13
Theories of Power, Dominance and Hegemony
Introduction
Power as an Analytical Variable in Politics
In Chapter 12, we have briefly dealt with the relationship between authority, legitimacy and political obligation. A point has been made there that a citizen's loyalty towards and identification with the authority is assumed because of inherent legitimacy and consent it carries. Political obligation is easily maintained in such a situation and those subject to it, i.e., the modern citizens, follow orders and laws emanating from the authority not merely due to command or force but by willing allegiance. When there is deficit in willing allegiance, it leads to legitimacy crisis and breakdown of political obligation. Authority is a form of power, which has a legitimate claim to exercise power. This means, power is legitimate when it has willing obedience from the citizens. Willing obedience comes only when it is recognized that the power being wielded is not arbitrary, personalized and unjustified or being used for selfish ends. Contrarily, it is generally perceived that authority is the power, which is being exercised according to the rule of law, impersonal order and is being exercised in public interest. Power without willing obedience is a brute force and can be sustained only through coercive means. If we agree with Green, then ‘will, not force is the basis of the state’ and hence, force cannot sustain power of the state for long. Thus, it appears that power must be legitimate and more so in a democratic set-up. It is accepted that power, legitimacy and authority bear relationship with each other. We will seek to explore the scope and nature of this relationship and how power is legitimized and what grounds are invoked. In modern democracies, authority is based on consent of the people who are considered as supreme source of power. German sociologist, Max Weber has discussed three types of authority and the grounds on which they seek legitimacy.
Since power is considered to be a crucial factor in politics and it is said, politics is about power, a survey of its meaning, theories and the relationship between sovereignty, power, dominance and hegemony will be in order. What are the forms of power and how different sections of the society perceive its distribution in society? How different forms of power—economic, ideological and political, related and how they affect authority and its legitimacy? What is the nature of power distribution in different systems, capitalist, socialist and developing? Liberal theorists would argue that power is evenly distributed in society and manifests in different forms; a Marxian theorist would charge that power is a means of class dominance, while a feminist would insist that power in a male-dominated society is manifestation of patriarchy. An elite theorist unequivocally maintains that power distribution in society is shared by the elites, while a democrat scoffs at such an idea and would not settle unless it is agreed that power belongs to the people. A pluralist will be happy if different sectional interest groups are considered as negotiating for their respective power realms to decide resource allocation. An anarchist would associate power with force and seek to abolish any sign of force in society—religious, economic, political or administrative. In this situation of differing and often contesting views, what role power is play to in society and its development?
In political theory, power is also studied in relation to public decision-making, policy formulation, their execution, control and allocation of public and societal resources. In a political system and the structural–functional approach pioneered and advocated by Easton, Almond, Powell and others, it is suggested that to perform its output functions each political system does extraction, distribution or allocation and regulation or control.1
What power does a political system have to perform these functions? Both Easton and Almond agree that the political system has the power of ‘authoritative allocation of values for society’ (Easton) or functions by ‘means of the employment, or threat of employment of more or less legitimate physical compulsion’ (Almond). Significance of understanding the political system in this way is that the political system analysis too has its basic premise grounded on the assumption of power as the main ingredient of output functions.
Power is not only identified with the State or the political system for decision-making, policy formulation, extraction, allocation and regulation but also with the individual for capacity-building and personality development. Positive liberals and those who support grounds for a welfare state such as J. S. Mill, T. H. Green and recently, C. B. Macpherson have discussed about the power of individual self-development. Macpherson has differentiated between developmental and extractive powers. He has argued that for their own self-fulfilment and for translating the liberal democratic government in participatory democracy, individuals need to realize developmental power.2 Libertarian thinker, F. A. Hayek while distinguishing three different notions of ‘freedom’, has termed positive freedom as power to satisfy our wishes. Recently, Nobel Laureate and economist, Amartya Sen has argued that empowerment amounts to capability expansion of individuals so that life choices increase. For example, what choices are available if individuals are not educated, go without medical facilities, sanitation, drinking water and housing or for that matter are discriminated, based on criteria of gender. It brings the concept of empowerment of those who are marginalized. What does power mean in this context and how does public or societal power relate to this?
Conventionally, in political theory some thinkers have been identified with the power approach of politics. Kautilaya's Arthashastra, Machiavelli's The Prince and Hobbes's Leviathan are considered as treatises that have advocated acquisition, maintenance, application and use of power by the rulers or the sovereign. Marx's analysis of economic power has provided a powerful analytical tool to understand political process as an integral part of, and, in fact, a reflection of economic relations. A libertarian theorist, Milton Friedman in his Capitalism and Freedom has argued that economic power must balance political power and hence economic liberty should be treated as a prior condition of political liberty. Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State analysed the evolution of ‘public power’3 (armed power of the State—police, jail, army, institution of coercion, etc.) and its association with the State as separated from the people's power. For Gramsci, Engels's agencies of public power are state apparatuses that provide means of coercion and stand in collaboration with the means of hegemony to help maintain overall dominance by the capitalist class. As mentioned above, Max Weber has dealt with the relationship between power, legitimacy and authority and has discussed about various forms of authority.
In the twentieth century, the power approach has been identified with various writers. Harold Lasswell views politics as an arena of Who Gets What, When and How in his book of the same title and Bertrand Russell has analysed the dynamics of power in his book Power: A New Social Analysis. Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis, Polyarchy) and C. Wright Mills (Power Elite) have analysed the group and elite power dynamics. In India, Pranab Bardhan in his book, The Political Economy of Development in India has analysed how ‘dominant proprietary classes’ play more or less the same role that Wright Mill's power elite play in America. In the field of international politics, writers such as Hans J. Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, Henry Kissinger and others associated with the realpolitik approach, advocate power as an analytical variable for understanding international political process. Is power a relevant and suitable analytical variable for analysing and understanding the political process? Concepts such as balance of power, power vacuum, power elite, power broker, power bloc, power hungry politician, etc. are used not only by academic analysts but also by average citizens. No doubt, power is a powerful variable for analysing and understanding the political process, more so when we study power in its various forms—supremacy, authority, dominance, hegemony and influence.
Many of the developing countries for long have been under colonial power. Kautilaya, Machiavelli and Hobbes had talked about acquisition and maintenance of foreign territory or foreign sovereignty. Kings and rulers used to make colonies and maintain their power over the subjects. Between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries, various Asian, African and Latin American countries were under colonial domination of the imperial powers belonging to Europe—England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc. When we say colonial power, what kind of power was that and how it came to dominate a vast territory of the earth? Was colonial power a manifestation of economic power or political power or ideological and cultural power, or a combination of all these?
Power
Power, Legitimacy and Authority
As our introductory remarks reveal, power is considered as an important analytical variable in the study and understanding of the political system and its processes. It is also important to understand the way institutions of the State exercise their authority and the circumstances in which authority faces legitimacy deficit and deficit of political obligation. This leads to protest against the policies and actions of the state. One may say that politics is all about acquisition, maintenance and use of power. However, what do we mean by power and how do we differentiate its various manifestations?
Power is generally understood as capacity to affect other's behaviour by some form of sanction.4 Sanction can be in the form of punishments and coercion or rewards and inducements. As such, power can manifest in the form of reward, inducement, pressure, persuasion, intimidation, coercion or violence. These are intended to affect the behaviour of a targeted person or groups or communities to achieve the desired result. For example, during the colonial rule in India, the government resorted to firing against the Satyagrahis in 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh (Punjab). This was an example of use of power as violence to affect the behaviour of those who were protesting against the Rowlatt Acts. Presently, in the Indian electoral context, media reports suggest that political parties resort to distribution of various material things such as blanket, sarees, dhotis, rice, money, etc. amongst the electorate before the elections to seek votes of the people or groups or communities or a section of them. This can be an example of pressure through inducement to produce favourable electoral behaviour. This material inducement constitutes not only undue use of power but violates the principle that the individual is a rational choice maker and should not be induced or influenced to vote otherwise. We must note here that pressure, material inducements, violence, coercion, etc. are external factors that affect the behaviour of the agent.
There can also be use of influence in the form of moral persuasion, as in Satyagraha, which affects behaviour. Gandhi differentiates between power as ‘brute force’ and power as ‘soul-force or truth-force’.5 Satyagraha or moral persuasion comes under the category of truth-force and should not be considered as either coercion or inducement. For Gandhi, Satyagraha is related to correctness of means to achieve any goal. To counter brute force of the colonial power by violent means was unthinkable for Gandhi. He insisted on moral persuasion. Use of moral persuasion to influence behaviour of another person or agency that wields power, does not constitute use of brute force but only truth force. In Gandhi's views, moral persuasion is an appeal based on truth and does not imply any external pressure or force.
Generally, power is understood as an external factor of affecting or controlling others behaviour. Max Weber defines power as ‘the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action against the resistance of others who are participating in the action.’6 Realizing one's own will against the resistance of others, means achieving the desired objectives even though those who are the subject of application of the pressure resist. Weber's definition is characterized by use of power in a social relationship where one person or group of people possess power at the expense of others. This is a doctrine of a zero-sum power game. Power is exercised at the cost of others. In cases where two or more actors have equivalent power, then result will not favour either. Bertrand Russell corroborates this view when he defines power as ‘the production of intended results’. This means ability of a person or a group of persons to achieve desired results. This is power to achieve an outcome or intended result.
There can be another understanding of the concept of power. Some of the theorists such as Morton Kaplan, Harold Lasswell and Carl J. Friedrich have defined power in terms of relationship in which a person or a group of persons exercise control over others. While for Weber and Russell, power is power to realize one's will or achieve a goal; for Kaplan, Lasswell and Friedrich, power is power over someone. For example, binding decisions over some one means control is being exercised. Government has power over its citizens because its makes binding decisions. In political systems analysis framework, Easton and Almond's definitions of political system cited above also imply that power is a primary element.
Power is also differentiated from influence. Robert Dahl has made a distinction between power and influence.7 In his book, Modern Political Analysis, Dahl explains influence as relation among actors where intentions, preferences and actions of one or more actors affect the actions or intention to act of other actor(s). This means if action of one or more actors in a social situation affects the actions or intention to act of other actor(s), explicitly or implicitly, it can be said that the first set of actor(s) has influenced the second set of actors. When a binding decision is complied with or an intended result is achieved without use of violence, but by use of persuasion, inducements, controlled information, etc., it constitutes influence. Gandhiji's Satyagraha may come under the category of influence through moral persuasion. Persuasion can be through moral appeal (Satyagraha) or manipulation (by providing incomplete information) or inducements (monetary or material gains). On the other hand, for Dahl, power is exercised when ‘compliance is attained by creating the prospect of severe sanctions for non-compliance’. Power is related to threat or sanction or what Almond would say, threat of employment of more or less legitimate physical compulsion.
