Politics (textbook) - Political power, authority and the state Flashcards
How do we distinguish between power and authority?
Power can be equated to coercion and authority can be equated to consent.
Why is it desirable to turn power into authority?
As we can see from the association of authority and consent, we can define authority as legitimate power in the sense that rulers can produce acceptance by the ruled not because they can exercise coercion, but because the ruled recognise the right of the rulers to exercise power. This thus makes converting power into authority highly desirable.
What are the two possible answers to the difficulty of applying coercion?
One is ideological control. This is essentially brainwashing. It allows for a manipulation of the preferences of the ruled so that their interests reflect those of the ruler.
The second answer is based on the question of how we turn power into authority? A possible answer to authority and thus legitimacy is that of institutions and positions of power having democratic principles and constitutional rules.
How do governments both use power and authority?
In a democracy and authoritarian regimes both are used to some extent. In a democracy power is used in situations where a minority might be resentful at the outcome of a situation e.g Trump in 2016. Authoritarian states also have to exercise some form of authority. Totalitarian regimes often use charismatic authority in order to exercise authority. Hitler and Stalin are both examples of this. This also gives a clouded meaning to both as Totalitarian regimes are often given authority because they already have power.
Why is authority contentious?
This is due to the difference between conservative and liberal thinkers, the former emphasising the need to be led and the latter promoting liberty which challenges authority.
List Weber’s three forms of authority?
Traditional authority, Charismatic authority and legal-rational authority.
Is power the same as force?
Power is usually exercised by the threat of force. Exercising this force however can be seen as a failure of power as it questions the power of the powerful.
Must power be exercised deliberately?
It is argued that it must be exercised deliberately as the person who benefits from unintended consequences is not a result of the exercise of power. A taxi driver benefiting from the rain is not due to the taxi drivers power. This however is disputed in that Marxists believe that economic structures give power to capitalists and not agency. Maybe domination is a better word to use instead of power in the case of Marxism instead.
Is power a good thing?
Some political scientists argue that power can be a good thing dependent on what use it is put to. Liberals argue that the use of power is always the imposition of someones values on someone else and is thus undesirable. This is shown in liberals desire for the separation of power in government.
Can power be eliminated?
Foculat argues that power is inevitable between the relationships of individuals and it is ever-present. It differs in form over time but is ubiquitous in society e.g violent punishment progressing to regimented incarceration. Lukes contests by saying that power is illegitimately exercised and that is should be curtailed.
How can theories of the state be used to describe power structures in different polities?
There are two observations related to this. The first is that all theories do not correctly analyse the power structure in any one polity. It is only possible to do this at the micro level in different policy networks. The second thing to be done is which theory of the state provides a more accurate description in liberal democracies - this is especially difficult because of the exercise of the measurement of power and how it is conceptualised.
What is the first dimension of power; what are the criticisms of this methodology?
The first is ‘A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’. This is know as the decision-making approach. This is the method used by pluralists to look at decisions made and the preferences of those groups involved in the decision-making process. If a groups aims are met at all then it is said they have power.
Critics of this methodology say that it makes no attempt to rank issues in order of importance. Second it is assumed that the barriers to entry for groups in the political system are low i.e. the homeless have the same resources as other groups in the system. Third is that the ruling class can and cannot decide what issues will and will not be discussed.
What is the second dimension of power?
The second dimension of power is referred to as non-decision making. This is where the elite and ruling class operate behind the scenes in preventing certain issues from entering the decision-making arena. Non-decision-making usually operates in the interests of the most powerful. Empirical studies of this is through covert grievances that are not discussed, methods employed to prevent issues appearing on the agenda in the first place, or referring to a legislative committee to take the heat out of the issue, the law of anticipated reaction are all methods of this.
What is the third dimension of power?
This is called preference manipulation, in which what is measured is the ability to shape the demands that particular groups articulate in the decision-making arena. ‘A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants’. We can see in this that the exercise of power does, though, require ‘latent conflict’ in the sense that there is a gap ‘between the interests of those exercising power and the real interests’ of those being dominated.
What is the difficulty in empirically studying the third face of power?
How can we know if the interests of a group have been shaped by an elite or the dominant forces of society or if they are their own interests? This is difficult in multiple circumstances, as when it comes to these questions the interest of an individual is highly subjective, and furthermore an empirical conclusion of the study could also include the political analysts’ bias also.
