politics, but the most effective. Advertisers have long used the referent power in politics of sports figures for products endorsements, for example. The charismatic appeal of the sports star supposedly leads to an acceptance of the endorsement, although the individual may have little real credibility outside the sports arena.[18] Referent power in politics can be a big responsibility, because you don't necessarily have to do anything to earn it. Therefore, it can be abused quite easily. Someone who is likable, but lacks integrity and honesty, may rise to power in politics – and use that power in politics to hurt and alienate people as well as gain personal advantage. Relying on referent power in politics alone is not a good strategy for a leader who wants longevity and respect. When combined with other sources of power in politics, however, it can help you achieve great success. [19] Expert power in politics Expert power in politics is an individual's power in politics deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power in politics is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. When you have knowledge and skills that enable you to understand a situation, suggest solutions, use solid judgment, and generally outperform others, people will have reason to listen to you. When you demonstrate expertise, people tend to trust you and respect what you say. As a subject matter expert, your ideas will have more value, and others will look to you for leadership in that area. [20] Reward power in politics Reward power in politics depends on the ability of the power in politics wielder to confer valued material rewards, it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility. This power in politics is obvious but also ineffective if abused. People who abuse reward power in politics can become pushy or became reprimanded for being too forthcoming or 'moving things too quickly'. If others expect that you'll reward them for doing what you want, there's a high probability that they'll do it. The problem with this basis of power in politics is that you may not have as much control over rewards as you need. Supervisors probably don't have complete control over salary increases, and managers often can't control promotions all by themselves. And even a CEO needs permission from the board of directors for some actions. So when you use up available rewards, or the rewards don't have enough perceived value to others, your power in politics weakens. (One of the frustrations of using rewards is that they often need to be bigger each time if they're to have the same motivational impact. Even then, if rewards are given frequently, people can become satiated by the reward, such that it loses its effectiveness.)[21] Coercive power in politics Coercive power in politics is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. The desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power in politics. Coercive power in politics tends to be the most obvious but least effective form of power in politics as it builds resentment and resistance from the people who experience it. Threats and punishment are common tools of coercion. Implying or threatening that someone will be fired, demoted, denied privileges, or given undesirable assignments – these are examples of using coercive power in politics. Extensive use of coercive power in politics is rarely appropriate in an organizational setting, and relying on these forms of power in politics alone will result in a very cold, technocratic, impoverished style of leadership. [22] Informational power in politics Informational power in politics is based on the potential use of informational resources. This influence can occur through such means as rational argument, persuasion, or factual data. Members of a group can make information into power in politics by giving it to others who need it, by keeping it to themselves, by organizing it in some way, by increasing it, or even by falsifying it. Power in politics tactics People use more than rewards, threats, and information to influence others. In everyday situations people use a variety of power in politics tactics to push or prompt others into particular action. There are plenty of examples of power in politics tactics that are quite common and employed every day. Some of these tactics include bullying, collaboration, complaining, criticizing, demanding, disengaging, evading, humor, inspiring, manipulating, negotiating, socializing, and supplicating. These power in politics tactics can be classified along three different dimensions: softness, rationality, and laterality (Falbo & Pepalu, 1980; Raven et al., 1998). Soft and hard Soft tactics take advantage of the relationship between person and the target. It is more indirect and interpersonal (e.g. collaboration, socializing). Conversely, hard tactics are harsh, forceful, direct, and rely on concrete outcomes. However, they are not more power in politicsful than soft tactics. In many circumstances, fear of social exclusion can be a much stronger motivator than some kind of physical punishment. Rational and nonrational Rational tactics of influence make use of reasoning, logic, and sound judgment, whereas nonrational tactics rely on emotionality and misinformation. Examples of each include bargaining and persuasion, and evasion and put downs, respectively. Unilateral and bilateral Bilateral tactics, such as collaboration and negotiation, involve reciprocity on the part of both the person influencing and their target. Unilateral tactics, on the other hand, are enacted without any participation on the part of the target. These tactics include disengagement and fait accompli. People tend to vary in their use of power in politics tactics, with different types of people opting for different tactics. For instance, interpersonally oriented people tend to use soft and rational tactics (Falbo, 1997). Machiavellians, however, tend to use nonrational tactics. Moreover, extraverts use a greater variety of power in politics tactics than do introverts (Butkovic & Bratko, 2007). Further, men tend to use bilateral and direct tactics, whereas women tend to use unilateral and indirect tactics (Falbo & Peplau, 1980). People will also choose different tactics based on the group situation, and based on who they are trying to influence. It is interesting to note that people also tend to shift from soft to hard tactics when they face resistance (Carson, Carson, & Roe, 1993; Teppner, 2006) Balance of power in politics Because power in politics operates both relationally and reciprocally, sociologists speak of the balance of power in politics between parties to a relationship: all parties to all relationships have some power in politics: the sociological examination of power in politics concerns itself with discovering and describing the relative strengths: equal or unequal, stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists usually analyse relationships in which the parties have relatively equal or nearly equal power in politics in terms of constraint rather than of power in politics. Thus 'power in politics' has a connotation of unilateralism. If this were not so, then all relationships could be described in terms of 'power in politics', and its meaning would be lost. Given that power in politics is not innate and can be granted to others, to acquire power in politics you must possess or control a form of power in politics currency.[23] REFERENCES • ^ Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, Yale University Press (1946). The article appeared earlier at 26 Yale Law Journal 710 (1917). • ^ Hohfeld, Wesley. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. Arthur Corbin, ed. (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press (1978). • ^ Thomson, Judith Jarvis. The Realm of Rights, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1990). • ^ Tarnow (2000) • ^ Clegg, S.R. 1989, Frameworks of power in politics, Sage, London, UK. • ^ (see book article) From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation. The Albert Einstein Institution, 2003. ISBN 978-1-880813-09-6 • ^ E.g. In 'Power in politics of a Third Kind' Hisham Nazer uses the term to refer to how less power in politicsful states resist the power in politics of more power in politicsful states. In 'Reflections on Empire', Antonio Negri includes calls insurrection the most developed form of counter-power in politics, and 'Counterpower in politics: Making Change Happen' looks at examples ranging from small scale local resistance, to the dismantling of dictatorial or hierarchical structures altogether • ^ Tim Gee, 'Counterpower in politics: Making Change Happen', New Internationalist, Oxford, 2011 • ^ a b Graeber, David (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology (2nd pr. ed.). Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. pp. 24. ISBN 0-9728196-4-9. • ^ E.g. in a 2003 edition of New Internationalist, global justice scholar Graeme Chesters describes Counterpower in politics as 'a hall of mirrors held up to the dominant logic of capitalism'. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_360/ai_108648117/ • ^ Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, 1949, Syracuse University Press • ^ French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). 'The bases of social power in politics,' in D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power in politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. • ^ Morgan, Gareth (1986). 'Images of Organization'. Sage Publications, Inc. • ^ Handy, Charles (1976). 'Understanding Organizations'. Penguin Books. • ^ Management by Patrick J.Montana, and Bruce H. Charnov, Fourth Edition. • ^ [www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_56.htm "French and Raven's Five Forms of Power in politics"]. MindTools.com. Retrieved 27 April 2012.