There are a number of concepts that are used in the context of understanding the dynamics of power. For example, sovereignty, supremacy, power, violence, coercion, force, authority, influence, dominance, hegemony, etc., are applied to describe various forms or manifestations of power. We have dealt with sovereignty in two chapters and have tried to discuss its meanings and implication. We can briefly touch upon the concepts in order to understand the context in which ‘power’ is related to them Figure 13.1.
It appears that ‘power’ as a relationship between state and individuals, state and groups, groups and individuals, can manifest in various forms. However, the question arises, on what grounds, that are acceptable, it should be acquired, maintained and used. The relationship between power and legitimacy depends on its acceptability by the subjects and citizens. Acceptability of the use of power by the subjects and citizens depends on various factors. They include:
- Power is not exercised in arbitrary manner but within the framework of law, either constitution, rule of law or an agreed code of law.
- Power is not exercised for selfish and personal gains but for public interests and general welfare including defence, law and order, social welfare, etc.
- Power being exercised has been acquired through acceptable means and the holder has entitlement to it. This has been either based on divine rights and hereditary transfer (monarchies in England, Japan, Bhutan) on democratic consent (democratic governments in countries such as Indian, USA, England and others) or acquisition by justified revolutionary means (Lenin in Russia,1917, Castro in Cuba,1957, etc.).
- Power exercised is reasonable and not coercive and disproportionate to ends to be achieved. Colonial power or authoritarian power, for example are criticized for their use of excessive coercive power and are treated as unacceptable.
Power exercised according to these criteria is generally considered acceptable and acceptability results in willing obedience to power being exercised. If there is willingness from the subjects and citizens to follow and obey, power is treated as legitimate. Thus, power is legitimate when there is willing obedience and allegiance to its exercise and all its products—legislation, laws, acts, orders, rules, etc. are generally obeyed as rightful. We are calling it as generally obeyed because they are subject to a limit on political obligation and right to resist. Green's remark that ‘will, not force is the basis of the state’, should be understood in this context that power of the state is based on will of the people and not mere force of the state. In this way, we have the following equation between power, its acceptability, legitimacy and authority. When exercise of power is generally acceptable and its products willingly obeyed, power becomes legitimate. Legitimate power, we call authority (Figure 13.2).
By its very nature then, authority becomes an acceptable form of exercise of power, influencing behaviour of others for achieving certain ends or desired outcomes, or exercising control over others. Authority is automatically and unquestionably followed. However, there can be circumstances when influencing others behaviour may not constitute exercise of authority. For example, influencing by application of either excessive persuasion or coercion is not authority. As we have defined power, both persuasion and coercion are considered as a means of influencing behaviour of others. However, it may not carry authority. Heywood suggests that ‘Much of electoral politics amounts to an exercise in persuasion …’8 through campaign, rallies and meetings.
These are aimed at influencing electoral behaviour, as there may not be automatic and willing obedience towards a party's policies and manifesto. There is no ‘duty to obey’ a particular party unless there is political affiliation and membership that is either cadre-based or based on loyalty. In such situations, in the end it cannot be said that authority has been exercised because of two reasons: one, that electorates may not vote for a party or parties that exercised influence, and there is no duty to obey willingly. A second example can be cited of religious conversions. Arguably, it is felt that religious conversions do not always carry the authority of the religions converted to rather they are results of material and economic inducements. This means, if conversion is not a result of conviction of conscience of the person being converted, persuasion and influence in the form of inducement has been used. However, it may also happen that conversion is due to the exploitative and indignifying conditions being offered by a particular socio-religious set-up. In this case, an egalitarian and just order being offered by another religion will exercise authoritative influence. Thus, authority as an automatic and willing influence is distinguished here from influencing by persuasion and inducements. Influencing by coercion does not carry any willing obedience and does not constitute authority. Colonial or dictatorial power is often treated as coercive and devoid of authority.
However, it should be noted here that exercise of authority is dependent upon exercise of power. While power can be exercised with authority behind it, there cannot be authority with power behind it. While power is understood in the sense of power or ability to achieve a desired outcome by influencing others’ behaviour or exercise of control by one over the other, authority is right to influence or control. Thus, authority is the justifying means to exercise power. Authority, in short, is a form of power that carries rightful justification for exercise of power. Heywood while distinguishing between the two, suggests that while ‘power can be defined as the ability to influence the behaviour of another, authority can be understood as the right to do so’.9 He further adds that power brings about compliance through persuasion, pressure, threats, coercion or violence, while authority is based upon a ‘perceived right to rule’ and brings about compliance through a moral obligation to obey. In short, we can say that while power can be coercive either violent or non-violent, authority is always based on willingness of the subjects and citizens. In modern democracies, consent based representative governments are considered to carry authority. This is because their source of power is people's supremacy.
Besides democratically aggregated consent, there can be different grounds to justify power as legitimate. German sociologist Max Weber discusses at least three grounds. Max Weber, while dealing with types of authority, deals with the grounds on which authority is treated as legitimate. He categorizes them into traditional, charismatic and legal–rational authority. While the first seeks legitimacy on the ground of tradition, custom and religious and other beliefs and is characterized by hereditary transfer of power, the second is purely personal and depends on personal traits and charismatic and extraordinary qualities possessed by certain individuals that influence people. The third type of authority is based on impersonal order and seeks legal and rational ground for its justification. The authority that we associate with monarchies presently in Britain, Bhutan and Nepal, etc. according to Weber, would be traditional authority. The authority that people such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, or for that matter, Lenin, Hitler and Mao carried would be charismatic authority. Weber identified ‘bureaucracy’ (as he defined it) with legal–rational authority. However, Weber does not discuss the authority that a Prime Minister or a President carries in a democracy. It appears neither traditional nor charismatic. Some prime ministers or presidents may be charismatic but the authority they carry is not charismatic. Primarily, their authority emanates from the people and hence we may call them popular authority or democratic authority. However, they do carry legal–rational characteristics such as working under the constitution of the country and the rule of law.
While Weber attempted to define legitimacy in terms of sources from which it is drawn, David Beetham in his The Legitimation of Power has sought to show that ‘power can be said to be legitimate only if three conditions are fulfilled’.10
The three conditions include: (i) power exercised according to established rules (formal legal codes or informal conventions), (ii) these rules to be justified in terms of shared beliefs of the government and the governed, (iii) legitimacy to be demonstrated by expression of consent on the part of the governed. Beetham's first condition is similar to that of Weber's criteria of established rules of the legal–rational authority. The second condition is problematic when we judge many rules that the colonial government formulated for the colonized people and have come to be accepted as shared. The third criterion is the basis of democratically elicited representative governments and democratic electoral process.
Suppose we have to consult the political masters of the past, and some of the present, as if we are asking them as to what bases and grounds they would like to attribute for power being legitimate and rightful (See Table 13.1). Can we attribute the following grounds on their behalf?
Table 13.1 Masters’ Grounds for Power Exercised Being Rightful and Legitimate
Dimensions of Power
When we associate the concept of power with political theory, we largely delve in the realm of political power. Concept of political power has been a matter of debate from early times. Plato in his Republic wanted to associate political power with philosophic knowledge lest, he feared, power would always be corrupting. When Lord Acton talked of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely, he was suggesting corruptible influence of power in the political realm. According to Allan R. Ball, political power is a key concept in the study of politics because it is associated with resolution of conflict. In the liberal view, political power and its distribution are assigned the task of negotiating, reconciling and resolving conflicting interests in society. Political power is treated as broker that performs the function of taking care of varied interests in society. Political power no doubt is an important dimension of power. However, there is emphasis on other dimensions of power also such as economic and ideological. This has been generally from the Marxian perspective. Another aspect of power that we may separately discuss is related to coercive power of the state. The last aspect is important to understand the power exercised by the State to coerce citizens and groups of citizens. Thus, a holistic analysis of dimensions of power requires analysis and understanding of political power, economic power, ideological power and coercive power. Legal power of the State is associated with political, coercive and ideological powers.
Political Power
Interpretation and understanding of political power differ in liberal and Marxian perspectives. In the liberal view, nature and characteristics of political power is related to how the political process is understood. In the Marxian perspective, understanding of the concept of political power is related to the understanding of the economic system. While liberal view treats political power as a mechanism of conflict resolution in society and hence, a neutral arbiter, the Marxian perspective holds political power as a means of domination and legitimation of the exploitative capitalist system and hence, an ally of the bourgeoisie. We can briefly discuss the two aspects.
In the liberal view, political process is treated as a means or mechanism of resolving conflicts through negotiation and reconciliation. Power that is implied in such a process is treated as political power. Conflicts arise on issues relating to distribution of resources in society, for example, welfare and material goods, reservation in employment and public offices, etc. or protection of religious, cultural and other identities. To resolve conflict through negotiation and reconciliation, the liberal view assumes that power distribution in society determines how this resolution is to be done. Allan R. Ball explains this when he says, ‘if politics is the resolution of conflict, the distribution of power within the political community determines how the conflict is to be resolved …’ He further adds that political power can be defined as ‘the capacity to affect another's behaviour by some form of sanction’.11 Balls definition gives a feeling that political power is available to the organs of the State or such agencies only that can exercise sanction, either as coercion or inducement. However, political power is exercised not only by organs of the state but also by groups of individuals, political parties, pressure and interest groups that participate in interest articulation and interest aggregation.
Political power is conventionally identified with the organs of the state that formulate and implement policies. This includes the legislature, executive (including bureaucracy) and judiciary. However, it is apparent that political power is related to various other agencies and organs in society. It is important to understand how power and influence are exercised by those who articulate and aggregate interests in society, on the one hand and, those who make decisions and implement them, on the other? Interests and pressure groups, media, social and political movements, political parties, on the one hand and legislators, executives and judiciary, one the other become two aspects of political power. Generally, political parties in a democratic set-up are considered as important channels of political power because they alternate in government and opposition. Pressure and interest groups also largely work through political parties and influence policies of the political parties or through them the government. For example, in India various trade unions work through their affiliation with parties of the left (AITUC and others with left parties), right (BMS with BJP) and centre (INTUC with Congress) spectrum. Other cultural and pressure groups, such as the RSS, also allegedly work through the BJP. Nevertheless, these organs and institutions also exercise political power.
