Comparative Politics - Power

Front 1

Traditional authority

Back 1

Rests on established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions. That people respect the existing political reality simply because they have been there for prolonged periods. In practice, however, these “old ways of doing things” rest on rather interesting personal ties and relationships. These might exist as forms of patron-client networks or patron-networks, and often corresponds to a notion of patrimonial rule.

Front 2

Legitimacy

Back 2

Often defined as the “the right to rule,” but what does that really mean? In democracies the people are believed to be the source of the state’s legitimacy. Thus popular approval of disapproval matters for the elected official. But is this a normative argument or a causal one? Most of history, legitimacy has come from other ways. Monarchies involved inheritance and sometimes a “divine right.” Much of the discussion on legitimacy owes its origins to the sociologist Max Weber, who refers to the basis of authority. He offers three types of legitimacy/leadership: charismatic, traditional, rational-bureaucratic. Legitimate leaders have an easier time to rule because individuals are more likely to comply with their mandates voluntarily than because of fear of coercion. They need not exercise coercive power, but can expect those they rule to comply with their rule as obligatory.

Front 3

Dominance

Back 3

Is the maximum degree of political power. It is the power to determine or control political outcomes. But is domination always a good thing?

Front 4

Influence

Back 4

A type of power, or a form of power. Influence is the capacity to affect outcomes indirectly or partially. Political influence means the capacity to affect government decisions, actions or behavior without fully controlling them.

Front 5

First dimension of power

Back 5

A view of power involving a focus on behavior 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.

Front 6

Second dimension of power

Back 6

A view of power involving a focus on agenda setting (i.e. in the clash between an emphasis on job creation and the debt, Congress has control over the second dimension since debt prevailed).

Front 7

Socially situated

Back 7

Wartenberg's idea that power relations are often socially situated - this idea goes beyond the specific contexts of the situation but acknowledges that both those with power and those responding to power (the A and B of the dyad) might be acting not only in response to the power each of the members of the dyad have, but how other social actors might influence them.

Front 8

Negative power relationship

Back 8

Occurs when the exercise of power by A to compel B to act in a way that A wants actually results in an opposite consequence. For instance, A (the government) may seek to gain control of the economy from B (society) and will try to monopolize control through government intervention. Yet B might seek to evade A by moving into informal markets. Likewise A (the government) may try to compel B (society) to become docile and comply through fear and coercive actions. But A’s actions might also lead B to act in response to A, increasing the level of resistance of B against A.

Front 9

Masses

Back 9

The rest of us. Yet this group may itself be divided along differences in identity- gender, ethnic affiliation, economic class, etc. Some people have more power than others and some factions of society (the masses) defined by their identity or relations may have greater power within a society.

Front 10

Political elites

Back 10

Those who have prominent positions either in government or in non-government organizations and professions that have a real effect on government actions. This can be further divided between those in government and a secondary elite (those in other sectors who participate in politics) and a political society (those who are daily engaged in politics).

Front 11

Zero-Sum

Back 11

We are faced with the interesting question of whether power really is zero-sum. Does the gain in power of one actor entail the loss of it in others?

Front 12

Power

Back 12

The capacity to effect outcomes. From Physics we know that power can be both potential and kinetic. It could exist as the ability to deliver an event or in the delivery of that event. Power is not equally divided but subject to the types of resources and abilities that the actor possesses. Power may take on many dimensions, as well (Lukes).

Front 13

Charismatic authority

Back 13

Attaches to certain uniquely magnetic or inspiring leaders and rests on the devotion of his followers to the leaders extraordinary sanctity, heroism or exemplary character. These charismatic leaders are often perceived as supermen or supernatural figures. However, this is often a very unstable from of authority, dependent on the leader. i.e. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini

Front 14

Rational-Legal authority

Back 14

The belief in the legality of rules and in the right of those who occupy positions according to those rules to issue commands.

Front 15

Democracy

Back 15

Does it mean rule by law or rule by the majority?

Front 16

Autocracy

Back 16

Often means one person rule. One individual has supreme authority over the state.

Front 17

Oligarchy

Back 17

Rule by a few. A small group of leaders rule the country. The Soviet Union after Stalin. Communist China?

Front 18

Totalitarianism

Back 18

A form of authoritarianism in which the government’s domination of politics, the economy and society is nearly total. Individuals have few freedoms.

Front 19

Popular Sovereignty

Back 19

The belief that sovereign power comes for the people and their consent to be governed. Yet, this has not always been true.

Front 20

Democratic Elitism

Back 20

The idea that modern democratic governments are managed by political elites who are accountable to the masses. Plato’s the Republic favored the creation of a ruling class of governors.

Front 21

The danger of masses

Back 21

Masses have often voted for rather non-liberal leaders. Nazis, Communists and Islamic dictatorships have been voted into office.

Front 22

Corruption

Back 22

The illegal or sometimes unethical use of a political position to provide special advantages for individuals or groups.

Front 23

Torture

Back 23

Abuse of power or an exercise of power?

Front 24

Hidden transcripts

Back 24

The way people truly feel in response to power. Rarely do we “speak truth to power” simply because it is not the rational thing to do. We are indoctrinated into ways to respond to different power relations. But this doesn’t mean that the weaker acquiesces, rather that the subordinate resists in often quiet ways. He will harbor grievance but will hide his true feelings behind a mask of acceptance and compliance, even as he thinks and often acts in ways that challenge the dominant status quo.

Front 25

Public transcripts

Back 25

The way people are supposed to respond to power.

Front 26

Third Dimension

Back 26

The power of Ideas and behavior itself, Norms and Values.

Front 27

Pluralism

Back 27

Perhaps the most mainstream of views. Pluralists often argue that there is not a dominant class or a set of institutionally based elites that has predominant power. Although there are great inequalities in power and wealth, but they are disbursed among several groups. This means there is "polyarchy," not a hierarchy. Different groups have power on different issues.

Front 28

Civil society

Back 28

The collection of organized groups that are distinct from government and from business and are larger than families. Note that Drogus & Orvis suggest that civil society is non-violent. But we have many groups in society that are not government nor economic but have engaged in violence or advocate violence.