State, Individual Relationship

The term power has sparked much debate and discussion as a concept that governs daily life in a variety of ways. Various politicians, philosophers, and academics have attempted to debate and develop the definition of the phrase over the years. Regardless matter how power is defined, the common thread is that one actor has significant influence over the other. When considering the connection between the state and its citizens, the former is regarded as the dominant actor, while the latter are regarded as subjects. Therefore, most of the times the state successfully manages to achieve its interests while influencing the citizens to engage in something they would otherwise have not done. Among the many social and political theorists who have exhibited interest in discussing power is, Steven Lukes, who describes power in terms of faces or dimensions. The various dimensions are strategies or approaches usable in understanding power relations. In his conceptual analysis of power, Lukes develops three faces. Importantly, Lukes argues that using the three dimensions, the effectiveness and level of power in any given institution can be easily analysed (1974, p 13). The theory dwells on the power that outlines the interests of others, which stops certain topics from being discussed, and the power exercised openly in policy discussions. As a result, it is possible to easily analyse the power relationship between states and the individuals using the three faces.

State and the Citizens

Before delving into the different faces of power, it is important to first understand under which scenarios citizens interact with the state. Notably, for all political science scholars, the fundamental concern is to understand the precise relationship between the citizens and the government, since the citizen strives to achieve maximum liberty while the state seeks maximum authority (Inoguchi and Blondel 2012, p. 78). As a result, it is vital to locate a middle ground through various public policies. Having reasonable authority provided to the state and reasonable liberty granted to the citizens allows for the smooth functioning of the state. Against such a background, the government and the people are not opposed to each other as the role of a state is to offer a favorable environment that enhances the development of all personalities. The citizens depend on the state for safety and various facilities including schools. Therefore, a citizen enjoys a unique position in a country as well as political and civil rights which are nationally recognized. On the other hand, the individual remains patriotic and inspired by certain responsibilities towards the state. Consequently, the citizens’ duties and interests define their relationship with the state (Benequista Gaventa and Barrett 2010, p. 06).

Normally, the relationship between the state and the citizens is mainly guided and characterized during the process of making public policies. As such, the best method to analyse the link between a government and its people using Luke’s power theory is by focusing on the policy-making process. Public policy acts as a framework that controls the actions taken by the state in regards to the different issues affecting the citizens in strict conformity with the recognized customs and the rule of law (Gerston 2015, p. 17). A vibrant and strong public policy portrays a healthy relationship between the state and its citizens. An equitable public policy solves the arising challenges effectively, supports the government in its different functions, and inspires active citizenship. Additionally, to enhance the sustainability of a good relationship between government and the citizens all the concerned stakeholders must be involved during the policy formulation process. The public policy-making cycle includes agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation (Zito 2010, p. 32).



Power Faces

In his second edition published in 2005, Lukes, made a few changes to his 1974 power concept. In the new edition, Lukes sees power as the ability to influence others, and even when not being exercised can be held (2005, p. 104). The view of holding power differs with the view of most behaviorists and pluralists who emphasize on the visible use of power. In his initial theory in 1974, Lukes ruled out the possibility of holding power when not in use as it did not back his asymmetrical power relations study, as well as the argument on the third face of domination. Also, Lukes argues that power is not always zero-sum or negative, but when applied to others it can be compatible with dignity, authoritative, transformative and productive (Lukes 2005, p. 109).

1st Face: Power through Decision-Making

The first face focuses on the open engagements witnessed during competitive policy debates and it is the most evident dimension. Here, the power definition is limited to only the recognizable impact exercised over other actors (Lukes 1974, p. 14). The dutiful actors, in this case, understand that their desired goals are being compromised. The behaviour of the actors is very important as the main focus is on the participating actors and the decisions made. Additionally, the evident engagements playing out in the debates regarding public policy are vital. During the policy decision-making process, the subjective interests of the citizens, as well as those of the government, are revealed.