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary are considered as formal organs of political power because they exercise the power of the State. On the other hand, interest and pressure groups and other influences coming from society are considered informal organs of political power. As such, political power can be understood by looking at the channels and organs that exercise the power of sanction and participate in conflict resolution such as the formal organs of the State and those which put pressure and articulate interests and influence the decision-making and resource distribution such as the informal organs.
Political power is overwhelmingly exercised by the formal organs of the State primarily because they have the source of sanction—means of legal and physical coercion (laws, acts, rules, legislations, police, para-military forces, prison etc.), redistribution of resources, welfare and other means of inducements. Traditionally, legislature enjoys the supreme power of legislation and is considered as repository of the people's power delegated to it. Executive is considered as the implementing arm of the legislature and judiciary as adjudicator and enforcer. We often discuss how power of office of the prime minister in a coalition situation is weakened vis-à-vis, a bipolar situation. This very idea refers to the limitation or restriction that the political power of office of the prime minister has undergone in a coalition situation due to weakening of party base. In another context, when we say that the prime minister is not effective in resolving the inter-state water dispute or is not able to negotiate with groups demanding regional autonomy, we are talking about the weakening of the political power of the executive vis-à-vis, the federal set-up. Political power of the State is exercised in a variety of ways, which include law enforcement, application of coercive means, inducements and welfare activities, resource generation and redistribution (e.g., tax collection and welfare activities), regulation (licences, permits, ensuring quality and standards), etc.
Participation of informal organs such as interest and pressure groups and political parties, media, etc. in negotiation, reconciliation and conflict resolution is without them exercising political power. Informal organs to influence the decision-making of the formal organs use pressure, persuasion, influence and intimidation and threat of physical violence. In political system analysis, while the formal organs exercise political power for ‘output’ functions, the informal organs exercise political power for ‘input’ functions. The fact is that output functions cannot be meaningfully performed unless input functions are carefully integrated within the political system. Political system analysis takes into account both formal and informal organs of political power as much as it accounts for the inputs, gatekeepers, decision-making and outputs in a networked manner.
Exercise of political power in this interrelated framework means study of power distribution in a society that manifests in a variety of pressure, influence and interest articulation. The liberal view of power distribution in society does not favour the idea of class domination. Instead, it assumes that power is distributed in such a manner that it is self-balancing. This means the liberal perspective views power distribution in society as if one aspect of power, say religious, is balanced by another aspect of power, say educational or economic or political. A classic example was provided by Max Weber, who in his essay on Class, Status and Party, identified, economic, social and political dimensions of power. Weber's multidimensional stratification analysis identifies various bases of power.
Liberal views on politics, political power and distribution of political power in society are interrelated. The idea of politics as resolution of conflict through distribution of power is a liberal interpretation. Bernard Crick in his book, In Defence of Politics has pointed out that Aristotle's Politics is a treatise, which celebrates this idea of politics as a means of reconciliation and conflict resolution. In the liberal view, politics becomes a process, which through distribution of political power seeks negotiation, reconciliation and resolution of conflicts. It becomes important for us to analyse and understand various approaches of distribution of political power within the liberal framework such as political pluralism, elitism, corporatism, etc. Pluralists would argue that associations and groups representing different interests in society should wield political power along with the state. Elitists argue that power is distributed amongst elites in society and the state negotiates with them, the corporatist view holds that certain groups such as the industrial interests, trade unions etc. are incorporated in political decision-making. We will discuss these perspectives on distribution of power in society separately in this chapter and compare them with class perspective of distribution of power.
In orthodox Marxian view, political power is a reflection of economic system and is not separate from class relation. While the liberal view treats political power as neutral arbiter, the Marxian view sees it as a means of class domination, political power is an ally of class power. In the liberal view, political power being a means of negotiation, reconciliation and conflict resolution is associated with piecemeal or incremental change. In the Marxian view, political power is to be taken over by the proletariat through a revolutionary means when the capitalist system is replaced with a socialist system. However, we can note that in a post-revolutionary society, communist party as vanguard, dictatorship of the proletariat and such other organs remain as organs exercising political power.
In the neo-Marxian perspective espoused by Gramsci, Althusser and Poulantzas, we find the political aspect being given almost an autonomous position though integrated with the economic aspect in the last analysis. This is related to how the political process is important for consciousness and legitimation of capitalism. Miliband in his book, Marxism and Politics, accepts that ‘Marxism as a theory of domination remained poorly worked out’.12 We will discuss Gramsci's theory of hegemony to find out how political arena and political power play crucial roles in stabilizing the capitalist system and maintaining its continuity.
We have differing views on political power as to who holds it. Conventionally, political power has been identified with the three organs of the State. The Lockean perspective's threefold division of power and Montesquieu's doctrine on separation of power, provide that legislature, executive and judiciary are important organs of political power. This is amply reflected, for example, in democratic constitutions of America and India. Max Weber's analysis of bureaucracy and subsequent development in the role of bureaucracy in industrial and democratic countries with a complex decision-making process reveal that bureaucracy wields political power as an integral part of the state organs. Political power as power of negotiating, reconciling and resolving conflicts arising on resource allocation and redistribution is considered as being exercised by various groups in a society which puts pressure on the decision-making of state organs. Elites, political oligarchy, ruling class, power elites, dominant classes and such other concepts have been employed to designate those who wield political power. Political parties and their leaders are considered as significant elements that mediate between the state and the social groups. In this, they wield political power.
Our analysis suggests that political power is not ‘the capacity to affect another's behaviour by some form of sanction’ alone, as Ball says. Rather it also means power of negotiating, reconciling and resolving conflicts arising on resource allocation and redistribution, which is exercised by various groups in society, which put pressure on decision-making of the state organs. Political power is understood in terms of how power is applied for negotiation, reconciliation and resolution of conflicts relating to resource allocation. This means when the State and its organs do redistribution and resource allocation, regulation of various actions of individuals and groups and extraction of material resources (taxes, fines, fees, economic benefits) for the benefit of the state and welfare, how political power is applied and how it is influenced.
Economic Power
Economic power is related to material and economic means of production, distribution and its regulation. Those who own the means to produce, control the market, supply and distribute goods and items wield economic power. The industrialists, rich agriculturist farmers, traders, landlords and the big business persons in financial and service sectors wield economic power. We have mentioned that the Marxian analysis focuses on economic factor as the key factor in understanding power dynamics in a society. Capitalists are the owners of the means of production, industrial establishments and financial and commercial interests. The Marxian analysis suggests that the class, which owns the means of production is the dominant class and state power is used to serve its interest. This means Marx associates economic power with dominance of the capitalist class. As such, the state and the political process in a capitalist society serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. It finds no separation between the economic and political interests in capitalist society. This can be rectified, Marx predicted, only when socialist means of production is established.
While in the Marxian analysis, economic power is associated with the capitalist class and considered as exploitative, libertarian writers such as F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman have argued that any association between the state and economic power will be inimical to individual liberty. They have argued that economic freedom should be part of individual freedom and insist on elimination of any role of the State in controlling or directing economic activity. Hayek feels that state intervention, through planning and regulation in the economic field, imposes external criteria of choice and destroys individual liberty. Friedman also argues that economic and political power should never combine. Instead, he suggests that individual economic liberty provides a guarantee against any excesses of political power. In brief, the libertarian perspective does not want any economic control by the state and opposes state intervention in planning, regulation and direction of economic activity in society. The libertarian view opposes association of economic power with state and planning because it considers it inimical to individual liberty.
We are aware that state does interfere in economic activities. In liberal democracies, influence of positive liberalism and welfare ideas have led to state intervention in various aspects of economic activity to ensure fair degree of redistribution of material and economic benefits to all sections of the society. In many developing countries, the State has adopted a framework of planned and directed economic development. This has resulted in the state being owner of means of production and distribution. In India, for example, under the framework of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and other commercial activities, the State is a large sharer in economic activities. Planning and central direction of the economy is one of the characteristics of the mixed economy that prevails in India. It is considered that the State wields economic power in two ways: firstly, through ownership of means of production and being a competitor and secondly, through regulation and direction of economic activities through licences, permits, taxation and export-import policies and fiscal, financial and agricultural policies.
Notwithstanding the debate on desirability and efficiency of state intervention in economic activity, it is generally agreed that some degree of intervention of the State will be required and is in any case necessary. The Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, in his book, Economics of the Public Sector has argued that there are at least ‘six basic market failures’ or conditions in which the market is not efficient. They are related to imperfect competition, public goods, externalities, incomplete markets, imperfect information and unemployment, inflation etc. He argues that ‘they provide a rationale for government activity’13. World Development Report, entitled The State in a Changing World recognizes role of the state in ‘addressing market failures’ including regulation, coordination and redistribution.14 Role of the State as such not only provides political power but also makes the State as one of the wielders of economic power.
In socialist countries, the State and the communist party under the dictatorship of the proletariat are supposed to direct the post-revolution economy. As a result, party bureaucracy of the communist party and state officials wield economic power, as the means of production is owned by the state. This was the case in erstwhile USSR and economies of the East European socialist countries. Many observers of communist states have pointed out that ownership of means of production by communist states resulted in privileged salary structure for the elite and bureaucracy. Tony Cliff in his State Capitalism in Russia has discussed about ‘state capitalism’ where surplus was being extracted by the state apparatus from peasantry for industrialization.15
In response to the Marxian position on capitalist ownership of means of production and concentration of economic power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, many observers have pointed out that in capitalist–industrial societies, means of production is not really owned by the bourgeoisie and economic power is not concentrated in the hands of a single class as Marx had described. Views of James Burnham and Raymond Aron are interesting in this context. Burnham in his The Managerial Revolution discussed the phenomenon of ascendancy of the managerial class in the production process. He argued that the capitalist–industrial economic system is characterized by separation between the owner and the manager of the means of production. This has resulted in managers exercising economic power instead of the capital owners. Raymond Aron, a political sociologist, argued that in a capitalist–industrial economy, the capitalist class does not own means of production. This is because ownership has become public and people and groups of people own shares in companies. Public holding of shares has changed the nature of ownership of means of production. While Burnham's analysis argues that ownership and control of capital are separated in the hands of two different classes, Aron suggests that ownership has in fact become public and individual ownership is disappearing. Ralph Dahrendorf in his Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society has argued that link between ownership and control has weakened due to the development of Joint Stock Company and technological advancements. These are aimed at refuting the Marxian analysis of economic power as power of the capitalist class.
