Political Power Essay Example for Free

Political office staff Es distinguishA gets B to do something that he or she would non otherwise do. Does this sum up the affection of political force play?Political analysis quite a little be defined quite only as the analysis of the nature, bring and distribution of bureau.1 This crease is criticised of being too broad, excluding almost nothing, neertheless it is commonsensical to argue that motive is the central theme which lies throughout the study of politics. T here(predicate)fore defining the archetype of indicant is wiz of the crucial things in the study of politics consequently it is often contested and can never be agreed among the scholars. This essay will focus on so-called the faces of billet controversy in the post war period. First of all, the idea which consists of the first and staple part in interpreting business leader will be introduced. Then what its critiques argue and their flaws will also be discussed to draw the conclusion how cold the cause A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do reflects the essence of index number.The faces of power debate was raised from different theoretical traditions and approaches to political analysis. Basically the contestation is about whether the design of power is simple and quantifiable or it is rather complicated and intuitive concept which cannot be measured. Lukes2 ac seeledges that this concept can never be settled. Alternatively he accepts the broad definition of power as As ability to get B to do what he or she would not otherwise look at through but tries to highlight 3 different ways in which A can influence Bs demeanor decision-making, agenda-setting and thought control.The one face of power power as decision-making was suggested by Dahl in the early post war years. The thesis put forward above was originally proposed by him and this linear view of power was significant and influential in 1950s. might is somehow about getting things done, and is thereof most clearly reflected in decision and how they be made.3 For Dahl, in order to find out power relationship, three steps are needed. First, a number of decision areas are selected and then the actors involved in that decision and their interests are figured out. Finally by comparing the decisions made and the actors preferences, the power relationship can be revealed. In this wiz power is understood as a concept which can be simplified and quantified.A clear example was shown in?Political Analysis? Anna buys Bens car for 500 which is rattling worth 800 and both of them are aware of the real value. In this case, Annas power has been exercised over Ben in foothold of decision-making since this decision would not prepare been the case if he had an influence in the process. One of the unfavorable assumptions here is that the actors involved are fully aware of the information. Anna could have made this deal without exerting power if Ben did not do it the real value. Th is argument of power as a decision-making does often make sense in many-sided political system where a number of different parties exercise their influence on controversial issues. In this case it is obvious to see the frequency of a particular partys preference coincides with the final decision. Thus, how far they have influence on decision-making can be understood in terms of their political power.However Dahls argument faces critical attack in a sense that it too focuses on its narrow concept of power in decision-making. First of all, since only the trace decisions are studied, it raises the problem of how far we are capable of distinguishing key issues and routine issues which are often ignored. Moreover, it does not take the potential power into account. In this manner, the power which is not exerted cannot be regarded as power. For instance, some business groups would not be concerned with the welfare issues until they realise the increase burden for welfare tax. Then it mig ht be possible for them to begin exercising their power which has not been exercised without any explicit need for it. Also as assumed from its name, it only uncovers one face of power ignoring other circumstances in which decisions are prevented from happening, the area of non-decision-making.4 This gave a rise to the second face of power argument by Bachrach and Baratz.According to their view, power should be understood as agenda-setting which is the two dimensional approach. Power might be manifested not only in doing things but also in ensuring that things do not get done.5 What they basically insist is that power is exercised in choosing what should be involved in formal discussion and what should not be. In other words, who holds the power needs to be understood in agenda-setting process in front the actual decision-making process. In this way, they have broadened the boundary in the concept of power. This kind of approach is well shown in the liberal democratic system where parties are seen as the medium of representing a particular preference on issues. However they can actually block a certain kind of issue to be discussed by disregarding it or make an agreement not to raise the issue.It is difficult to quantify the concept of power from this approach nonetheless not impossible. Thus they agree with the one-dimensional approach in a sense that there should be observable and demonstrable evidence of power relationship between the one who exercise power and the other who are subject to the power. However the attempt to limit the concept of non-decision-making to observable behaviour is entirely arbitrary6 since it does not take in the case in which the subordinated do not recognise themselves as being subordinated. Consequently this problem gave a rise to the third-dimensional view introduced by Lukes.According to his argument, the basic assumption of the above two views is not quite right. What people believe as their interests does not of necessity mean their real interests. The ability of A to exercise power over B, not by getting B to do what he would not otherwise do, but, by influencing, shaping or determining his genuinely wants7 What is meant here is that power lies in shaping peoples consciousness rather than their actions. In other words, without forcing them to do something visibly it is possible to make them do regarding that as natural and beneficial for them. This can be true where peoples preferences are often influenced by social experiences such as culture, education and media and these can be manipulated by those who have the power. In this way it naturally leads to the concept of false consciousness which reflects the idea that people are prevented from recognizing the item of its own exploitation8However Lukes argument also faces severe criticism. Back in the example of Anna and Ben, the critical storey is not in the fact that Anna forced Ben to do something that he would not otherwise do, but in the fact that Ben behaved in a way which is contrary to his genuine interest. This raises a problematic point that who is to know Bens real interests. In effect,It is impossible to argue that peoples perceptions and preferences are a delusion, that their felt needs are no their real need, without a standard of truth against which to judge them.9In this sense this debate become nonsense(prenominal) since there is no scientific method which to prove and make an absolute judgement over this. moreover it is contested that nobody is capable of distinguishing the autonomous decision base on real interests and the one based on felt interests being manipulated from powerful.To conclude, the debate over the concept of power has been developed from the shallow one dimensional understanding to a more intuitive and complex three dimensional one. It cannot be verbalize that the effort of developing it into more sophisticated form has always been successful. However through this process, it is true to say that the concept of power has been understood from various approaches which enabled better understanding. Nevertheless the important point to note is that the latter(prenominal) has never attempted to replace or deny the former approach since no single argument can define the political concept of power by its own. Rather, it has its root in the former argument and tries to make it more convincing. From this point of view, power is definitely something which enables A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do. Therefore on one hand, it is possible to say that the essence of power lies in this argument to a certain extent but there can be plural ways depending on approaches in doing so. (1,419 words)ReferencesClegg, S.R. (198911) Frameworks of Power. London SAGE Publications Ltd.Hay, C. (2002168) Political Analysis A critical approach. Basingstoke Palgrave.Heywood, A. (2004122, 124, 125, 127 and 128) Political possible action An introduction (3rd edn). Basing stoke Palgrave Macmillan.Goverde, H. et al. (eds) (200026) Power in modern Politics. London SAGE Publications Ltd.BibliographyClegg, S.R. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London SAGE Publications Ltd.Goodwin, B. (1997) Using political ideas (4th edn). Chichester John Wiley Sons Ltd.Goverde, H. et al. (eds) (2000) Power in Contemporary Politics. London SAGE Publications Ltd.Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis A critical introduction. Basingstoke Palgrave.Heywood, A. (2004) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.McLean, I. McMillan, A. (2003) Oxford concise dictionary of Politics (2nd edn). Oxford Oxford University Press.1 Hay, C. (2002168) Political Analysis A critical introduction. Basingstoke Palgrave.2 Heywood, A. (2004122) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.3 Heywood, A. (2004124) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.4 Heywood, A. (2004125) Political theory An introductio n (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.5 Clegg, S.R. (198911) Frameworks of Power. London SAGE Publications Ltd.6 Goverde, H. et al. (eds) (200026) Power in Contemporary Politics. London SAGE Publications Ltd.7 Heywood, A. (2004127) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.8 Heywood, A. (2004128) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.9 Heywood, A. (2004128) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn)). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.