What Is Politics? PDF

WHAT IS POLITICS? LECTURE 1  Fundamental: Politics is as an ‘essentially contested’/ “highly contested concept”, in the sense that the term has a number of acceptable or legitimate meanings/definitions. Origin of the term The term “Politics” is derived from the Greek w...

WHAT IS POLITICS? LECTURE 1  Fundamental: Politics is as an ‘essentially contested’/ “highly contested concept”, in the sense that the term has a number of acceptable or legitimate meanings/definitions. Origin of the term The term “Politics” is derived from the Greek word polis which literally means the “City-state” - Classically understood as to imply the highest and most desirable form of social organization/what concerns the state.  DEFINING POLITICS ▪ Andrew Heywood (2019), defines politics as “the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which people live.” ▪ Although politics is also an academic subject (sometimes indicated by the use of ‘Politics’ with a capital P), it is then clearly the study of this activity. ▪ Politics is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. On the one hand, the existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs, and opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live. ▪ On the other hand, people recognize that, in order to influence these rules or ensure that they are upheld, they must work with others – hence Hannah Arendt’s definition of political power as ‘acting in concert’. This is why the heart of politics is often portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in which rival views or competing interests are reconciled with one another.  Defining Politics (cont’d) Politics in this broad sense is better thought of as a search for conflict resolution than as its achievement, as not all conflicts are, or can be, resolved. Nevertheless, the inescapable presence of diversity (we are not all alike) and scarcity (there is never enough to go around) ensures that politics is an inevitable feature of the human condition. David Easton (1979), defines politics as the authoritative allocation of values. It is the various ways in which government responds to pressure from the larger society by allocating benefits, rewards and penalties (through policies and authoritative decisions.) Bernard Crick (2000), argues that politics is the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community. (Sharing power to resolve conflicts) ▪ Harold Lasswell (1958), defines politics as who gets what, when and how. (It is the struggle over scarce resources in the face of diversity) ▪ Adrian Leftwich (2004), contends that politics is about people, resources and power. ▪ Shively W. Phillips (1987) sees politics as the making of common decisions which involves the use of power.  Defining Politics (cont’d) Kate Millet (1970) (a Feminist)) defines politics as power structured relationships; arrangements whereby one group of persons (women) is controlled by the other (men). They hold that society is patriarchal in that women are systematically subordinated and subjected to male power. Marxists see politics as class conflict and political power struggle; that is, the organized power of one class [the economically dominant / bourgeoisie] for oppressing another [the proletariat / working class] (Marx and Engles) Any attempt to clarify the meaning of ‘politics’ must nevertheless address two major problems; The first is the mass of associations that the word has when used in everyday language; in other words, politics is a ‘loaded’ term. Whereas most people think of, say, economics, geography, history and biology simply as academic subjects, few people come to politics without preconceptions. Many, for instance, automatically assume that students and teachers of politics must in some way be biased, finding it difficult to believe that the subject can be approached in an impartial and dispassionate manner. To make matters worse, politics is usually thought of as a “dirty” word having a sharp edge, in that it conjures up images of trouble, disruption, violence, deceit, manipulation, lies, etc. (Heywood 2019)  Defining Politics (cont’d) Samuel Johnson (1775) for instance, sees politics is nothing more than a means of rising in the word, while Henry Adams, a US Historian, summed up politics as “the systematic organization of hatreds.” Politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of the polis/state – in effect, ‘what concerns the polis/state’. This view of politics is clearly evident in the everyday use of the term: people are said to be ‘in politics’ when they hold public office, or to be entering politics’ when they seek to do so. It is also a definition that academic political science has helped to perpetuate. In many ways, the notion that politics amounts to ‘what concerns the state’ is the traditional view of the discipline, reflected in the tendency for academic study to focus on the personnel and machinery of government. To study politics is, in essence, to study government, or, more broadly, to study the exercise of authority.  It is helpful to distinguish between two broad approaches to defining politics (Haywood, 2002; Leftwich, 2004). In the first, politics is associated with an arena or location, in which case behaviour becomes ‘political’ because of where it takes place (Congress Place, Freedom House, Parliament, the White House) In the second place, politics is viewed as a process or mechanism. In this sense, ‘political behavior” is behaviour that exhibits distinctive characteristics or qualities, and so can take place in any, and perhaps all, social contexts. (eg. power-seeking behaviours)  Approaches/perspectives to defining Politics There are four approaches to defining Politics; 1. Politics as an art of government, Politics as public affairs; Politics as compromise and consensus, and Politics as power. 1. Politics as an art of government ‘Politics is not a science … but an art’, Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have told the German Reichstag. The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government; the exercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions. The State in this view is the architecture / machinery for governing a society. The state exercises the highest form of secular authority because it controls the use of legitimate force to impose decisions within the territorial confines of the state. Power is therefore vested in governments which is considered to be the steering mechanism of the state.  