Session 2- Can we restrict politics to a certain domain?

Narrowly defined, politics is concerned with state affairs and governance. According to this definition, majority of the people do not practice politics and it is restricted to a selected few who are involved in managing public affairs.

However, the idea of politics is inevitability linked with social interaction within all walks of life. Even in everyday life, there is conflict and cooperation and to achieve that, politics acts as a mediator. Communication is used to resolve conflicting interests where power dynamics come into play and these power dynamics necessitate the presence of politics.

Is it just to restrict the functioning of politics to a specific arena alone, disregarding the power dynamics that exist in social relationships such as the institution of marriage or family life? Narrowing down the definition of politics conveniently takes it away from the common man who can disassociate himself from it and treat it as a dirty or corrupt practice experienced only in public affairs.

Therefore, if we narrow down the definition of politics, it deliberately excludes the basic form of politics and its manifestation in everyday life.

Session Three – Power, a tool for all kinds of progress.

As we learned through this reading, power can take a lot of forms and definitions depending on the situations, objectives and collective or self-interests. Accumulation of power seems to be an essential part of natural human desires since the very start of mankind, it leads to progress, whether individual or collective, depending on the person or authority possessing power but the question that intrigued me a lot was how to classify it as morally good or bad? In my opinion, morals are something without any intact definition; we can never classify something as morally right or wrong but just put them in either category learning from our experiences, norms, stereotypes and other already set forth cultural and ethical values.

Acquisition of interests is always done by utilizing power and all the leaders we have ever witnessed in the books of history have shown to portray this sense of making every one better off by experiencing power, we will classify this use of power as morally right as it does no one any harm but what if the ones in power start using it for their own selfish interests and the commons suffer? Power can become a tool for all kinds of progress, in a favor of the common good or just individual progress. So will we need to condemn this pursuit of power unlike what is directed by some analysts and critics?

Session 3: The Democratic Nexus of Power

Aristotle said that the “proper application of the term democracy is to a constitution in which the free born or the poor control the government-being at the same time a majority; and similarly the term oligarchy is properly applied to a constitution in which the rich and the better born control the government-being at the same time a minority.”

This understanding of democracy is aptly put in the words of Aristotle and accurately highlights the paradox of the term democracy. While the stereotypical understanding of the word democracy is ‘a constitution in which there is free control the government,’ it is interesting to note that the people who essentially come to power are not the majority, but make up the minority- the rich elite, and in some cases feudal lords. It is this circle of influential politicians who have legitimate power and are representatives of the entire nation. Taking the example of Pakistan, we can see that since birth, all democratic tenures are led by highly influential and rich leaders, whether it was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or whether it’s Nawaz Sharif presently. This encapsulates the statement put forward by Aristotle. It is this which is then misconstrued as democracy. According to the "selectorate theory," the politician who wants to come to power will essentially look at the winning coalition and how to ensure that the loyalty norm is followed by providing the supporters with public and private goods. So, when a particular leader wants to come to power we see that his interests are very inclusive ensuring that the entire population is pacified. However, as his nexus of power increases, the interests become very exclusive. So, it is interesting that when one comes to power under the banner of democracy but overtime this transforms into exclusionary interests and identity politics come to fore, where those in power- the so called ‘democratic incumbents’- decide the policies which dictate the life of the majority of the society. 

Section 3: Can the pursuit of power actually be morally good?

    In the context of questioning the pursuit of power as being morally good, 'moral' can be defined as something concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. In this regard then, it can be stated that there lies a defect in the view of critics who claim that the pursuit of power at any rate should not be condemned. 

   It is true that great nations are formed only under great leaders. These leaders provide evidence in favor of the pursuit of power, as one man who is enlightened and capable determines to gain power over others, only to use it for their betterment. With this intention of acting to the fullest of your ability in order to ensure the betterment of others by exercising the power you hold, it can be stated that the pursuit of power should not be condemned. However, it is worthwhile to consider that history has seldom demonstrated the pursuit of power being entirely morally good. Soon after the initial intention to serve through power, people are bound to start viewing power as a personal interest. It is not uncommon for this personal interest to then take the form of an unquenchable thirst. At this point then, the pursuit of power should definitely be condemned.

