“He who wishes to be obeyed must know how
to command”, says Machiavelli in Prince,
his famous book on political power.
Max Weber talks about the variety of forms
in which power can exist. He referred to it as two dimensional, that is,
possessing power and exercising it. One could perhaps think of the Queen of
United Kingdom with this statement. Does she have Power but, refrains from
exercising it? Or, does she possess any power at all?
Power has its roots deep into communities. It
affects how people interact with one another. It is even known to be proportional
to self-esteem, respect, freedom and ethics. Authority not only influences
actions but also values. Therefore, when studying the extent of power one needs
to consider both, those with authority and those who fall within the domain of
that authority keeping in view the scope within which it influences them. Pakistan
has faced many such instances where public behaviour is checked through power however;
the result of policies such as the infamous Islamisation under Zia-ul-Haq’s rule
questions the acceptability of such policies.
5 comments:
If public behavior is controlled by the powers that be, what consequences do authorities face for making bad policies? Zia-ul-Haq of course died in a plane crash, but what about current leaders? If say Sharif implements a bad policy, what will be the cost to him personally and to his government?
These are just some questions that came to mind while reading your post. You don't have to answer them, but just thought I'd share.
Even though i partially agree with mahnoor's point about the regulation of public behavior through power,i think the control of behavior through governments is not as simplistic as she asserts.Specially in the context of modern democratic settings,it may be argued that since the public elects its representatives,the power vested in those representatives reflects the wishes of the public itself and not a control on its behavior.Here,power manifests as a form of empowerment rather than control.Secondly,most democracies follow the concept of separation of power whereby the judiciary is independent of the parliament and the executive and therefore holds those in the government accountable for their policies which means that power is not unchecked.Moreover,the distribution of power is multifaceted. It is frequently seen how lobbyists influence government policies so regulation of behavior is not as straightforward as she believes.
Power definitely has roots in communities. However using Zia Ul Haq as an example may not be idealistic, considering he was a dictator. Most communities today exist as democracies. Power comes from the people. Most politicians are careful not to upset those who voted for them. Therefore resolutions passed, are usually in line with social norms and ideologies. This usually happens because democracy (unlike dictatorship) puts power in the hands of the people rather than the ruler. It is people who have the right to give their mandate to a particular candidate and it is the people who can snatch it as well.
Therefore in today's world, the link between public behavior and policies is quite complicated and policies now depend on public behavior and public perceptions.
I would agree and elaborate upon what sir has said. Misuse of power and poor policy implementation causes resentment among the masses and the governments are bound to face consequences. However, it takes time to mobilize people, for example it took several years for people in Egypt to finally realize what they deserve. Similarly, in my opinion the people in Pakisan are gradually becoming aware of their right and what they can do, for instance the incident where a common man stood up against a member of the government for delaying the plane back in 2014. He became a hero for many, this indicates that power lies with us as well, the common people, and not just with people who have higher positions. Regarding what consequences the Sharif government is facing, I believe that the protests which were going on did pose a challenge to them.
According to Harold Lasswell's eight base values, power is grouped along with 'respect, rectitude or moral standing, affection, well being, skill and enlightenment'. Therefore it seems possible that a person might be considered as influential( given his or her posession of all the other resources mentioned) even if he or she doesn't seem to be exercising force or imposing rules on anything or anyone. Perhaps that is how the Queen despite seeming an inactive figure to some may infact hold more influence in the eyes of others.
Post a Comment