The Three Faces of Power - Paper Example

Power is defined and perceived to be control, taking charge, and showing control. In regards to Luke, the three faces are;

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Decision making

It is where interests seen as the specific policy allow a given party or person to achieve compliance by others whose decisions will be made. It can be a sequence of relationships with one general agreement.

For example, in many federal governments, Decisions are made typically by the sitting parliamentarians who make decisions on behalf of the people he represents through the law-making process, which usually requires only them and all those that are in power to pass them. Through this decision-making process, the people's representatives who are in control can solve all the challenges that the citizens may be facing without any conflicts between the specific groups of people.

For example, the Kenyan government in 2007 during the general elections the country went into an extensive tribal conflict which led to clashes after heated countries general elections which were seen as not open after many scores and injuries and many persons losing property, and many deaths, the EU sent a special envoy to Kenya to arbitrate between the top presidential contenders of the elections where a post-elections agreement deal was agreed and signed by the two leaders on behalf of the people of Kenya.

Agenda.

In many instances, power should not be seen as not just about making of decisions but also having an excellent plan that does not affect any outcome to be made, it's perceived that where you can be able to control and take charge of all the decisions to be made, then you can be able to influence them. Where necessary power will be given to authorities or persons of interest, this type of face can be seen in all decisions made in closed doors and places, where electricity was produced, through these very few individuals, decide what and why seldom is clear. In such power is held not only by those elected leaders but also those who gave them power and whom they sit within meetings and set their agendas and write minutes on their own. It is perceived to be the ‘secretive face' where you cannot determine the decision-maker. It can cause mayhem and speculations that can lead to problems since people will take it to be corruption elements to the choice made of which all are made for personal interests.

For example, in the 1980s, after an analysis done in many countries concerning the EU's standard agricultural policy (CAP) which it’s primary interest was agriculturally based. Many state members through their agricultural sectors remained primarily concerned with their own produce hence left pressures from the EU, which they saw to be for their interests. Since there was advocacy from countries like France to have and become a single market for all products form their member states, many other countries showed interest to join. This made agenda management and non-decision making to be less sophisticated. Through many countries need this so it can be made clear a need to address the deficiency if the second face of power can well be explored and bring more insights.

Manipulation

It is the third face of power that politicians and other representatives use and manipulate the psychology of anyone and everyone affected. It can also be perceived as the ability to control what people think or see to be right, but due to the powers bestowed on the leader, it can lead to a biased decision without any questions raised. In politics and governments, this is seen as propaganda to win the majority hence drafting speeches deliberately designed to change many before and when the decision is made. Under this face there are two examples which usually illustrates its literature;

Social constructivism

It can be based on a social ontology that generally states that human agents or representatives don't exist independently from any environment they are in.

Neo-Gramscian Analysis

Just like constructivism, Neo-Gramscian suggests different ways under which persons might be able to start to operate insights on non-decision making. For proper development and creating a suitable model based on the third face of power would require an excellent exploration of such ideas in the right and more systematic way.

For example, where union members decide to hold a demonstration or strike so that their needs can be heard by the government and get quick solutions through its representatives, the union will need to ask the government to address the issues raised and bring onboard solutions. Through this, the union members sit privately. They discuss with the government for answers. If no mutual agreement reached the government through its powers and machinery call for a secret meeting with the union members, then agree and sign back deal agreement which the union members and the other leaders benefit on behalf of the members. Hence this can be seen as a deceptive face where psychological methods played for personal gains when discovered, thus leading to loss of trust and betrayal.

Works Cited

Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. "Two faces of power." American political science review 56.4 (1962): 947-952.

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