Session 3- Power as the control of behavior

Politics and power are inextricably linked.  The link between these two can be traced back to the earliest societies known to mankind. It is in man’s nature to progress, and in order to progress he needs power and authority. We know, not only from contemporary societies, but also from prehistoric societies that there exists the phenomenon of ‘survival of the fittest’ which in essence is what it all comes down to in the end. 

If we look at power in terms of a realist perspective, then it takes on a wider meaning.  As realism is all about a state’s survival and being self-sufficient, power and authority play an important role in order to sustain the social and economic status of the state. 

From the Marxist perspective, politics is entirely based on power dynamics where a group of elite, the bourgeoisie, is in power, and exploit the proletariat, the working class. The best example of bourgeoisie taking advantage of proletariats would be during the early eighteenth century when the church dominated the peasantry, and owned ten percent land in the entire kingdom without having to pay the taxes or contribute anything to the state. In layman terms, one can say that this system is where the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Hence, the bourgeoisie would do anything to maintain their power and authority.

Time and time again, we see through various theories that the instrument of power has been used to perpetuate the masses into doing something that was “supposedly” good for them. Power and authority are the main features of societies since prehistoric times. People with power would do anything it takes to maintain it, either implicitly or explicitly in order to conform others to the rules of society, and hence, sustaining their influence and dominance on others.

Session 3: Who has power?

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite.” – Karl Marx

Power, according to me, is a social construct, it is not something absolute. Who determines how much power or influence a person has? It is we who internalize what is fed to us. Let’s look at the model of a Marxist society where owners of the factors of production exploit people. They lead people in to a state of false consciousness and this is where they overpower them, this is where the masses let them exercise injustice in the name of power. In reality, power does not exist at that point with the bourgeois , it is the masses who are vulnerable which in turn gives a rise to the concept of power and authority. If power means the ability to control or to have an impact on someone or something, then i believe anyone can possess power, from a peasant to a wealthy land owner; we just need to realize what we are capable of. This is what Karl Marx is talking about in the aforementioned quote; no one can rule you and no one can control you unless you let them. The French revolution and The Haitian Revolution are just two examples when people became empowered and united to stand up for their rights, these examples in history show us that we all are equally powerful and competent enough to create an influence.

“Power resides only where men believe it resides. [...] A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”

― George R.R. Martin

Session 3- Power: not as clear-cut as we woud like to think

Robert Dahl’s views about power serving as a control of behavior are highly interesting to say the least. His article has made me come to the conclusion that power can mean different things in different contexts. After reading it, I have come to understand that many people thought of as being powerful in some aspects, may in fact be lacking in power in others. Harold Lasswell’s mentioned base values, which are basically the resources that are considered to show whether power is possessed or not, are sufficient enough to prove this statement. Two of his base values are affection and wealth. It is fairly obvious to anyone that Nawaz Sharif is a figure not at all admired by many people within Pakistan, but his wealth is a great source of power.  
Another fascinating point which Dahl raises is that power is not always possessed by the figure or figures governing an area but that people being governed by them can exercise power over them by influencing their decisions with their loyalty or responses. One example which comes to mind is the state of North Korea, where the government has very conveniently removed all privileges from most of its citizens. In fact it has robbed them off some of their basic rights and brutally made them live a life of complete submissiveness which allocates a sort of power to itself and itself alone. Although this sort of power may not be considered as a sort of force that strives to benefit the people of the state, it can be thought of as the brutal force which results in a one sided authority. America on the other hand can be thought of as a place where although people cannot always change laws( even when they seem most unjust), they can freely express their views about them( take for example the recent protests carried out to serve justice for Micheal Brown and Eric Garner). The people of America can be thought of as powerful in the sense that their views are widely spread over the mass media, and can therefore be strong enough to influence the views of countless others and hence affect the government. The statement ‘Black lives matter,’is one known to almost all. In North Korea however, the people cannot really fathom carrying out such protests. They cannot even switch off their radios at home( can only turn down the volume) and can serve time in prison just because their family member from another generation may have committed a crime.

