Politics: A Definition

Landes offers us the following definition of politics:

“The exercise of power and influence concerning the establishment, maintenance, and breakdown of order in the community”(Landes 22).

Government isn’t the only entity in a community with power and influence, so politics is obviously a broader and more encompassing concept than government. As a matter of fact, government is a subset of politics. Politics is the use of power and influence to affect the community, sometimes through government, sometimes through other channels.

Federal Vs. Unitary Governments

There are several essential differences between federal and unitary forms of government. The terms ‘federal’ and ‘unitary’ refer to the sharing of political power between a central government and its constituent units.

Division of Power. A federal form of government is constructed  on the principle of power being divided between the multiple levels of government, whereas a unitary government has only a single level which delegates some power to local units.

In a federal nation-state (e.g. Canada), therefore, local (provincial, municipal) governments as well as the federal government can exercise certain powers over its citizens. Under a unitary government (e.g. Britain) however, a local government institution exercises power on behalf of the central government – it’s simply a branch of power.

Organization. A federal form of government is typically organized into at least three levels: federal, provincial/state, and local. The middle, provincial level is missing in a unitary system and local governmental institutions are not at all independent. Effectively, there is only one government.

Principle. The concept underlying a federal system is the promotion of diversity in the population, and an attempt to provide a degree of autonomy to regions. A unitary form of government results in what its name implies: unity.

Presidential Vs. Parliamentary Governments

This classification focuses on the structure of the executive (single or dual) within a government, and “its relation (separation or fusion of powers) to the legislature within a single governmental level” (15). Like federal and unitary structures, there are several key differences between the presidential and parliamentary government forms.

Executive Functions. A parliamentary system has a dual executive: a formal executive (head of state) with limited political power (e.g. British monarch, or Canadian governor general and provincial lieutenant governors), and a political executive, with substantial political power (British and Canadian prime ministers, and provincial premiers). A presidential system, on the other hand, operates with a single executive. Both formal and political executive functions are performed by the president.

Executive and Legislative Power. In a parliamentary system, executive and legislative power is fused. “Whichever party has a majority of seats in the legislature also controls the executive branch; in other words, the same group of political leaders operates both the executive and legislative institutions of government” (15). (The cabinet is what effectively fuses executive and legislative power in a parliamentary system. It is responsible to the legislature for its actions, and retains office by majority support in the legislature.)

Under a presidential system, executive and legislative powers are separated. “This separation of powers principle is maintained through a series of checks and balances, which are the specific constitutional powers granted to each branch to control, in some respects, the operation of the other branches of government” (16). A good example of this is how the American president can veto a law passed by the legislature, and the legislature may override a presidential veto (through a 2/3 vote in the House of Representatives and Senate).

Elections. In a parliamentary government there is a maximum time limit a government can retain office, but within that time it may hold elections to renew its mandate. In a presidential government election times are mandated by law – there is no leeway. For example, American presidential elections are held in November every four years.

Globalization

Landes perspective on the advent of globalization isn’t overly optimistic. He credits the phenomenon with an increasing uniformity among worldwide democratic electoral practices and the spread of liberal-democracy as an ideal (thanks to the success of Western capitalism), but also notes that much of the substance of democracy is ‘lost in translation.’ In other words democratic ideas and forms are spreading, but substance is lacking in many cases. He also states that governments are losing decision-making power to global organizations (IMF, UN, etc.) and even international corporations (i.e. through free trade agreements).

Political Power and Influence

Where do they intersect?

Political power and influence are relational concepts, i.e. both involve human interaction (direct or indirect), involve causation (exercised before a change in behavior), and politics (public in their import, as opposed to religious influence, for example). However, these two terms differ.

How do they differ?

It’s important to realize that while both terms refer to affecting change in someone’s behavior, Influence is the broader term – power is a type of influence.

Landes offers us the following definitions:

“People exercise influence when they change another person’s attitudes or behaviour…Power, likewise, represents a change in a person’s behaviour, but [specifically, via the actual or threatened] use of sanctions” (30). In other words, power is influence (changes behavior) with a gun (force).

Examples that serve to delineate these terms abound. If I join the military partly because of an arousing speech I hear regarding the horrors of 9/11 and threats of Islamic terrorism, then the speechmaker has exercised some degree of influence over me. If a conscription law is in place (along with sanctions consequent to ‘draft dodging’), on the other hand, my decision to join the military is a good example of power having been exercised.

On the other hand, I suppose sanctions could involve less serious deprivations than that of freedom or life. For example, the deprivation of government services. In such a case, the exercise of power wouldn’t involve force.

Political Resources and Influence

A political resource is a means by which one person or group can influence the behaviour of another. Such resources range from money to the threat of force, social standing to food, and more.

Presumably, though not always, individuals and groups with the greatest political resources will also hold a proportionate level of influence (a good example of an exception would be a rich man with little influence).

If I wanted to increase my own political influence, a good start would be taking stock of and growing my own political resources. This might involve raising funds ($$$) for a campaign, gaining knowledge about the political process in my area (education and information), attending the best parties (social status and connections), and boosting my credentials (authority).

However, I may fail to achieve political influence despite having access to great political resources. Why? Whatever reason – I may lack a minimum level of charisma, have a reputation that interferes with trust (where did I get my money?), etc. While it isn’t difficult to understand how political resources don’t necessarily lead to influence (Landes uses the good example of Ross Perot), it’s hard to imagine a situation where influence is achieved without resources. Resources include not only wealth afterall, but also popularity and a great variety of other things. I think political influence is always rooted in some form of political resources.

Other Perspectives

Dahl and Landes describe the differences in the amount of influence people exercise as being attributable to three factors:

1. Differences in the distribution of political resources.
2. Variations in the skill or efficiency with which individuals use their political resources…
3. Variations in the extent to which individuals use their resources for political purposes. (Dahl 1984: 31)

The first point is especially noteworthy, because it reveals an implicit notion in Dahl and Landes’ conception of political influence, namely that bases of political influence are not restricted to any specific sphere of society. This assumption, that sources of power and influence are widely dispersed, is the core of what is known as the pluralist approach.

The pluralist approach isn’t universally accepted. Marxists, for example, contend that political power and influence is concentrated in the dominant economic class (i.e. owners of the means of production), and that the political and economic spheres of a society are inseparable.

Elite theorists believe that power and influence are concentrated in the elite minority that rules over the masses (even under socialism), and have a non-economic basis. Since power and influence are assumed to be monopolized by the elite minority, elite theorists find questions regarding power and influence largely irrelevant.