It should also be noted that Marxian theorists such as Miliband and Poulantzas have tried to debunk the theory of managerialism of Burnham and separation of control and ownership of Aron and Dahrendorf in the capitalist economy. Miliband in his book The State in Capitalist Society has argued ‘that in contemporary Western societies there is a dominant or ruling class which owns and controls the means of production’.16 Miliband has further observed that the dominant or the ruling class ‘has close links to powerful institutions, political parties, the military, universities, the media, etc.’ and enjoys disproportionate position at all levels. Miliband's position is that the economically dominant class in capitalist society enjoys organic link with various institutions and organs of power in society. Poulantzas, on the other hand, does not subscribe to Miliband's doctrine of organic link between the ruling class and social background of bureaucracy, officials in educational and military establishments and media, etc. He suggests that instead of a unified and cohesive nature of the capitalist class and its economic power, the bourgeois class is ‘fragmented’ in fractions such as capital, financial, commercial, etc. However, their common economic interest is protected and safeguarded by the state by means of acting as an autonomous entity and balancing the conflict and pressure amongst the fractions of the bourgeoisie. Analysis of Miliband and Poulantzas suggests that the bourgeois class, either as a homogeneous class or as different fractions safeguarded by the State, enjoys economic power. The myth of separation of control and ownership is refuted.
Notwithstanding differing views on the nature of economic power and its holders, it is obvious that particular groups such as the industrialists, agricultural proprietary class, traders and merchants, commercial and financial interests, wield economic power. Chambers and Confederations of industrial houses, Kisan Sabhas of agricultural proprietary class, lobbies and associations of traders and merchants wield influence on the decision-making of the government. This takes place in various ways such as lobbying, financial contribution to party activities, direct participation of members in political decision-making through representation, etc. In India, conventionally budget-making involves wide consultation with various industrial, agricultural, financial and commercial interest groups. It is generally understood that all political parties rely on financial contribution from business and industrial concerns for their party and electoral activities. In fact, many a times, the left parties in India whose policy excludes them from such a linkage have demanded state funding of the electoral expenses so that transparency between financial contribution by industrial and business houses to political parties can be tracked. Not only in India, but in UK and USA also, the undeclared financial contribution to political parties by business and industrial concerns has been a matter of debate and controversy.
Due to a variety of factors as discussed above, those who enjoy economic power do influence political power in the form of professional lobbies and pressure or interests groups. Political parties or even movements also represent many economic interests. During the movement for independence against the colonial rule, Indian industrialists and merchants supported the Indian National Congress in a large number either by joining the party or by providing financial support.17
The capitalist and the bourgeois class in India realized that for the development of domestic industries and enterprises in which rested their long-term interests, they should align with the national movement for an independent India. The capitalist class through its Bombay Plan, 1946 did agree that India should adopt a mixed economy framework with co-existence of public and private sector enterprises.18 They needed the Independent Indian state to protect them from foreign competition; provide basic infrastructural facilities such as roads, highways, railways, ports and docks, airports, hydel and thermal power generating units; make capital available through publicly owned financial institutions such as the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI), etc. It would be a rare encounter when capitalist class in India would have argued against the state intervention and mixed economy after the independence. However, when the capitalist class found it in their favour and profitable to get integrated with outside world for market, finance and capital, raw materials etc. they pressed the Indian state for liberalization and privatization. One may argue that mixed economy was the need in post-independent India, while liberalization and privatization a requirement in today's integrated economy. However, the point being made here is that economic power does influence political decision-making.
Influence and pressure of the rich landed class—landlords before independence and landed proprietary class after independence, is visible on political power and decision-making. The landlords opposed land reforms’ efforts and a variety of pressures were created against the state action. Bipan Chandra and others have noted that during the 28 months of Congress rule in many states between 1937–9, ‘the basic system of landlordism was not affected’.19 After independence, zamindari abolition was equally opposed from all sides. The Indian state found itself insufficiently equipped to tackle zamindari abolition and a variety of ad hoc individual voluntarism was started. Vinoba Bhave, a Gandhian, started Bhoodan Movement, voluntary land donation and distribution movement, that aimed at appealing to the heart of the zamindars (landlords) for parting with lands voluntarily which could be distributed to the landless. We know the fate of the Bhoodani romanticism. It was amidst these manifestations of Gandhian romanticism that the Indian state had to apply its force and anti-zamindari acts to tackle the heart of the heartless landlords. It is not hidden that Jawaharlal Nehru's effort at agriculture cooperatives in the late-1950s was opposed by many landed interests including Chaudhury Charan Singh who subsequently became the leader of Green Revolution rich farmers. Many observers and writers have equated the economic powers of the landed proprietary class who benefited from the Green Revolution with that of the kulaks. Pranab Bardhan in his The Political Economy of Development in India (1984) has analysed how ‘dominant proprietary classes’, of which the rich landed proprietary class is a major component, influence government policies through a variety of pressures for subsidies and other benefits and concessions from the state for agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers, electricity, low interest rate finance, etc.) and outputs (Minimum Support Price [MSP]). Government's Food Security Policy (FSP) and food supply to Fair Price Shops (FPSs) networks is largely dependent on food and other related products.20 There is no doubt that economic clout of the rich proprietary farmers influence the agricultural and food policy of the Government. Bardhan argues that as a result of subsidies and grants by the State to the economically dominant classes, there is ‘consequent reduction in available surplus for public capital formation’. It means, to the extent the Indian state is unable to resist the demands of the economically rich classes for subsidies, concessions, grants, transfers etc. it would have no surplus left for capital formation and even welfare activities for the poor and the needy.
Our analysis above suggests that power arising out of a variety of economic sources affect political power of the State and its decision-making. A Marxian perspective will attribute political power and state's policy in capitalist society to the economic power of the dominant class. Liberal perspective finds multidimensional bases of economic power in society and hence each countering other, e.g., the capital owner, managerial class, public share holding, etc. In socialist societies, economic power becomes the power of the party bureaucracy and state officials. In developing countries like India, we find influence of the rich landed class and industrial interests on the state decision-making. At the same time, the State through planning and direction and public sector framework continues as one of the economic competitor. In brief, economic power and political power are linked in a complex but dynamic relationship of influencing each other.
Ideological Power
The word ideology seeks its origin from the French, idéologie (ideo + logy) meaning ‘science of ideas’. The French philosopher, Destutt de Tracy is said to have used the term ideology to refer to ‘science of ideas’ in 1796.21 Ideology is described as a set of opinions, ideas, beliefs and values that shape the thought, behaviour and action of a group of people or social class. Generally, an ideology is associated with ideas and thoughts of a particular social class but it enjoys predominance and is taken as if it is the reality. It is presented as an organized and coherent system of ideas, beliefs, values that exercise common acceptance as reality and form the basis of social, economic and political philosophy and programmes. Since predominant ideology is presented for mass acceptance, it can manifest in many forms. Noam Chomsky says that in the name of consent of the people, opinion is manufactured and is ‘manufactured consent’; Gramsci says that ‘common sense’ is hegemonic ideology and the Marxian view depicts ideology as ‘false consciousness’ for the proletariat.
Ideology provides basis for justifying the existing system or alternatively, provoking political action and social change. Ideology involves the following characteristics:
- Ideology refers to a set of ideas and beliefs presented in a coherent manner.
- It justifies the existing order by providing explanation for its legitimacy and creating a general view in such direction, or alternatively, aims at political action and social change to achieve desired order by questioning its legitimacy.
- The ideas that appear as part of ideology, are presented as the only reality.
- Ideologies become basis for political movements.
- We refer to bourgeoisie ideology, socialist ideology, fascist ideology to characterize a set of ideas that appear or are presented as political philosophies of different sets of political movements.
Ideological power flows from how ideology of a social class or a group of people become dominant and is treated by everyone as if that is the only reality. It is power, which a set of opinions, ideas, beliefs and values of a social class exercise in society. It is meant to convince people about legitimacy of the existing system and as such, ideology is status quoist, e.g. the bourgeoisie ideology. Alternatively, it also provides a basis for political action and as such, ideology can be change-oriented, e.g. socialist ideology.
Let us see how certain concepts and causes, that we all subscribe to, can be part of ideological power. For example, the concept of national interest is treated as if every citizen is a uniform beneficiary of everything that a nation owns, produces or distributes. In the Marxian view, national interests are nothing but the interests of the ruling class presented as general interests. Similarly, the government in democracy is presented as representative of the interests of all citizens. However, it would not require philosophic wisdom to decipher that most of the time it represents interests of only a section of people. There can be a variety of examples where specific beliefs, explanations and political concepts could be presented as if they represent the mass base.
Marx was categorical in associating ideology with the ideas of the ruling class. Marx and Engels in their book, The German Ideology dealt with the issue of ‘production of consciousness’ and ideological power. The famous statement appears as:
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lacks the means of mental production are subject to it.22
The import of the statement is that the bourgeois class not only owns the means of production, industry, finance, capital and market but also presents its ideas as if they are common sense, public opinion and consent of the general mass. For Marx, ideological power lies in its capacity to mystify reality and present a distorted, manipulated and false picture of the material condition. Why does bourgeoisie need ideological power to mystify reality? The Marxian view suggests that a capitalist system has an irreconcilable class division and the two main classes, bourgeoisie and the proletariat, are engaged in a contradictory social relationship. To hide class contradiction and conceal reality, the present capitalism makes the state appear as a neutral arbiter and an agency of welfare of all people and market as an arena of equal opportunity. They delude the proletariat and mystify the true character of economic relations. Acceptance of such a system of ideas leads to false consciousness and until the proletariat fail to understand this mystification, proletarian revolutionary consciousness cannot be attained. Marxian analysis finds ideology and ideological power as a powerful instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie through which they legitimize their class rule.
However, as Heywood suggests, Marx did not consider his own uncovering of the process of class exploitation, theory of proletarian revolution and socialist–communist society as ideology, rather treats as scientific law of historical development. In the same manner, as Marx portrays bourgeois ideology as manipulative, mystifying and false, one can argue that Marxism represents the same, at least when the socialist states under the party bureaucracy spread their own ideology. However, Marx differentiates between ideology and scientific truth and holds that historical materialism is a scientific theory and proletarian revolution, a historical necessity.
Gramsci pointed out that in a capitalist society, civil society and its institutions such as family, church, schools etc. produce favourable conditions for justifying the existing system. While the state uses its coercive power through police, prisons and military, civil society generates opinion and consent suitable to the continuance of the capitalist system. In political sociology, what we call political socialization, Gramsci describes as hegemony. As in political socialization, political traits and behaviour are transmitted to the next generation, in hegemony, institutions of the civil society spread the opinion, ideas and beliefs suitable to the capitalist system as if they are common sense matter. For example, in the educational system, grading as per merit points inculcate behaviour suitable to competitive aspect; familial emphasis on respect to elders and obedience prepares for political obedience and obligation, discipline in assembly line production; religious submission teaches submission to the state, capitalist. By inculcating and instilling such behavioural aspects, these institutions produce the conditions of production, discipline in assembly line production, competition, etc. Louis Althusser also supported the view but he maintained that ideological power is exercised by what he calls ‘The Ideological Apparatuses of the State’, such as church, political parties, etc.