SESSION 2- Significance of Politics

Aristotle states; "Man is by nature a political animal’. His point has got merit because diversity of perceptions and scarcity of resources ensures politics to be inevitable.

Politics for sure is a better option than exercising bloodshed and brutality to impose decisions.

Rousseau states that only through the direct and continuous participation of all citizens in political life can the state be bound to the common good, or what he called the ‘general will’. Similarly, Aristotle states that it is within a political community that human beings can live the ‘good life’. From his viewpoint, politics is an ethical activity because through political bargaining, people from all sorts of backgrounds will debate and arrive at a collective decision. Not to forget, the concept has its disadvantages as well; the minority is often given less power in representation which results in a blind eye turned towards them. To counter this problem, designing an intellectual political framework will make sure that the voices of minority groups are heard and acted upon. Therefore denouncing politics as dirty, or as means to manipulation is certainly not right in my opinion because I believe the negativity can be taken out of it through making a proper political framework.

Session 2 - Defining Politics

As i study Politics for the first time i come to understand that its definition isn’t limited. After initial inspection, when i think of politics, the word “spectrum” comes to mind. It seems as if the word “Politics" is thrown into a spectrum of colors and with each color its definition varies. By definition a spectrum "is a condition that is not limited to a specific set of values but can vary infinitely within a continuum”. This means that there is no limit inside a spectrum. That there is an infinite set of values inside a continuum. With an infinite choice of color, there are infinite definitions of politics. Obviously there are not infinite definitions but this idea sparked in my mind when i read through session 2 and the different associations with the word Politics. The fact that I am still unsure about what Politic’s really means goes to show what i’ve mentioned above. 

Session 2 Understanding of the word politics and its background

                     

When we talk about politics the very portrayal of it becomes vague for us. Is it positive or a negative thing or a mix of both? So let us see the origin and get a little understanding of the word. The word is derived from the Greek “polis” meaning city state. That referred to Athens at the time i.e. cradle of democracy. So we get this view of politics related with state running the affairs. Politics is defined in different ways that is as means of exercise of power, authority, decision making and also named as a practice of deception and manipulation. Aristotle says “Man is by nature a political animal”. By this he meant that by living in a political community human beings can flourish and work for their and society betterment. So from this point of view we can say politics is a moral activity.

The second question arises is if it is an ethical thing to do then why not develop it as a scientific field and nurture this noble cause. But the question remains is politics really a pure science? Up to some extent it is but there are certain things that lie as an obstacle to it being a hardcore science. Firstly the people who are trying to develop political theories they cannot gather accurate data on things they are working on. As if in they are trying to understand things that happened in history like why a state premier took a certain decision? They can make assumptions but   they do not have any real evidence to support it. Secondly the enthusiasts of this field have their hidden values while they are theorizing about politics. It’s that normative side with in every human being that he may inculcate in anything he is doing which can be a job which requires objectivity.   So the hurdle is not the bias but failing to acknowledge the bigotry while developing the hypothesis for certain phenomenon. That is why politics is seen with doubt when it comes to acknowledge it as a natural science.

Session 2- Politics in all spheres of life.

Politics can be defined as broadly or as narrowly as you like. I believe that to understand politics, you need to consider the broad definition.
The idea of a "public" and a "private" sphere is introduced to us in the reading. The suggested notion here is that public refers to governance, the work place etc. However the private refers to the household and domestic life. It is at home where we believe we enter a "politics free" zone. However as Aristotle says "Man is by nature, a political animal" , therefore there is no place where we as human beings don't use the tools of politics and the concept of power to get our way.
This idea roots from the fact that we all grow up in a system that has an obvious hierarchy of power. We aspire to move up this hierarchy, and possibly gain power over those who exert power over us. As children this would mean engaging your 'cute' factor to get an extra piece of chocolate and as an employee this would translate to presenting yourself as more responsible and hardworking.
In today's competitive world, all people are in a race to see who gets ahead. In this constant power struggle (which begins at such an early age), people have become political beings. They plan their way up the ladder and make sure they don't loose their footing. This evolution in human life, has in a way, destroyed the social fabric in which we live. It may have been possible to claim that people aren't entirely political a few years ago, but this statement does not hold today. Politics is now the game in which we try to get ahead in the power structures that exist, be it at home or at work.
Therefore when Aristotle says that people are political beings, he is correct. You cannot separate politics from the either spheres of life. Politics exists everywhere and has now become a part of the society we live in.  