Although different scholars have argued that the first dimension has a limited scope, it is vital for empirical analysis as it can be operationalized with ease. Its importance in analysis arises from the fact that power definition encompasses only what is measurable and observable (Haugaard 2002, p. 38). An analysis applying the above explains how power is distributed through assessment of the evident outcomes. Robert Dahl was among the main proponents of the first power dimension, and he equated the interests voiced by different groups with the tangible policy results (Zito 2010, p. 49).

The main concept of diversity is portrayed through the sharing of power in political functions. On the national level, every topic is likely to be divided into sub-issues, as various groups contest for power and influence. Although each debate impacts the citizens differently, the differences even out due to the unequal distribution of political resources where every group of citizens has a superior side in a different conflict. As a result, even the weakest citizens have an opportunity to air their opinions and push for the policies that support their preferences (Hill and Varone 2017, p. 213). Due to the changing political landscapes, most power theories have been adjusted to cater for the social and economic developments. For instance, the pluralist understanding of capitalist states has failed to match the ensuing developments like urban decay and social inequality. Therefore, to neutralise liberal democracy workings serving the interests of capitalism, the contemporary pluralists encourage more participative and transparent governments (Benequista Gaventa and Barrett 2010, p. 09).

Additionally, the first dimension of power and pluralism only focus on the formulation stage of public policy. The policy formulation stage is an arena where execution of power play takes place, and competing interests witnessed, but it is only the superior side which succeeds in shaping the policy based on their interests. After the process, focus shifts to the adoption of the new policy which is an official expression of the outcome of power fights. However, given the fact that every power struggle is open, the losers have room to petition for changes during the evaluation phase of policy (Haugaard 2002, p. 41). The judicial courts offer one of the effective platforms for making petitions, as well as peaceful demonstrations.

2nd Face: Power through Control Agenda

The second dimension focuses on how power is exerted by influencing and controlling the topics that are to be debated. The state as the dominant actor here emphasizes on limiting the scope of political consideration by establishing institutional practices, political, and social values (Lukes 2005, p. 46). Hence, some sensitive topics by the opposing citizens are thwarted, and therefore power is witnessed in non-decision making. Compared to the first dimension, the second one goes a step further by focusing on the frustrated issues and focusing on the unmade decisions. Therefore, the main focus here is the regulation of agenda and the decision-making process.

Nonetheless, the second dimension closely focuses on the obvious conflict where the submissive citizens are mindful that the conflicting interests exist. The first dimension emphasizes more on the visible conflict witnessed during open confrontations, but the second face tackles the hidden conflicts where an actor is unable to table their concerns for debate. Different theorists like Schattschneider have criticised the approach taken by pluralists which revolve around the state as the source of bias. The argument is that although some topics are structured into politics, others are structured out of politics. Therefore, the debate of competition backed by the pluralists carries qualities that favour the elites.

Possession of the power to alter the scope of a conflict means that the elites are in a position the change the conflict (Gerston 2015, p. 27). Notably, the elitism concept acts as a theoretical graphic putting more emphasis on the second face. The concept agrees that power is held by a few elites like the heads of cabinet, and have the capability to control policies in ways that appear legitimate. In reality, however, the agenda manipulation process enables the elites to ensure that only the non-antagonistic matters are openly debated. The main contribution of the second face is amplifying power importance to the first stage. The strategies applied by various state agencies to divert attention from certain sensitive topics portray power manifestation in the policy process (Haugaard 2002, p. 54).