Politics as an art of government (cont’d) Politics is largely associated with the activities of the public institutions of the state and the formal institutions of the government (Judiciary, Parliament, the various Ministries, the Cabinet etc.) Hence, politics from this perspective is what concerns the state. To study politics is, in essence, to study government, or, more broadly, to study the exercise of authority. This view is advanced in the writings of the influential US political scientist David Easton (1979, 1981), who defined politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values’. By this, he meant that politics encompasses the various processes through which government responds to pressures from the larger society, in particular by allocating benefits, rewards or penalties. ‘Authoritative values’ are therefore those things (policies, law resources) that are widely accepted in society, and are considered binding by the mass of citizens. In this view, politics is associated with ‘policy;’ that is, with formal or authoritative decisions that establish a plan of action for the community This view of politics portrays politics as an essentially state-bound/centric activity and ignores the importance of international and global influences on modern life. Secondly, not all state actors are political. (Judges, civil servants)  Politics as Public Affairs A second and broader conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm of government to what is thought of as ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’. In other words, the distinction between ‘the political’ and ‘the non-political’ coincides with the division between an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of as a private sphere. The “public realm” and the “private realm” conforms to the division between the state and “civil society.” The institutions of the state (the apparatus of government, the courts, the police, the army, the social security system, parliament, the various ministries and so forth) can be regarded as ‘public’ in the sense that they are responsible for the collective organization of community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public’s expense, out of taxation. Civil Society consists of what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons;” institutions such as the family and kinship groups, private businesses, trade unions, clubs, community groups etc. that are “private” in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual citizens to satisfy their own interests, rather than those of the larger society. (The Guyana Teachers Union, GPSU, Mothers in Black)  Politics as public affairs (cont’d) On the basis of this ‘public’ division, politics is restricted to the activities of the state itself and the responsibilities that are properly exercised by public bodies. Those areas of life that individuals can and do manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic, personal, cultural and artistic spheres, and so on) are therefore clearly ‘non-political’. Radical Feminists however argue that the “personal is political in that gender inequality has been preserved precisely because the sexual division of labor that runs through society has traditionally been thought of as “natural” rather than “political.” They are political! NOTE: The management of public affairs is not an exclusive domain of government and the concept of governance goes beyond the realm of the state or public sector. It also involves the Civil Society which comprises of schools/academies, nongovernment organizations (NGO), People’s Organization, Voluntary Organizations, and the Private or the Business Sectors.  Politics as compromise and consensus This relates to the way in which decisions are made within the society. Politics to this end, is seen as a particular means of resolving conflicts: that is, by compromise, conciliation and negotiation (3rd party intervention) rather than through force or naked power. This is what is implied when politics is portrayed as ‘the art of the possible’. Such a definition is inherent in the everyday use of the term. For instance, the description of a solution to a problem as a ‘political’ solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as opposed to what is often called a ‘military’ solution. One of the leading modern exponents of this view is Bernard Crick. In his classic study “In Defence of Politics,” Crick offered the following definition: “Politics [is] the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community (power sharing as compromise)  Politics as compromise and consensus (cont’d) In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. Accepting that conflict is inevitable, Crick argued that when social groups and interests possess power they must be conciliated; they cannot merely be crushed. This is why he portrayed politics as ‘that solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion’. Such a view of politics reflects a deep commitment to liberal–rationalist principles. It is based on resolute faith in the efficacy of debate and discussion, as well as on the belief that society is characterized by consensus, rather than by irreconcilable conflict. In other words, the disagreements that exist can be resolved without resort to intimidation and violence.  Politics as compromise and consensus (cont’d) Critics, however, point out that Crick’s conception of politics is heavily biased towards the form of politics that takes place in Western pluralist democracies: in effect, he equated politics with electoral choice and party competition. As a result, his model has little to tell us about, say, one-party states or military regimes. This view of politics has an unmistakably positive character. Politics is certainly no utopian solution (compromise means that concessions are made by all sides, leaving no one perfectly satisfied), but it is undoubtedly preferable to the alternatives: bloodshed and brutality. In this sense, politics can be seen as a civilized and civilizing force.  Politics as Power The fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the ‘public’ realm), this view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner of human existence. In politics, power is thought of as a relationship; that is, the ability to influence the behavior of others in a manner not of their choosing. (Heywood, 2019) In other words, power is the ability to cause someone to do something he/she would not have otherwise done. Politics here is seen as the reduction or elimination of alternatives. As Adrian Leftwich proclaimed in What is Politics? The Activity and Its Study (2004), ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies’. In this sense, politics takes place at every level of social interaction; it can be found within families and amongst small groups of friends just as much as amongst nations and on the global stage  Politics as power (cont’d) At its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution, and use of resources in the course of social existence. Politics is, in essence, power: the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. This notion was neatly summed up in the title of Harold Lasswell’s book Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936). From this perspective, politics is about diversity and conflict, but the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while human needs and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited. Politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources, and power can be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted.  