The uniqueness of the orthodox Marxian analysis of ideological power lies in identifying ideological power with the ideas of the economically dominant class and not with philosophy, religion, tradition or morality. The Marxian perspective suggests that ideological power emanates from economic power and produces legitimacy for the system.
Some writers have analysed ideology in the context of emergence of totalitarian dictatorships and their official ideology. In the mid-twentieth century, Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism), J. L. Talmon (The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy), Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy), Alex Inkeles (‘The Totalitarian Mystique’) and others have analysed how official ideology of Communism, Nazism and Fascism provides doctrinal basis for a totalitarian system.23
Official ideology provides doctrinal basis of controlling on thought and for exercising ideological power. In this context, ideological power is exercised through social control and control on thought and results in closed society. George Orwell's perceptive novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four24 portrayed the process of ideological control and introduced terms like ‘thought police’, ‘big brother’, etc. Karl Popper in his two-volume book, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) argues that ideology is used as a mechanism of social control and results in closed society.
Writers such as C. Wright Mills (White Collar: The American Middle Classes) Vance Packard (The Hidden Persuaders), Herbert Marcuse (One-Dimensional Man), and others have talked about influences and manipulative effects on human beings. Advertisements creating false needs, market requirements creating false and insincere expressions by individual, e.g., compulsive smile of the sales girls/boys at a sales counter etc. are examples of non-visible influences. They come to control thought and behaviour of individuals and overwhelmingly instil the idea that this is the only reality.
Our analysis above suggests that ideological power flows from how ideas, thoughts and beliefs are controlled and used. Official ideology, in fact is used to justify and control political power. The Marxian theory suggests that ideological power is an ally of the economic power. However, in totalitarian systems, including allegedly the communist system, ideological power is used to justify political power.
Two other dimensions of power that we have hinted above, legal and coercive power are by their nature and content, prerogatives of the state. The state and its institutions enjoy coercive power and power to legislate and enforce. The state is generally identified with coercive, legal and political powers.
Political Authority and Its Limitations
In a constitutionally limited state, political authority is generally related with legitimate political power. However, political authority, as in mixed economy or as Marxian writers suggest about the capitalist systems, may also wield economic power or seeks its power on ideological basis. Political authority may exercise its power by using its various dimensions—political, economic and ideological. Political power manifests in legal (e.g. laws, acts, rules, legislations), coercive (e.g. police, prison, military), negotiating and influencing, extracting (e.g. taxes, fines) and redistributing (welfare, social service, public goods) forms. Exercise of power in all these forms must be in a justified, reasonable and acceptable manner. Political power must carry legitimacy with it to be called political authority.
However, though theoretically distinguishable, in practice, power and authority go together. Generally, there cannot be authority without power, though there can be power without authority. This is because power can be exercised in a coercive and arbitrary manner without concern for legitimacy and willing acceptability on the part of the subjects. Nevertheless, there can be cases when authority is recognized but political power cannot be exercised. For example, in post-Saddam Hussain Iraq, political authority of the government is recognized but it is unable to exercise the same because various internal forces are not allowing it to translate the authority into political power. Notwithstanding this limitation on authority, it may happen that exercise of power may be arbitrary for a section or class of people without affecting the others. During revolutionary periods such a situation may arise, when a class perceived to be dominant or exploitative is subjected to power that is considered arbitrary and coercive only by that class and not by all subjects. Use of power may be termed as illegitimate or arbitrary by a class of people when it does not serve their purpose or go against their sectional or class interests. For example, insurgents, secessionists and regional autonomy groups in India charge the Indian state of using excessive power and violence against them. To protect the national integrity and internal peace, the state uses coercive power and physical violence. However, it may be termed as arbitrary and excessive by those who are affected. Thus, the dynamics between power and authority remains contextual. Political authority, many a times, is application of power only. One way of identifying political authority is to observe application of power, that is who applies power using political organs. Seen in this way, there could be problem in differentiating a democratic authority from an authoritarian one.
A more generic view of political authority could be to treat it as right to rule. Allan R. Ball succinctly spells this when he says that ‘political authority is the recognition of the right to rule irrespective of the sanctions the ruler may possess’.25 Obedience and justification may come due to religious sanction as in divine rights, or due to charismatic personality of the ruler as in Hitler, or Lenin or Gandhi even before assuming formal state powers, or rational–legal ground as in bureaucracy. Thus, authority may emerge from a variety of sources. German sociologist, Max Weber discussed three sources of political authority. His threefold classification of political authority includes traditional, charismatic and legal–rational authority.
Weber's Classification of Authority
Weber has classified authority into three types based on how they seek legitimacy or which are the sources of legitimacy. His classification correlates right to rule with source of this right. For Weber, power is exercised either as control or influence. As such, it is a social relationship26 where control and influence is exercised through acceptance and willingness of those who are subjects. Weber's main conclusion with respect to authority is that power is institutionalized through acceptance and legitimacy. To ensure acceptance and legitimacy, Weber identifies three main sources, namely, tradition, personal traits and rational–legal order. It may be mentioned here that as sociologist, Weber is concerned with the nature of social activities, social relationships and the motivation behind it. He suggests that social action of a person can be based on either of the three types of motivation—habitual or customary motivation that results in traditional action; emotional motivation that leads to affective or emotional action and rational motivation which gives birth to rational action. Three types of social action by individuals provide three different ways in which the relationship between those who have power and those who are controlled can be expressed. One way of controlling or influencing others is to invoke tradition-based relationship; the second is to invoke emotional relationship and the third to appeal the legal–rational behaviour. Accordingly, we have traditional, charismatic and legal–rational authority.
Traditional action is guided by sentiments attached to belief, custom and tradition and accordingly, traditional authority seeks justification through these bases. For example, people had accepted that kings exercise powers as divine rights and they have a hereditary right to inherit this divine right. Political authority exercised by contemporary dynastic and hereditary rulers and monarchies are such examples, which are found in England, Saudi Arabia, Bhutan, Nepal, etc. Legitimacy and acceptance of the political authority is based on traditional relationship and tradition based motivation of the subjects. The authority is hereditary based on personal order and distribution of offices and this is based on personal, familial or status-based considerations.
Affective or emotional action is guided by emotions, feelings and passions and accordingly, an authority establishes a controlling relationship by appealing to these motivations. To do so, the leader or person seeking such authority must be capable of exercising such appeal. This requires a charismatic personality, exceptional personal qualities that attract people such as sacrifice, oratory, courage and heroic strength, or exemplary character, etc. Political authority is legitimized based on a charismatic personality and it generally arises in transitional situations such as revolution, defeat and subjugation, struggle for independence of a country, or an internal crisis such as a civil war or political emergency, etc. Generally, charismatic personality arises in the field of religion or politics. Charismatic authority commands followers, wields unchallenged power and undisputed acceptance. Some of the examples of such authority are Lenin who organized the Russian Revolution, Gandhi who organized massive mass movements against colonial rule in India, Hitler who emerged by invoking the post-Versailles humiliation of Germany and undue dominance of Jews in Germany, Mao who led the Chinese Revolution, etc. Basic features of charismatic authority include unorganized and personal authority; no hereditary transfer of power except for the same charisma being found in the next person; temporary and unstable authority, etc. However, according to Weber, charismatic authority can be transformed into either traditional or legal–rational authority. In case, sons/sdaughters or close relative inherit charismatic authority, it is transformed into traditional authority and is routinized through hereditary rule. If it is codified that whosoever possesses certain qualities as was the case in the charismatic leader, can become the leader then it is regularized as legal–rational authority. Weber cites selection of Dalai Lama of Tibet as an example of regularization.
Legal–rational motivation refers to goal-oriented and impersonal motivation. Rationality is related to the goal and the means to achieve the goal. A rational action is one, which seeks to achieve the goal or maximize it by choosing the best possible means. To this extent, neither personal charisma nor traditional beliefs and customs play any role. Rational action derives from an impersonal and rule-based order. The authority rests in the office not in the person that holds the office. We often use the terms, the office of the Prime Minister or the office of the President to denote that the authority of these functionaries emanates from an institutionalized and established office and though the occupants change, the office remains. Citizens obey the authority of the prime minister or the president not because a particular person occupies the post but because of the post itself, whosoever occupies it. However, it may happen that a particular occupant may introduce personalized behaviour and does not follow set rules. In this case, we say that the authority of a particular office has been de-institutionalized or has degenerated. The factor of impersonal continuity of the office despite personal transition is the significant feature of legal–rational authority. If neither charisma nor custom or belief provide the basis for legal–rational authority, then where does legitimacy come from?
As mentioned above, an impersonal order established by law, which separates the office from the office holder, is the source of authority. The impersonality of the order is grounded in:
- A set of official rules
- Written documents
- Hierarchy of offices
- Official position with duties and rights
- Division of work
- Fixed procedure for recruitment to offices
- Separation of the official and the personal
Through established order, officials draw their authority to use particular means to achieve set targets and goals. Impersonal order implies impartial and faceless decision-making. This means decisions taken or policies made are not based on considerations of personal or familial or sectionally-motivated interests, rather they are made irrespective of who is affected both positively and negatively. For example, office of the prime minister or the cabinet secretary in India may not formulate a policy that harms others but benefits them. We often use the term ‘faceless’ bureaucracy meaning that offices are important not the persons who occupy it, to pay tribute to Weber's conceptualization of a rational and impersonal order. As such, the source of authority is found in legal–rational order. Weber found that in contemporary industrial societies this process has emerged as the basis of organization of offices. He calls this process as ‘rationalization’. Weber's observation about bureaucracy is applicable in bureaucracy of the state. Due to welfare activities and complex modern policy-making and policy execution processes, contemporary states, are known for their huge and complex bureaucracies. Political parties, governments and political offices are all bureaucratically organized and run. Weber found this impersonal order as the source of political authority (see Figure 13.3). Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers and charter of citizen's rights are some of the elements that are source and limitations on political authority.
