In my opinion, one of the most interesting debates we had in class was the debate on the nature of power. Power is subjective - that is to say, it means different things to different people and can be manifested in various forms.
Robert Dahl in his analysis of power focussed on the various characteristics of power: magnitude, distribution, scope and domain. In doing so he (directly and indirectly) raised some integral questions about the nature of power. For example: Who controls the distribution of power? Who exercises power? What is the difference between having power and exercising it? Is power value neutral?
These questions sparked an interesting debate in class regarding power and particularly the way power is used and abused in politics. Ultimately, what I found particularly fascinating was that although power does not always have a moral perspective and barely anyone could agree on a working definition of power, there was one aspect of it that everyone seemed to agree on: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." This phrase, which is part of a wider statement uttered by Lord Acton (historian and politician) in 1887 is something that seems to resonate with most people. Throughout history and even in the modern day it is evident that once absolute power is bestowed on someone, that person is likely to misuse it. Taking the infamous example of Hitler or other dictators of his time (Mussolini, Stalin etc), one can see this is usually the case.
3 comments:
In Pakistan, I think power means money and position. People on higher positions and with their money can get away with anything, for instance, the son of a powerful fedual lord got away with the murder of shahzaib Khan. This is also one of the reasons why people just want to keep on hoarding a lot of money, so that they can get as much power as possible.
I agree with the sentiment that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and there are a plethora of examples that support this claim.
Building off of what Fatima stated, in Pakistan power is achieved through money and those with money do have a tendency to get away with a lot. But power also resides in institutions and in the "people". What ultimately matters is who exercises power and how that power is wielded that really matters. If the people exercised their power more - for noble aims, not necessarily for disruption - then those with money could see their hold on power diminish. This is why the founding fathers of America believed in playing power against power, which can lead to less power concentration. With less power concentration, then the chances of absolute power - and its concomitant abuse - are diminished. Good post!
I agree. Money equal powers in Pakistan and therefore the wealthy are able to have their way. This, I believe, also brings in the aspect of the corrupt justice system. Why should those with money be exempted from paying the price of their misdeeds?
Post a Comment