Politics as power (cont’d) Machiavelli sees politics as the pursuit of power. He argues that the end justifies the means (means could include warfare). Therefore if the end is to gain and maintain power then the means must involved both charisma and fear. In other words, the politician in pursuit of power, must seek to be loved and feared and where both cannot be achieved then it is better to be feared than to be loved. In this sense politics is viewed as a potentially ‘violent’ and ‘dirty’ process / activity. Conversely; politics is not/should not be only about power; it must involve morality and therefore seek to serve the common good of society. This view also sees politics in all social activities, and in every corner of human existence. Power is either manifest or implicit; Manifest power speaks to a clear observable path of authority from one action to another. In other words, manifest power is power that is directly given or evident. Eg. the observable action of A that leads B to do something. Implicit power is most clearly expressed in social institutions such as the family where the authority of the parents or leaders is understood and the children or followers follow without being dictated or instructed to each time. There are three types of power; 1. Persuasive Power: persuasive power is the ability to convince others of the wisdom of what you believe. Examples, to vote for a particular party, to join a particular religion or congregation, to contribute to a charity/cause etc. 2. Coercive Power: This kind of power involves the usage of threat and or force to make people do what one desires. Examples, paying of taxes or NIS, Kidnappings, declarations of war, death threats etc. 3. Bargaining Power: Is the capacity of one party to dominate the other due to its influence, power, size, or status (especially in negotiations)  Elements of power Political Power is derived from/comprises Authority, force and influence Authority Authority is defined as legitimate or lawful power. Whereas power is the ability to influence the behavior of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore based on an acknowledged duty to obey, rather than any form or coercion or manipulation. In this sense, authority is power cloaked in legitimacy. (Heywood 2019) Max Weber argues that there are three kinds of authority, each based on the different grounds on which obedience can established. These are; Traditional, Charismatic, and Legal-rational authority 1. Traditional authority; Tradition is anything handed down or transmitted from the past to the present such as long standing customs and practices, institutions, social or political systems, values, beliefs etc. This authority is regarded as legitimate because it has “always existed,” it has been sanctified by history because earlier generations have accepted it. Traditional authority is closely linked to hereditary systems of power and privilege as reflected in the dynastic rule in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Morocco for example. Constitutional Monarchies which exist in the UK, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are also forms of traditional authority. Tribal Chiefs/Village Chiefs/Toshao which exist in Guyana are also examples of Traditional Authority. 2. Charismatic authority This form of authority is based on the power of an individual’s personality, that is, on his/her Charisma. Owing nothing to personal status, social position or office, charismatic authority operates through the capacity of a leader to make a direct and personal appeal to followers as a kind of hero or saint. Examples, Castro, Hitler, Kennedy, King (ML), Jim Jones. Legitimacy is constructed through the leaders’ personality and not on formal rules or procedures, the leader is viewed as a Messiah who is unquestionable with disciples who are required to submit/obey. Because authority is linked to a particular individual, it is difficult for a system of personal rule to outlive its founding figure. It dissolves in the absence of its leader. Example, Hitler, Jim Jones. 3. Legal - Rational authority This links authority to a clearly and legally defined set of rules. It is the form of authority operating most modern states. The power of a president, prime minister or government officials is determined in the final analysis by formal, constitutional rules which constrain or limit what an office holder is able to do. The advantage of this type of authority is that it is attached to an office rather than a person and is therefore less likely to be abused or give rise to injustice. Legal-rational authority therefore maintains limited government and promotes efficiency through a rational division of labour. One limitation is that the determination of legitimacy may be left in the hands of the powerful who may be able to “manufacture” rightfulness through public relations campaigns and the like. (Beetham, 2013)  Influence and Force  Influence: the ability persuade, manipulate or simply to cause people to do what you want or to accept your argument not solely on the basis of that argument but because of your perceived prestige of reputation, personality, style or approach.  Influence is the process by which people successfully persuade others to follow their advice, suggestions or orders. Influence tactics can be organized simply into a push style and a pull style. The push style include persuading others to your point of view by proposing and reasoning in a way that engages the listener, or asserting your views by stating your expectations, evaluating the other options, offering incentives or applying pressure The pull style uses bridging and attracting tactics. Bridging behaviors include linguistic involvement in the conversation by asking open-ended questions and soliciting the other’s opinions. Attracting behaviors include inquiring about common ground and visioning in a way that is compelling to others.  Force Force is defined as coercion as a result of the elimination of alternatives/other options. If you do/fail to do something, there will be consequences. Examples: paying of taxes, threat of and/or use of violence, imprisonment etc.  Key takeaways  Politics means different things to different people and therefore has multiple definitions/ conceptualizations ; to this extent it is said to be an “essentially contested concept.”  In essence, the study politics is the study of government or more broadly, to study of the exercise of authority. Politics is the art of government, the exercise of control within the society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions.  Notwithstanding, there are at least four broad perspectives of what politics is:  It of public affairs  It is about the actions of government  It involves the exercise of power  It is a process which involves building consensus and arriving at compromise  Authority, force and influence are all deeply ingrained in the theory and practice of politics.  PRIMARY TEXT/READING MATERIAL Heywood Andrew. Politics. 5th ed. London: Red Globe Press, 2019. Chapter 1 Prepared by; Ms. Queenela Cameron Sept., 2024.