Legal–rational authority is the hallmark of contemporary democratic constitutions based on rule of law. We obey and respect political authority not because of their charisma or piousness, but because of their officiating within the framework of impersonal order, rule of law, legal–rationality set-up. When we say that the political authority has degenerated or has become corrupt, or is based on nepotism and familial and caste considerations, we compare their working with the Weberian legal–rational expectation. In fact, in many a transitional societies (transition from feudal to capitalist, colonial to independent, monarchical and feudal to democratic or socialist, etc.), transformation of traditional authority to legal–rational authority has been made possible with the help of charismatic leaders like, Lenin, Gandhi, Mao, Mandela and others. However, despite emergence of legal–rational authority in many cases, charismatic and traditional elements of motivation and social action remain there.
Andrew Heywood compares legal–rational authority with de jure authority and charismatic authority with de facto authority to denote legal backing for the first and lack of the same for the second.27 However, differentiation between de jure and de factor authority is a legal division and presents formal and informal aspects of recognition of power and may not capture the dynamics of sociological analysis done by Weber. In fact, authority can be identified with three different aspects—power, legitimacy and legality. Political power can be exercised as it is, without concern for either legality or legitimacy. Power during revolutionary transition, colonial power, power used by dictatorial and authoritarian rulers, power exercised by proxy, e.g., USA's power over Iraq presently, etc., are examples that fit in this category. Political power as authority requires legitimacy and Weber seeks to present sources of such legitimacy. Legitimacy in a democratic constitution is mostly based on consent of the people. The third aspect of political power is legal recognition, which is based on constitutionalism, rule of law and legislative recognition.
In India, we have manifestation and co-existence of mix of authority. For example, despite a well-laid constitution, rule of law, separation of powers and ‘faceless’ bureaucracy, it would not be uncommon to hear that people vote because of the charisma of a particular leader, or political reign should be handled by people belonging to a particular dynasty or family, or bureaucracy extends it help according to caste affiliations, etc. Politically, they are not wholly undesirable, but then what happens to modern constitutionalism? The phenomenon of giving titles to political leaders is a manifestation of recognizing charismatic elements in political authority. In India, for example, we have Mahatma (Great Soul—Gandhi), Lauh purush (Iron man—Patel), Loknayak (Leader of the masse—Jayaprakash Narayan), Durga Mata (Goddess Durga as Bajpayee called Indira Gandhi after the victory in the angaldesh War against Pakistan in 1971). At the top of it, we have a second versions of all this. Added to this, we still encounter a variety of Rajmatas, Ammas, Bahenjees, Chachas, Bhaiyajees, and others wielding political authority. We have a modern constitution, a Weberian bureaucracy, rule of law and a socialist, secular, democratic republic.
The apprehension and worry is that: are the two orientations in political authority in India—modern constitutionalism, rule of law and Weberian bureaucracy on the one hand, and charismatic and feudal elements on the other, contradictory phenomenon in India's republic? Is there hope of institutionalizing an impersonal order, rule of law and modern constitutionalism? Alternatively, Is India still a mix of tradition–feudal, charismatic and legal–rational political authority? Weber, of course, is no more to give us an authentic direction, but suffice is it to conclude that contemporary political authority in India does manifest a combination of all, at least at the operational level.
Limitation on Political Authority
Does political authority imply limitation on use of power? Alternatively, will doing away with the notion of political authority result in free flowing exercise of power by the state? We have discussed how authority is related to power by way of legitimacy. Power legitimately exercised is authority and the test of legitimacy in modern democracy is consent of the people to obey and give willing allegiance to the power exercised. Political authority represents the legitimately constituted power of the state and is an important achievement in modern democracy. In a constitutional democracy, political authority is generally exercised within the framework of popular sovereignty, power based on democratically and freely elicited consent, constitutionally limited power, rule of law, separation of powers, a charter of rights to citizens and checks and balances between the organs of the state. In a constitutional democracy, political authority can be exercised in this framework only. By its very nature, such authority is limited in its scope compared to the use of power, which is without concern for legitimacy. Power can be exercised openly and without even legitimate grounds. For example, the authoritarian and dictatorial regimes do exercise naked power invoking various undemocratic and extra-constitutional means. Arguably, viewed from this perspective, Mao's call of power flowing from the barrel of the gun is different from power of the Indian Prime Minister that flows from the Constitution of India.
If we remove the factor of consent, willing obedience and legitimate base, on which power could be justified; use of power tends to become arbitrary, brute, coercive, naked and unreasonable. Lord Acton's apprehension that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely revisits in several forms. We have colonial power massacring thousands in Jallianwala (in Punjab) firing, Hitler's concentration camps, Idi Amin's killing of hundred of thousands of countrymen, South African government practising apartheid, etc. as examples of power without a legitimate base. Contrary to this, exercise of power by political authority has to be within a framework based on consent, rule of law, reasonableness and by upholding the rights of the people. Power exercised in such a framework is limited power because political authority exercises power within constitutional limitations. Exercise of power when it relies on authority and legitimacy gets limited in its scope because it cannot be naked and open.
Political thinkers have extensively argued that power to be legitimate and enduring must invoke a ground that is based on will and consent of the people. Green, for example, when he says, ‘will, not force is the basis of the state’, hints that the power of the state must be based on consent of the people. For Green, ‘will’ is related to common consciousness of the common good. For Rousseau, ‘will’ is meaningful when it is an integral part of the General Will. In both cases, power exercised by the political authority has reference to the implied will of the people. For Green, common good is the reference point for justifying power. Locke had proposed doctrine of inalienable natural rights of the individuals as the basis for limiting political authority. The scope of protection of the natural rights in this case limits exercise of power by the political authority. Locke allows even right to revolt provided the state becomes incapable of protecting the natural rights. Locke also proposed that there should be division of powers between three different organs so that political authority is checked and balances. This idea gets its crowning reflection in the American Constitution. Montesquieu and Blackstone found separation of powers as internal mechanism to limit political authority.
J. S. Mill, in his On Liberty argued that the political authority should be limited by the scope of individual liberty. To the extent that the self-regarding actions of the individual do not harm others, political authority (or even social/political majority) is not justified in interfering in those actions. Libertarian theorists such as Friedrich Von Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick argue that political authority should not interfere in the economic activities of the individuals. Political authority, in general, should not interfere with economic freedom and, in particular, individual liberty.
It appears that authority has two types of limitations—one that it cannot be exercised as mere power and must have reference to legitimacy to the extent of willing obedience; and second that exercise of political authority must have regard for individual liberty. However, the second is also part of the first limitation. If authority violates individual liberty, it is coercive, excessive and arbitrary and hence not legitimate. It is not merely a question of limiting exercise of power, the objective is to limit even the exercise of legitimate authority so that individual liberty is protected. Libertarian writers seek to limit the political authority to the minimum.
Andrew Vincent has identified three types of limitations and diversification of authority that have been applied.28 These include the following. Firstly, historical and legal limitations include ‘customary law’ (conservative like Edmund Burke supports), common law of England (K. C. Wheare calls ‘conventions’ and ‘usages’), written documents (e.g. constitutions, charter of rights). Secondly, institutional devices include separation of powers and checks and balances. Thirdly, moral and philosophical limitations include natural law and natural rights (now also includes human rights), theory of consent and social contract, popular sovereignty and democracy. In contemporary democracies, political authority functions within various checks and limitations and as such cannot exercise power without regard to rule of law, constitutional limits, representative consent of the people and popular opinion.
However, it is also important that power is not used in an arbitrary and excessive manner. It must be moderated and used relevant to the general welfare and benefit. Power used for sectional and extra-constitutional purposes is violative of the very logic of democratic and constitutional political authority. Thus, legitimate authority is preferable to naked power. In any case, if power used is relevant, beneficial and required, it qualifies for general acceptance and hence as legitimate.
Perspectives on Distribution of Power
We have noted earlier that the liberal view of politics treats power as a means through which authoritative allocation of resources in society is made, conflict is resolved through negotiation and persuasion and influence is exercised. This necessarily involves the question of how is power in a society distributed and how does its distribution affect the conflict resolution and resource distribution? Answer to this gives us the clue as to how decisions are made and in whose favour they are made. Is there any dominant group, which decides or influences decision in its own favour, or is a decision being taken and resource being allocated in general welfare? It also involves the issue of who wields decisive power—various groups in society, or selected elites, or a particular class, or a select group of dominant classes, or males at the cost of women. There are various ways in which distribution of power in society can be viewed and structure of power analysed. Generally, distribution of power in society is related to distribution of various dimensions of power—political, legal, coercive, economic and ideological. Further, distribution is related to functions, power performs for example, political parties require different types of power than the pressure groups and trade unions or industrialists who require power different from political elites. Power distribution defines relations between groups of citizens with the state and political authority. Within the liberal perspective, we have a classical democratic view of power held by the majority, a pluralist view of power diversification, an elitist view of power distribution amongst the top echelons of various fields of society and a corporatist view of power sharing between the state, industrial class and the trade union.29
In the Marxian perspective, distribution of power in a society is related to the class, which owns the means of production and is economically dominant. Though there are varying interpretations about the organic link between the economically dominant class and the exercise of power, there are two interpretations about the same, one as per the orthodox Marxian view of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Miliband and another according to the neo-Marxian view upheld by Poulantzas and others.
The feminist perspective on power distribution includes a variety of streams ranging from demands that seek distribution of political rights based on gender equality to allegations of patriarchy as the normal structure of power distribution in society.
Broadly, there are three perspectives on distribution of power—Liberal, Marxian and Feminist. Within the liberal perspective, there are separate perspectives such as functionalist, elitist, pluralist and corporatists, a refined variant of pluralism. Within the Marxian, we have orthodox Marxian and neo-Marxian perspectives. Within the Feminist perspective, there are liberal, socialist and radical views.30 We will discuss these perspectives below.
Liberal and Functionalist Perspectives on Distribution of Power
We have noted that in the liberal perspective, power distribution is assigned the role of conflict resolution and resource allocation. The state is viewed as neutral agency and working for the betterment of all. Power is used for the purpose of redistribution and welfare, peace, law and order, and mediation amongst variety of interested groups.
Both Hobbes and Locke treated power as though the Leviathan or the government would apply it for common protection, security and order. For them power becomes a source of social order, maintenance of right to life for Hobbes and right to life, liberty and property for Locke. For both of them, power is neutral and not in favour of any class because after social contract, it is imperative that power applies equally well for all who are part of the contract. Locke considers people as the repository of all power and government as trustee of that power. However, Locke's formulation on creation, transfer and possession of property fails him in his initial bravado of declaring power as available to all. His formulation gives a clear statement that power in a liberal order is power in favour of those who are propertied. Macpherson has rightly termed Locke's theory (along with that of Hobbes) as a theory of ‘possessive individualism’.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the classical democratic theory, power of consent is considered as being held by a majority of the people. John Locke, Alex de Tocqueville and J. S. Mill talked about majority as the repository of power in democratic set-up. Though Locke gave approval to majority as the arbiter of final decisions in democracy, Tocqueville and Mill were apprehensive of the majority as inimical to liberty of the individual. Nevertheless, political majority as the final arbiter in electoral democracy becomes the wielder of power. Lincoln's government of the people, by the people and for the people, in fact, is government of the majority, by the majority, may be for the people. Democratic polity is characterized by distribution of democratic and electoral power in the hands of the political majority. This is the classical notion of power distribution in a democratic polity. Power distribution in terms of political majority is one-dimensional notion.