Session 2- Can there be an end to Politics?

Politics, by some, is defined as the art of government where as others define it, as a public affair in which both private and state owned institutions play an important role. If we narrow it down to this definition, it would only involve the efforts of the government and private institutions in responding to the public demands and views. Hence, politics would only be taking place in assemblies and Public offices.

Does this mean that the Politics never existed before the concept of state/government was introduced?

Would there be an end to Politics if the concept of state is abolished or these institutions such as national assemblies or public offices cease to exist?

Politics might be a word, which was widely used in the 20^th century, after the concept of state or government was introduced, however the practice of politics has existed since the start of social interaction. Politics is about power dynamics, which is embedded, in our social relationships and it would be wrong to confine it to the art of government or public affairs.  It exists in different forms.

Hence politics would continue to exist as long as the social relationships exist.

Abolition of the state or public offices does not mean that politics would disappear altogether; it would only disappear from a certain sphere in which it is practiced.

Section 3: Controlling Public Behavior through Power

“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.

Session 2 - So How Do We Define Politics?

Before we engage in the in-depth study of any topic we must first clearly understand the definition of the topic itself. Although it can be argued that there is no precise definition of “Politics” that holds universally, and there is some truth to this statement, we must develop a definition that then satisfies the context in which we will be defining Politics for this course.

It is true that the concept of Politics, as defined by Andrew Heywood in his book Politics, ultimately boils down to “the phenomena of conflict and cooperation”. The question then arises that between which parties do we define this cooperation and conflict as Politics? Should it be confined to the government, as Bismarck calls it the art of government, or should it be regarded as the exercise of power that takes place anywhere, even in private life, as argued by radicals?

When people generally speak of politics they refer to either the dialogue between two or more nation states, the dialogue between competing parties within a state or the relations the government in power has with the state it rules. Therefore, in my opinion, the definition of Politics as a field of study should be the interaction between states, political parties within a state and the ruling government and the general public.

Clarification on Replies and Labeling (Label posts for Tuesday as SESSION 3)

For all replies, label your reply with the upcoming class session. So for your first reply, it should be labeled "Session 3 - x y z".

When you reply to a fellow student, there is no minimum or maximum reply word requirement. While I don't want to see two-word replies like "Good job!", it's up to you how much you want to engage with the person's piece. The original author can choose to respond to your comment or not. 

The bottom line is that you're taking part in a conversation. Make the conversation as thoughtful as you can.

Session 2 - Politics of Conflict & Cooperation

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger

Throughout history - egos of some rulers aside - all decisions of the state were based on permanent interests. These interests could range from security to the control of strategic resources.  It is in pursuit of these interests that states cooperate or compete with each other. 

Let's look at the relationship between America and the House of Saud (ruling dynasty of Saudi Arabia) for example. It is harder to find a more different couple. As of today these two states look very differently on issues such as the Syrian civil war, nuclear deal with Iran, Sisi government in Egypt, Israel-Palestine conflict and even human rights issues (not that America fares much better on the last one) . However, their alliance shows no signs of falling apart. Why? Simply put, they need each other. Saudis need American security guarantees as their insurance policy. Americans, for their part, need a stable ally in the middle east (Saudis are notorious for clamping down on any form of dissent at home, though it doesn't stop them from exporting instability to brotherly countries ). More importantly, Americans need Saudis for their oil. Only the Saudis can increase or decrease their production by a couple of million bpd and send the markets crashing or skyrocketing. Saudis have done both in 1973 and 1980's with devastating effect. 

Thus, Americans and Saudis have no choice to cooperate, for now at least. A decade from now when American shale revolution matures, Americans won't need Saudis anymore and this 70 year old alliance will fall apart.