INTRO TO POLS.

The source begins by noting that 'politics' is a highly contested concept, raising questions
about how people should live, how resources should be distributed, and who should make
collective decisions. It offers a fundamental definition of politics as "the activity through
which people make, preserve, and amend the general rules under which they live". By
this definition, politics inherently involves both conflict and co-operation, arising from
differing perspectives, desires, rival opinions, and competing needs regarding governance.
However, the source also points out that collective agreement is necessary for these issues to
be considered political.
The source then outlines four main perspectives on understanding politics:
 Politics as the Art of Government: This perspective views politics as the exercise of
control within society through the making and enforcement of collective
decisions. It equates politics with the affairs of the 'polis' or the state, focusing on the
study of government and the exercise of authority. Politics in this light occurs within
governmental institutions and is engaged in by politicians, civil servants, and
lobbyists. The source mentions that the negative image sometimes associated with
politics stems from its close association with the activities of politicians, potentially
tracing back to Machiavelli's realistic account in The Prince, which highlighted the
use of cunning, cruelty, and manipulation by political leaders.
 Politics as Public Affairs: This perspective broadens the scope of politics beyond just
government to encompass a public sphere of life, distinct from a private sphere. This
view is linked to Aristotle's idea that "man is by nature a political animal",
meaning that humans can only achieve 'the good life' within a political community.
From this standpoint, politics is an ethical activity aimed at creating a 'just society'.
 Politics as Compromise and Consensus: Here, politics is seen as a form of conflict
resolution achieved through compromise, conciliation, and negotiation, rather than
force. It's often described as 'the art of the possible'. A 'political' solution implies
peaceful debate and arbitration. Bernard Crick defines politics in this context as "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". This view emphasizes the wide
dispersal of power. The source notes that compromise means no one is perfectly
satisfied, but it is preferable to alternatives like bloodshed. It also highlights that
listening to others is crucial, which can lead to disappointment in democratic politics
as outcomes are often messy and never final.
 Politics as Power: This is presented as the broadest and most radical definition,
seeing politics at work in all social activities and every corner of human existence,
both formal and informal, public and private. Politics in this sense concerns the
production, distribution, and use of resources and is fundamentally about power:
the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. Harold
Lasswell's question, "Politics: Who Gets What, When, How?" (1936), encapsulates
this perspective, emphasizing diversity, conflict, and the crucial element of scarcity:
the limited resources available to satisfy infinite human needs and desires. Advocates
of this view include Feminists and Marxists, with Kate Millett defining politics as
"power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is
controlled by another".
The source concludes that there is no single "right" definition of politics, as all definitions
are interrelated and influenced by the theorists' era and experiences. However, it emphasizes
that due to the inevitable existence of diversity and the scarcity of resources, politics is an
inescapable feature of society. It also notes that the concept of politics has been challenged
by philosophers, focusing on aspects like the exercise of power and authority, collective
decision-making, resource allocation, conflict resolution, and even deception. Understanding
these concepts helps in better understanding the functioning and outcomes of different
scenarios globally.
The source then delves into understanding power in politics, defining it as a relationship:
the ability to influence the behavior of others to bring about an intended effect. The
word 'power' comes from the Latin 'potere', meaning 'to be able to'. The greater someone's
capacity to determine events, the more powerful they are, as illustrated by the example of
powerful countries like China and the USA. Power can involve not only the ability to do
something but also power over people or countries, as seen in the example of colonies.
Essentially, power is exercised when A gets B to do something B would not otherwise have
done.
The source outlines three dimensions or faces of power according to Lukes (1974):
 Power as Decision Making: This refers to the capacity to make and implement
decisions, based on Dahl's idea of making people do what they would not otherwise
do. This can be achieved through force, intimidation, mutual agreements, or the
creation of obligations, such as government prohibitions, subsidies, and punishments.
 Power As Agenda Setting (Non-decision-making): This involves the ability to
prevent decisions from being made by controlling the political agenda and
preventing issues from being publicized. Examples include politicians campaigning to
include issues in debates or vetoing discussions. The National Rifle Association's
success in preventing discussions about banning firearms in the US Congress is given
as an example.
 Power as Thought Control: This is the ability to influence another by shaping
their thoughts, wants, or needs, often through ideological indoctrination,
psychological control, or propaganda, aligning with the notion of "soft" power.
Finally, the source introduces authority, defining it as the recognition or acceptance of
power and the capacity of others to act. It's the acknowledgement of a right to exercise
power. In politics, authority is granted to leaders and governments by the people, who accept
their legitimacy. While authority doesn't always mean agreement, even in non-democratic
regimes, people may unwillingly recognize and obey authority.
The source concludes by outlining three types of authority according to Weber (1964):
 Traditional authority: Validated by custom and established ways of doing things,
similar to patriarchal authority. Monarchy, where power is inherited, is a prime
example.
 Charismatic authority: Based on admiration for exceptional qualities or
outstanding actions and the devotion they inspire. Leaders gain authority through
inspirational or heroic behaviour, often emerging during crises. Examples include
Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Roosevelt during WWII, as well as revolutionary figures like
Che Guevara, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi.
 Legal-rational authority: Based on rules and regulations and the official position
held, not the individual's qualities. This is the most common type in modern society,
where people accept the authority of leaders because of their legal status (e.g.,
president, prime minister) and follow orders tied to that position, not personal
persuasion.