The Liberal view holds that within the society, power is distributed in such a manner that some hold political power, some economic power, some religious power, some others, educational, intellectual and other aspects of power. It means there is neither a single source of power nor any single class or group as the sole repository of power. German sociologist, Max Weber provided significant inputs on this aspect in his analysis, class, status and party, where he identified at least three aspects of power. For him, class represents the economic base of power, status as social and party a reflection of political power. For Weber, power in a capitalist society is distributed on a three-dimensional spectrum. Pluralism puts power on a multidimensional spectrum. Dahl coins the term polyarchy to denote the nature of power distribution. Under this approach, power become diffused amongst various interests and functional groups—religious, professional and vocational, social and cultural, economic, political, educational, etc. Accordingly, the pluralist approach seeks to make power distribution group-based. Another approach within the liberal perspective is that of elites as holders of powers. Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Schumpeter, Sartori, Dahl, Wright Mills, and others have argued that power in a capitalist society is distributed amongst various elites who hold and apply power in the political process and decision-making. Though the elitist approach identifies elites as one combination, it seeks a variety of fields from which elites emerge and wield power. The Elite theory is multidimensional view of power distribution as elites come from a variety of sources. There is the corporatist approach, which is a variant of the pluralist view. It holds that there should be co-ordination between the state and other groups such as industrialists and trade unions and supports their participation in the decision-making process.31 The corporatist approach is a demand for resolving disputes and issues of industrial relations at the level of state. According to one sociologist, ‘corporatism refers to the widespread tendency across the advanced capitalist countries for industrial relations between employers and trade union organizations to be resolved and institutionalised at the level of the State itself’.32 Arguably, corporatism, like pluralism and the broad liberal approach, treats the state as a mediator and negotiator between interest groups.
While the classical democratic theory enshrines political majority as the holder and neutral arbiter of power, the pluralist approach wants variety of groups and associations as wielders of power mediated by the state. Though the pluralist approach seeks more diffusion of power, it remains committed to the idea that state could be a neutral arbiter. The elitist approach demolishes the democratic presumption of power being shared by the people or at least the majority of them. It gives select groups of elites sitting at the helms of various fields in society as the sole proprietary right to wield power, negotiate, mediate and allocate resources. The electoral process as the pinnacle of democratic citadel, argue elitist theorists, is nothing but competition amongst the elites for selection of a group of elites to rule until the next election. Within the liberal perspective itself, we have a shift in the view as to who holds power. In the classical democratic view, people, being supreme, hold power, then we have majority as the operating power-holder, subsequently overridden by groups as the power base and further refuted by the elitists where only elites wield power. (see Table 13.2)
Table 13.2 Different Views on Power Distribution
| Perspective | Axis of Power | Nature of Dimension |
|---|---|---|
| Classical democratic | People or political majority | One-dimensional |
| Weberian | Class (economic), status (social) and party (political) | Multidimensional |
| Pluralism | Various social and sectional interest groups | Multidimensional |
| Elitist | Elites in various fields | Multidimensional |
| Corporatist | State (political), industry (economic), trade union (labour) | Multidimensional |
| Functionalist | Society as a whole | One-dimensional |
| Marxian | Capitalist class | One –dimensional |
| Feminist | Patriarchal (male dominated) | One-dimensional |
By the very fact that power is distributed in a particular way and wielded by a particular group or section, it implies that power is exclusive. This means, power held by some excludes others from the same. For example, if political majority is the power-holder, it means political minority is not and similarly, if one group holds power it is at the expense of others. This can be termed as zero-sum power game. German sociologist, Max Weber holds that power in a society is constant and to that extent, some holds it at the cost of others. According to Haralambos, this is known as ‘constant-sum concept of power’.33 He further opines that, for Weber, power in a society is not only constant, but also those who hold tends to use it for their self-interests. It suggests that power can be used only for the benefit of those who hold it. Many sociologists tend to hold this view of power distribution and measurement.
American sociologist, Talcott Parsons, adopts the functionalist perspective to explain social relations and distribution of power. He rejects Weber's explanation of power as zero-sum or constant -sum game. Parsons holds that power is held by the society as a whole and it is variable. Its variability depends on the capacity to mobilize the resources of the society to achieve set goals. Set goals are values that society seeks to achieve, e.g. material comfort and a high living standard sought by the Western society or successful hunting by a tribal society. Thus, while the Western society would marshal all its power to seek set a goal of comfort and high living standard, a tribal society would organize and marshal its power to achieve successful hunting. He further argues that to achieve goals successfully, organization and differential power distribution is required—some to direct, some to obey and perform different functions. Parsons justifies power differential in a society based on ‘furtherance of collective goals’.34
The functionalist perspective provides an important liberal sociological explanation of power differential in society. It assumes that power distribution in society is in proportion to the functions being performed. These functions are important for the maintenance and continuity of society. The functionalist perspective calls them ‘functional prerequisites’. For example, family as an institution is important for emotional and psychological stability, reproduction and biological continuity; various skills are graded as per functional necessity, etc. An example may be illustrative in this regard. Let us ask the question: why a doctor should be paid more than a nurse? Alternatively, why a manager should be valued more than a worker? Functional explanation would be that a doctor or a manager has more skill than a nurse or a worker. It implies that a thing which a doctor or manager can do, a nurse or a worker cannot do. However, the vice-versa is not true. This results in functional priority to one who has more skill, hence deserving differential treatment in terms of respect and rewards in society.
The functionalist explanation of power differential is functionally related and does not at all explain the background that results in the differential skills or functional priority. Its explanation does not take into account the power differential that already exists in society and which further aggravates the skill and functional differentials.
Elitist Perspective on Distribution of Power
The elitist perspective on distribution of power recognizes diversification of power amongst a variety of intelligent, qualified, skilled, meritorious and distinguished persons. These people belong to different aspects of life—political, social, economic, religious, spiritual, educational, intelligentsia, etc. It maintains that power is diversified and distributed amongst those who are of exceptional qualities, intelligence and skill. Before we survey the views of elitist theorists—Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Schumpeter, Dahl, Wright Mills and others, it may be helpful to summarize the basic assumptions of the elitist view on distribution of power. According to elitist view:
- Society is divided into two groups—superior people by virtue of their qualities or social background and those who are masses.
- The superior people are rulers or those who govern and massed are subjected to rule or are governed.
- Rule by the elite minority is inevitable in all societies and there can be only one form of government, i.e., rule by the elite.
- Personal qualities such as intelligence, ability, aptitude, meritorious and distinguished qualifications, special skills, make some superior than others. Social background and organizing skills are an added advantage. Those with exceptional personal qualities are rulers and those deprived, ruled.
- Power distribution in society is diversified amongst the political elites in different fields who are rulers.
- Elites are small in number, enjoy power and privileges and direct and rule over others. They are a dominant group in society and their dominance is not attributable to economic power only, but personal competence, aptitude, ability, intelligence, talent and merit.
- Political elites are cohesive, united and closed and they prevail in all political systems. This means that political elites are present in all political systems.
However, despite initial emphasis on personal qualities as important attributes for elites, later elite theorists insist on institutional frameworks of society that allow minority to monopolize power.35 For example, Wright Mill's emphasis on power elite belonging to certain institutions, or dominance of certain castes in India under the caste system can be cited as examples of institutional arrangement that catapult elites. It may be noted that the elite theory was a reaction against the Marxian theory of singular source of power—economic class. Elite theorists hold that multiple sources of power make elite. There is no agreement amongst elite theorists about the source of power, whether it is economic, political, social, psychological, such as the will to power or the ability to organize.36
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, three sociologists, Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923) and Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941) both Italian and a German, Robert Michels (1876–1936) propounded the elite theory of power distribution and dominance. Subsequently, J. A. Schumpeter, Ortega Gasset, Giovanni Sartori, Karl Mannheim, Robert Dahl, C. Wright Mills and others have analysed power distribution from the elite perspective. These are analysis of capitalist democratic societies of the West, which are considered as a universally applicable dictum. Theorists and political sociologists such as Raymond Aron, Milovan Djilas and David Lane, who have observed the dynamics of the communist societies, have analysed the phenomenon of the elite class in these societies.37 Some of the analysts and political theorists such as Hamza Alavi (on Pakistan) and Pranab Bardhan (on India) have analysed the phenomenon of dominance of a minority and concentration of all power in their hands and dominant proprietary class influencing government's policies and resource distribution.
Pareto's The Mind and Society spells out the classical statement of the elitist theory. He used the term ‘elite’ to denote a social group that possess superior qualities and influence over others in society. It holds that elites are products not of economic dominance, as Marx would have said, but of human attributes. The superiority in intelligence, talent, skill, ability, character, capacity, will power, etc. result in elite formation. One of the peculiar elements of Pareto's theory is that superior human ability can be found in any activity or field including theft and prostitution on the one hand and law and medicine on the other. According to Pareto, elites can be found in any field. It may be added that Pareto does not evaluate the phenomenon of elites as per moral or ethical yardstick but as per achievement. A great train robbery and a successful medical surgery are the same things from the point of view of achievements of the doer—robbery for the thief and surgery for the doctor. Apparently, for Pareto only those who acquire the highest achievement in their respective activities are elites irrespective of the field of activity.
Pareto puts special emphasis on the psychological quality and characteristics as the basis of elites. Having accepted psychological superiority and criteria of achievement as the basis of elites, Pareto differentiates between elite and non-elites or the masses. Elites are the superior people who govern. This governing superiority also comes from two basic psychological qualities—qualities of a lion and of a fox. A lion's qualities are identified as courage, direct and incisive action and force, while a fox is identified with cunning, guile and manipulation. Military dictatorship could be identified with qualities of lion and democracies with qualities of foxes. We may recall that Machiavelli in his The Prince had suggested his king to combine the qualities of both lion and fox to be successful. Within the category of elites, Pareto further differentiates between governing and non-governing elites. Governing elites are those who exercise power due to their position of lion or fox. Non-governing elites are those who though they have qualities but not in the same capacity as the governing. However, non-governing elites are in constant effort to exceed in ability and quality and replace the governing elites. Since all elites become decadent, lose their vigour and ability, e.g., lion losing imagination and fox losing incisive action, those who come with these qualities replace the governing elite. This constant replacement is, what Pareto calls ‘circulation of elites’. Within the elites, there is constant circulation of elites, from governing to non-governing and vice-versa. Social change is confined within the scope of the circulation of elite.
Paretos elite theory is a theory of constant circulation but no change, theory of constant inequality but no struggle and revolution. Within elites, new persons are recruited and replaced but it does not lead to any social change. History, for Pareto, is nothing but a ‘graveyard of aristocracies’, one set govern, another decay. Pareto's theory seems quite odd for a democratic notion of people's power but governing leaders as well as the opposition leaders are part of elites. Only those who oppose the regime are outside the elite-fold. Pareto's elite theory goes against the Marxian notion of economic and class dominance and democratic notion of people's power. However, it is not clear whether Pareto allows enough room for circulation of elites from non-elite category. We have circulation between governing and non-governing elites or between the lions and the foxes. Does this mean there is no scope of recruitment from the masses? Masses are always lacking in elite qualities, so how can there be recruitment from this category? Pareto however, cautions that if elite is closed from recruitment from below, it loses vitality and its life will be short. Pareto's caution gets a challenge in the form of contrary historical instances. As pointed out by sociologist, T. B. Bottomore in his book Elites and Society, The Brahman caste in India despite being a closed group in terms of recruitment from below, survived for centuries.38 However, this is possible when the major source of elite competition, i.e., acquisition of knowledge is restricted within this caste and others are excluded. This is almost like the TINA (There Is No Alternative) factor. Similar to the electoral victory of some parties, which owes to absence of any credible alternative, the Brahman caste survived by excluding possibility of any group acquiring credible knowledge as an alternative. In fact, Frankel has pointed out that during the British period when education and employment opportunities came up, ‘initially educated classes were drawn primarily from among Brahmans and other upper castes having literate tradition’.39 This is an example of horizontal shift from caste-based knowledge group to modern-based knowledge group. It may be noted that what Frankel mentions as ‘other upper castes’ may refer to the Kayastha caste (similar to the scribes) whose origin is traced during the medieval period. Primarily, the Brahman caste has been the custodian of knowledge, initially scriptural, speculative, yogic and of conduct and subsequently, professional and statecraft.
Another elite theorist, Gaetano Mosca also upheld the basic elitist assumption that rule by a minority is an inevitable feature in society. In his, The Ruling Class, Mosca wrote ‘in all societies … two classes of people appear—a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The former, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first …’40 If these are the conclusions that Mosca draws, then what is the reason that one monopolizes power and the other submits to it. Is it some sort of superiority enjoyed by the ruling class that helps it subordinate others? Mosca suggests that there are certain qualities related to background that help the ruling class gain their position. Unlike Pareto, who believed that elite qualities are universal, unchangeable and the same for all the time, Mosca suggested that it varies according to societies and time. Accordingly, the composition of elite also changes.
For Pareto, there are governing and non-governing elites, on the one hand and masses on the other. For Mosca, there are ruling and ruled classes. Minority always constitutes the ruling class and majority the ruled. While classical liberal democratic tradition considers majority as the governing doctrine, Mosca honours minority as the ruling class. However, numerical minority is not in any way deficient because the basis of superiority for the minority comes from qualities, which match with social requirements. These may vary from society to society. For example, a society may value bravery or courage while another values capacity and skill. Thus, those who excel in these will acquire the elite position. Pareto maintains that qualities that the elite possess or display are un-changeable and same for all the time. Mosca, on the other hand, mentions that the elite-forming qualities depend on social recognition and vary from society to society.
His theory refutes Aristotle's sixfold classification of constitutions because for Mosca, there can be only one form of constitution, that is oligarchy. Mosca and Pareto, both refute any possibility people or majority as the basis of democracy that classical liberal democracy espouses, cherishes and celebrates. This excludes the possibility of ‘government by the people’, as government can be only by the elite. As Haralambos maintains, ‘Mosca regretted extension of franchise to all members of the society believing it should be limited to the middle class’. Pareto considers personal attributes such as talent, intelligence and merit as the basis for elite formation and superior power. However, Mosca in addition to personal intelligence, will power and capacity, regards social background as an important element in elite formation and power distribution. While Pareto's is a theory based on psychological and personal criteria, Mosca combines both psychological and sociological criteria. In addition, Mosca treats the organizing power of the elite as against the unorganized majority as an important factor in elite formation. Organized minority versus unorganized majority will always prevail by using its compactness, organizational skill and common purpose.
Mosca also maintained that the political elite tends to become hereditary. Seeking a parallel to the Newton's theory of inertia whereby a thing (a matter) remains moving or static until an opposite force is applied, he suggests that the political elite has a tendency to stabilize and sustain. Mosca pointed out this phenomenon happening in English, French and Italian Parliaments where hereditary occupants of the political offices were common. Seen in this perspective, one can say that elections are, at times or may be always, nothing but a chance to choose between those contesting for political inheritance. Mosca was certainly aware of the hereditary castes in India,41 though he is not alive to celebrate the application of his theory of takeover by hereditary elites in the post-independent political process in India. Presently, we normally find hereditary transfer of power, electoral constituency and other allied political and public offices as one of the decisive factors in acquisition of political office. What we have come to term as dynastic or family rule in India fits in the analysis of Mosca. We have hereditary transfer of political offices within various political parties including the Congress party, Shiva Sena, and Rashtriya Janata Dal of Laloo Prasad Yadav and by a host of leaders promoting their relatives and sons/daughters/wives as their inheritors. One would concede that in itself, there is no harm for any individual citizen to take up political activity and public service as his/her occupation and in fact, to argue against is to demolish the very basis of democratic participation. One belonging to a particular family or dynasty and being relayed to a particular political leader, should not be held against him or her for aspiring and holding political offices. How can it be ensured that these are merely coincidental and not by design? One the other hand, it can also be argued that if electorates choose such leaders what is the harm in it. However, such selection also reflects on the nature of the electorate and a doubt arises as to whether the electorate are merely hero-wishers. In the Indian democracy, hereditary transfer of power, electoral constituencies and political and allied offices have been possible due to a variety of factors. Firstly, importance of charismatic leaders belonging to a dynasty or family helps in keeping various factions and interests groups together. This has been very relevant for the Congress party even now. Secondly, lack of party affiliation in citizens and importance of particular leaders leads to personality-cult and hero-worship. It implies that electorates are less affiliated to parties and more to a particular leader and his/her inheritors. Thirdly, there is identification of a particular brand of politics with a family or dynasty, for example, Nehru–Gandhi family as providers of stability, Thakreys as custodians of pride of the Mumbaikars, Laloo Yadav and family as the saviours of downtrodden in Bihar. Fourthly, there is possibility of psychological continuity of feudal and master–subject relationship where general electorates still feel that those who are rulers should continue to be so as if they are endowed with this right.
Mosca also discusses about ‘new middle class’, who includes civil servants, managers, scientists, scholars and treats them as vital elements in society. He terms them as ‘sub-elite’.42 Mosca's sub-elite category is an important segment of the industrial society and in India context will coincide with the middle class. It appears that unlike the classical-liberal assumption of middle class as the basis of a stable government, Mosca does not assign any such role to the sub-elite. For Mosca, elite being the ruling class remain oligarchic and sub-elite at best can play an important role.
Two other theorists, Roberto Michels and Moisei Ostrogorski, focused on oligarchic tendencies in a political organization, particularly in political parties. Ostrogorski in his Democracy and the Organization of the Political Parties had investigated the internal party democracy and concluded that ‘the representation of individual interests had lost out to the growing influence of the party machine and control exerted by a caucus of senior party figures.’43 This fear of absence of internal party democracy not being conducive to representative democracy was famously analysed by Michels. In his study, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, he analysed the inner dynamics of decisionmaking and power distribution of European Socialist Parties and trade unions with particular emphasis on the German Socialist Party.44 Both Ostrogorski and Michels were concerned with contradictory tendencies—while democracy requires political parties, they themselves evolve as undemocratically organized organizations. On the one hand, the German Socialist Party had its aim as opposition to the capitalist system and declared itself to be organized on democratic principles, on the other hand, Michels's analysis revealed that an ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ prevails within the organization. Michels suggested that without organization (i.e., political parties or organizations that ensure representation), democracy is inconceivable. However, these very organizations, due to complexity of issues in society and apathetic attitude of masses/electorates, develop a bureaucratic structure and become oligarchic. Michels followed a simple line of argument as follows: Democracy requires organization in the form of parties to represent the masses because vastness and complexity of the society will not allow any other way of democratic participation. Political parties operate through structured organization with the leadership, full-time politicians and officials. Due to division of labour, hierarchy and control, decision-making and resource allocation become confined in the hands of a small group of leaders. This produces rule and control of small elites. Michels calls this Iron Law of Oligarchy, meaning that any organization, political party, bureaucracy, trade union, etc. is bound to degenerate in elite rule. Michels declares, ‘It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandatories over mandators, of delegates over delegates. Who says organization, says oligarchy.’45
Oligarchic rule is sustained by leaders through manipulation, oratory and persuasion, reward-distribution, etc. Above all, Michels is concerned about the mass mind (apathetic, slavish, ready to be led), which helps in the growth of oligarchic tendencies. Michels portrays the common masses as ‘apathetic, indolent, and slavish and are permanently incapable of self-government’.46 This further allows the manipulative and skilful leaders to hoodwink the masses. Oligarchic tendencies and mass mind are worrying elements for Michels because he treats these as enemies of liberty. Michels's idea of mass mind is relevant in the context of masses generally following the personality-cult and hero-worship. Elite theorists believe that masses need to be led and oligarchic tendencies are further supported by this need where a few leaders acquire full power.
We have talked about the hero worship, personality cult and charismatic leadership phenomenon in the Indian context. All parties are more or less susceptible to Michels's formulation in Indian democracy also. What does Party High Command mean in the Indian context? Is it the ‘bureaucratic pyramid’ that Michels was worried about? Despite some of the left and the right parties, having rigid cadre- based social affiliations, invariably all political parties in India are organized bureaucratically and have ‘top leaders’ with whom they are identified with. While the left parties are organized on Lenin's principle of ‘democratic centralism’ with Politbureau as the decision-making and controlling centre over a wide network of cadres and trade union affiliations, the right partied are also cadre-based, with High Command as the central directing agency. The centrist Congress party is known for its high command directions over regionally affiliated units (State Units). