Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14


National Law Institute University BHOPAL

Project on -power: nature and faces.

Submitted to:
Dr. Raka arya Professor

submitted by :
Deepak kaneriya 2012 BALLB 76

Table of index
Name of topic Page no.
3 4

Introduction. Politics as power

Feminist view of power.6 Marxist view of power.8 Faces of power.10 Conclusion.12 Bibliography 13

4 Introduction
According to David Easton politics is the authoritative allocation of value. Which in general mean that the politics is the allocation of responsibility which is authorized or which is systemically distributed among heads of the ruling party or govt. There are four ways to define politics. Politics as an art (as per Bismark said) Politics as an public policy. Politics as an compromise . And politics as power.

My project is dealing with the POWER aspect of the politics. Now what is power generally referred is to the force or sometime as coercion. But the political definition of power is power is influence on others against their will. Power is the Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at the other's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive. In the above paragraph the word Abusive tactics indicate the power aspect in politics. In politics power is possess by the govt.( ruling class) that use the power for social welfare as well as for their own welfare. A comprehensive account of power can be found in Steven Lukes Power: A Radical View where he discusses the three dimensions of power.

5 Politics as power
As we all know the importance of power in Politics. Politics sometime define as the struggle for power. Which is sufficient to understand the power aspect of the politics. Earlier we talked about the Steven lukes- a radical view of power. From the diagram given below we can understand the nature of power

With the help of the diagram we can understand the types of the power. Power can be of two types : Observable or covert of overt ( which we can see) Latent

These two types of power are exercised by one authority I;e ruling party or peoples in power. As we all know human wants are unlimited on the other hand the resources that can fulfill these wants are scare , so basically power in politics is define as the fight for the possession of resources and those who are in the power possess these resources and use these resources. In the above diagram the observable further divided in as FORCE & COERCION which we can easily observe but in these type of politics often used rather than the latent which deals with the Manipulation. Robert Dahl offers what he calls an intuitive idea of power according to which A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do (1957, 20203). Dahl's definition sparked a vigorous debate that continued until the mid1970s, but even Dahl's best-known critics seemed to agree with his basic definition of power as an exercise of power-

Feminist view of the power

Those who conceptualize power as a resource understand it as a positive social good that is currently unequally distributed amongst women and men. For feminists who understand power in this way, the goal is to redistribute this resource so that women will have power equal to men. Implicit in this view is the assumption that power is a kind of stuff that can be possessed by individuals in greater or lesser amounts (Young 1990, 31).generally women are seen as the non- participating in politics as they deals with their work which is generally related with the maintenance of home etc. And it is generally contested that the matter related to women is personal so no one can interfere in the matter of women. But feminists generally "The personal is political". especially during the late 1960s and 1970s. The exact origin of the phrase is unknown and sometimes debated. Many second-wave feminists used the phrase "the personal is political" or its underlying meaning in their writing, speeches, consciousness-raising, and other activities. The Political Meaning

Carol Hanisch's essay explains the idea behind the phrase "the personal is political." A common debate between "personal" and "political" questioned whether women's consciousness-raising groups were a useful part of the political women's movement. According to Hanisch, calling the groups "therapy" was a misnomer, as the groups were not intended to solve any women's personal problems. Instead, consciousness-raising was a form of political action to elicit discussion about such topics as women's relationships, their roles in marriage, and their feelings about childbearing. Her essay "The Personal Is Political" said that coming to a personal realization of how "grim" the situation was for women was as important as doing political "action" such as protests. Hanisch noted that "political" refers to any power relationships, not just those of government or elected officials.

Is the Personal Political?

First, its important to note that the phrase the personal is political manifestly does not mean that everything a woman does is political or that all her personal choices are political choices. In feminist terms, the personal is political refers to the theory that personal problems are political problems, which basically means that many of the personal problems women experience in their lives are not their fault, but are the result of systematic oppression. In this respect, Hanisch is drawing heavily upon Marxism the focus is off individual struggle and onto group struggle. The theory that women are not to blame for their bad situations is crucial here because women have always been told that they are unhappy or faring badly in life because they are stupid, weak, mad, hysterical, having a period, pregnant, frigid, over-sexed, asking for it etc. The personal is political proposes that women are in bad situations because they experience gendered oppression and massive structural inequalities.

Marxist view of power

Marxist Politics Introduction Frederick Engels painted a clear picture of Marxist politics and the ultimate reason for revolution, the State is nothing more than a machine for the oppression of one class by another. In Marxism, the struggle to control the forces of production is the dynamic force behind human development. The economic system determines other features of a society, including its political structure. To Karl Marx, the economic structure of society [is] the real foundation on which rise moral, legal and political superstructures and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. Thus, to a Marxist, particular political systems are grounded in and arise from particular economic systems. Genuine democracy is not the aim of Marxist politics, and in fact Marxists view democracy as little more than a necessary evil. V.I. Lenin explains, Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organization for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another. This definition of democracy is consistent with Marxist emphasis on class struggle.

Marxist Politics Class Antagonism

When it comes to Marxist politics, Marxists see the world as a struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners of private property and the means of production) and the proletariat (workers), with economics as the foundation on which the rest of society is built.Thus, Marxists see a democratic state or republic, especially in a capitalist economic system, as undesirable. According to Engels, The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine. In a socialist society, the mode of production does not exploit its citizens to the extent

that capitalism does and thus encourages a less exploitative political system. Socialist governments tend to discourage class antagonism since they are founded on economic systems that are close to abolishing class distinctions. This less exploitative nature of government makes the democracy more genuine and socialism more appealing than capitalism. Socialism, however, still lacks several factors of the ideal state of communism.

The ideal state for the Marxist is no state at all, since any government (whether a democracy or a dictatorship) is a vehicle for maintaining class antagonism. Marx says, Political power is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another The state exists, therefore, because class antagonism exists. Once class antagonism is eradicated, the state will no longer be necessary. Lenin says, According to Marx, the State could neither arise nor maintain itself if a reconciliation of classes were possible.

Marxist Politics Lenin supports the idea that the state is necessary only in a capitalist society because it is responsible for engendering class antagonisms. He stresses the necessity of eliminating the bourgeoisie, which in turn will eliminate the need for the state: Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely crushed, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes . . . only then the state . . . ceases to exist, and it becomes possible to speak of freedom. Since freedom to Marxists means no government at all, until the classless society is established freedom is an illusion. Lenin continues, So long as the state exists, there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state. Marxist Politics The New World Order Marxist politics ends with the establishment of global communism as a new world order and the dissolution of the state these are inevitable evolutionary steps. In the same sense that humans, societies, economies, and politics are evolving, so the new world order is an evolutionary advance over former nations, states, tribes, and other race or class distinctions.

11 Faces of power.
Power can be said to be exercised whenever A gets B to do something that B would not otherwise have done, A can influence B in various ways. This allows us to distinguish between different dimensions or faces of power.

Power as decision making

This face of power consists of conscious actions that in some way influence the content of decisions. The classic account of this form of power is found in Robert Dahls Who governs? Democracy and power in An American city (1961), which made judgements about who had power by analyzing decisions in the light of the known preference of the actors involved in democracy power is lies in the hand of the government so govt. is solely responsible for the decision making process which is made for the social and welfare at large . decision which affects the public is made by the ruling party these decision is generally and commonly deals with the distribution of the natural resources . In three faces of power (1989, keith boulding distinguished between the use of force or intimidation ( the stick ) , productive exchanges involving mutual gain ( the deal ), and the creation of obligation , loyalty and commitment.

Power as agenda setting

The second face of power, as suggested by Bachrach and Baratz (1962) , is the ability to prevent decision being made : that is in effect , non- decision making .this involves the ability to set or control the political agenda or political gain, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired in the first place. For instance , private businessman may exert power both by campaigning to defeat proposed consumer protection legislation ( first face ) because his setting of

agenda with the party in power , and by lobbying parties ( paid bribes) and politician to prevent the questions of consumer rights being publicly discussed. That means that govt. can control and make agenda and make programme which may suit to richer people and in return they gave the money and paid bribes.

Power as thought controlThe third face of the power is the ability to influence another by shaping what he or she thinks, wants, needs (lukes 1974 ), here in thought control deals with the manipulation of political ideologies on the people to do work according the party in power. This is power expressed as ideological indoctrination or psychological control. An example of this would be the ability of the advertising industry to remove pressure for stiffer consumer protection laws by persuading consumers that their interests had already been looked after by business ( in the form of, for example, planet- friendly products ). In political life, the exercise of this form of power is seen in the use of propaganda and, more generally , in the impact of ideology.



So from the above discussion and by analyzing all the aspect of power we can say that. Power is the most important and wide aspect of politics whether its democratic (where the Power lies in the hand of people ) or in anarchy ( one man hold all the power ). Feminist view of power deal and support the view that women should be provided with the political power Marxist view seen power in the economics sense which says that power generally possess with the capitalist and they use that power to subjugate the labour calss. There are two type of power. A)- observable B) Latent And last but not the least three faces of power

So from the I can concluse that power is the important aspect of politics which affects peoples and sometime decide their fate also.



Steven Lukes- power : a radical view (book) http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/consciousness_raising.htm (for personal is political) political science material ( for faces of power )