3rd Face: Power through Domination

Compared to the first and the second faces, the last dimension of power proposed by Lukes has a deeper approach. In the third dimension, the state is seen to have the capability of controlling the citizens by shaping their interests. The state uses power as a thought controller by employing social myths, where the citizens are influenced to accept and embrace views that are not necessarily their interests (Lukes 2005, p. 76). The face analyses the various potential issues, the influence of agenda, and the decision-making process. Despite paying keen interest to the open conflicts witnessed in the policy-making process, the dimension also focuses on concealed conflict. Hence, are not only the subjective interests voiced by citizens considered, but also the real interests. Dormant conflict arises when a major decision by the state is opposed to a certain group’s interest. The open conflicts arise when the oppressed individuals realize the decisions made are against their interests, but power was used initially to push their views from their actual interests (Benequista Gaventa and Barrett 2010, p. 12).

Lukes argues against the theorists who developed the second dimension by pointing that the lack of complaints show that no power has been expressed. Lukes affirms that shaping the preferences, conceptions, and perceptions of the citizens to the extent that they accept their role in the prevailing organization is the supreme form of power (2005, p. 24). The third face indicates why it is important to consider power while evaluating public policy. Even in scenarios where all the citizens agree that decisions are made without conflicts, power could play a vital role. The third dimension is a key part of the Neo-Marxist theory of power and decision making. In the initial teachings, the theory had proposed that policy process or the political system exists to disseminate the power held by the leaders. As a result, a lot of people believed that following capitalism interests would serve their desires. In reality, however, the policy was an organized thought consensual exploitation scheme targeting the proletariats (Iversen 2013, p. 75). Notably, just like the social and economic developments have forced the pluralists to change their initial views, the Marxists have adjusted their opinions to cater for complex relations outside the class struggle. In many western cultures, there exists a cultural ideology which holds that capitalism is good for all citizens (Iversen 2013, p. 87). Ironically, the working class vote for the conservative candidates running manifestos that are totally against their true interests.

According to the dimension, the process of policymaking, which acts as the main contact between the government and the citizens, can be used as a platform for power manifestation. Power is manifested when fresh policies countering the real desires of different groups are introduced. The compliance of the opposing groups is achieved through channels that are external to the normal cycle including cultural considerations which are heavily spread through the mass media (Skinner and StråTh 2003, p. 45). Notably, while analyzing the relationship between the government and the people, it would be tough to establish power relation by only focusing on one of the faces. Using this dimension in the analysis of public policy offers a better understanding of power and its different roles.

Conclusion

To sum up, Luke’s three dimensions of power are an important basis for understanding the relationship between state and the individuals during the policy-making process. The policy-making process allows citizens to have a direct contact with the government and a platform to enhance their rights. Some of the well-presented arguments from different groups are converted it working policies which impact all citizens. However, despite some opinions being a representation of a certain group’s major interests, they could be opposed, and other from a more powerful group implemented instead. Therefore, power determines which interests of a particular group are converted to national policies. Based on their effects, the three dimensions can easily be categorised with the first one presuming a set agenda. The setting of the agenda relies upon a more indirect power dynamics process which is explained by the second face. The last face is viewed as the most essential since it shapes the other dimensions. However, it is not possible to evaluate the theory regarding the hidden power dimension, but should be taken into consideration when developing hypotheses about both the first and second faces.

























References

Benequista, N., Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2010). Putting citizens at the centre linking states and societies for responsive governance : a policy-maker's guide to the research of the Development research centre on citizenship, participation and accountability. [Brighton], University of Sussex.

Gerston, L. N. (2015). Public policy making: process and principles. London : Routledge.

Haugaard, M. (2002). Power: a reader. Manchester, UK, Manchester University

Hill, M. J., & Varone, F. (2017). The public policy process. London : Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Inoguchi, T., & Blondel, J. (2012). Citizens and the State: Attitudes in Western Europe and East and Southeast Asia. Hoboken, Taylor and Francis.

Iversen, T. (2013). Capitalism, democracy, and welfare. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lukes, S. (1974). Power: a radical view. London: Macmillan.

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: a radical view. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Skinner, Q., & StråTh, B. (2003). States and citizens: history, theory, prospects. Cambrigde, Cambridge University Press.

Zito, A. R. (2010). Learning and governance in the EU policy making process. London, Routledge.