Interpretation and understanding of political power differ in liberal and Marxian perspectives. In the liberal view, nature and characteristics of political power is related to how the political process is understood. In the Marxian perspective, understanding of the concept of political power is related to the understanding of the economic system. While liberal view treats political power as a mechanism of conflict resolution in society and hence, a neutral arbiter, the Marxian perspective holds political power as a means of domination and legitimation of the exploitative capitalist system and hence, an ally of the bourgeoisie. We can briefly discuss the two aspects.
In the liberal view, political process is treated as a means or mechanism of resolving conflicts through negotiation and reconciliation. Power that is implied in such a process is treated as political power. Conflicts arise on issues relating to distribution of resources in society, for example, welfare and material goods, reservation in employment and public offices, etc. or protection of religious, cultural and other identities. To resolve conflict through negotiation and reconciliation, the liberal view assumes that power distribution in society determines how this resolution is to be done. Allan R. Ball explains this when he says, ‘if politics is the resolution of conflict, the distribution of power within the political community determines how the conflict is to be resolved …’ He further adds that political power can be defined as ‘the capacity to affect another’s behaviour by some form of sanction’.11 Balls definition gives a feeling that political power is available to the organs of the State or such agencies only that can exercise sanction, either as coercion or inducement. However, political power is exercised not only by organs of the state but also by groups of individuals, political parties, pressure and interest groups that participate in interest articulation and interest aggregation.
Political power is conventionally identified with the organs of the state that formulate and implement policies. This includes the legislature, executive (including bureaucracy) and judiciary. However, it is apparent that political power is related to various other agencies and organs in society. It is important to understand how power and influence are exercised by those who articulate and aggregate interests in society, on the one hand and, those who make decisions and implement them, on the other? Interests and pressure groups, media, social and political movements, political parties, on the one hand and legislators, executives and judiciary, one the other become two aspects of political power. Generally, political parties in a democratic set-up are considered as important channels of political power because they alternate in government and opposition. Pressure and interest groups also largely work through political parties and influence policies of the political parties or through them the government. For example, in India various trade unions work through their affiliation with parties of the left (AITUC and others with left parties), right (BMS with BJP) and centre (INTUC with Congress) spectrum. Other cultural and pressure groups, such as the RSS, also allegedly work through the BJP. Nevertheless, these organs and institutions also exercise political power.
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary are considered as formal organs of political power because they exercise the power of the State. On the other hand, interest and pressure groups and other influences coming from society are considered informal organs of political power. As such, political power can be understood by looking at the channels and organs that exercise the power of sanction and participate in conflict resolution such as the formal organs of the State and those which put pressure and articulate interests and influence the decision-making and resource distribution such as the informal organs.
Political power is overwhelmingly exercised by the formal organs of the State primarily because they have the source of sanction—means of legal and physical coercion (laws, acts, rules, legislations, police, para-military forces, prison etc.), redistribution of resources, welfare and other means of inducements. Traditionally, legislature enjoys the supreme power of legislation and is considered as repository of the people’s power delegated to it. Executive is considered as the implementing arm of the legislature and judiciary as adjudicator and enforcer. We often discuss how power of office of the prime minister in a coalition situation is weakened vis-à-vis, a bipolar situation. This very idea refers to the limitation or restriction that the political power of office of the prime minister has undergone in a coalition situation due to weakening of party base. In another context, when we say that the prime minister is not effective in resolving the inter-state water dispute or is not able to negotiate with groups demanding regional autonomy, we are talking about the weakening of the political power of the executive vis-à-vis, the federal set-up. Political power of the State is exercised in a variety of ways, which include law enforcement, application of coercive means, inducements and welfare activities, resource generation and redistribution (e.g., tax collection and welfare activities), regulation (licences, permits, ensuring quality and standards), etc.
Participation of informal organs such as interest and pressure groups and political parties, media, etc. in negotiation, reconciliation and conflict resolution is without them exercising political power. Informal organs to influence the decision-making of the formal organs use pressure, persuasion, influence and intimidation and threat of physical violence. In political system analysis, while the formal organs exercise political power for ‘output’ functions, the informal organs exercise political power for ‘input’ functions. The fact is that output functions cannot be meaningfully performed unless input functions are carefully integrated within the political system. Political system analysis takes into account both formal and informal organs of political power as much as it accounts for the inputs, gatekeepers, decision-making and outputs in a networked manner.
Exercise of political power in this interrelated framework means study of power distribution in a society that manifests in a variety of pressure, influence and interest articulation. The liberal view of power distribution in society does not favour the idea of class domination. Instead, it assumes that power is distributed in such a manner that it is self-balancing. This means the liberal perspective views power distribution in society as if one aspect of power, say religious, is balanced by another aspect of power, say educational or economic or political. A classic example was provided by Max Weber, who in his essay on Class, Status and Party, identified, economic, social and political dimensions of power. Weber’s multidimensional stratification analysis identifies various bases of power.
Liberal views on politics, political power and distribution of political power in society are interrelated. The idea of politics as resolution of conflict through distribution of power is a liberal interpretation. Bernard Crick in his book, In Defence of Politics has pointed out that Aristotle’s Politics is a treatise, which celebrates this idea of politics as a means of reconciliation and conflict resolution. In the liberal view, politics becomes a process, which through distribution of political power seeks negotiation, reconciliation and resolution of conflicts. It becomes important for us to analyse and understand various approaches of distribution of political power within the liberal framework such as political pluralism, elitism, corporatism, etc. Pluralists would argue that associations and groups representing different interests in society should wield political power along with the state. Elitists argue that power is distributed amongst elites in society and the state negotiates with them, the corporatist view holds that certain groups such as the industrial interests, trade unions etc. are incorporated in political decision-making. We will discuss these perspectives on distribution of power in society separately and compare them with class perspective of distribution of power.
In orthodox Marxian view, political power is a reflection of economic system and is not separate from class relation. While the liberal view treats political power as neutral arbiter, the Marxian view sees it as a means of class domination, political power is an ally of class power. In the liberal view, political power being a means of negotiation, reconciliation and conflict resolution is associated with piecemeal or incremental change. In the Marxian view, political power is to be taken over by the proletariat through a revolutionary means when the capitalist system is replaced with a socialist system. However, we can note that in a post-revolutionary society, communist party as vanguard, dictatorship of the proletariat and such other organs remain as organs exercising political power.
In the neo-Marxian perspective espoused by Gramsci, Althusser and Poulantzas, we find the political aspect being given almost an autonomous position though integrated with the economic aspect in the last analysis. This is related to how the political process is important for consciousness and legitimation of capitalism. Miliband in his book, Marxism and Politics, accepts that ‘Marxism as a theory of domination remained poorly worked out’.12 We will discuss Gramsci’s theory of hegemony to find out how political arena and political power play crucial roles in stabilizing the capitalist system and maintaining its continuity.
We have differing views on political power as to who holds it. Conventionally, political power has been identified with the three organs of the State. The Lockean perspective’s threefold division of power and Montesquieu’s doctrine on separation of power, provide that legislature, executive and judiciary are important organs of political power. This is amply reflected, for example, in democratic constitutions of America and India. Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy and subsequent development in the role of bureaucracy in industrial and democratic countries with a complex decision-making process reveal that bureaucracy wields political power as an integral part of the state organs. Political power as power of negotiating, reconciling and resolving conflicts arising on resource allocation and redistribution is considered as being exercised by various groups in a society which puts pressure on the decision-making of state organs. Elites, political oligarchy, ruling class, power elites, dominant classes and such other concepts have been employed to designate those who wield political power. Political parties and their leaders are considered as significant elements that mediate between the state and the social groups. In this, they wield political power.
Our analysis suggests that political power is not ‘the capacity to affect another’s behaviour by some form of sanction’ alone, as Ball says. Rather it also means power of negotiating, reconciling and resolving conflicts arising on resource allocation and redistribution, which is exercised by various groups in society, which put pressure on decision-making of the state organs. Political power is understood in terms of how power is applied for negotiation, reconciliation and resolution of conflicts relating to resource allocation. This means when the State and its organs do redistribution and resource allocation, regulation of various actions of individuals and groups and extraction of material resources (taxes, fines, fees, economic benefits) for the benefit of the state and welfare, how political power is applied and how it is influenced.
Leave a Reply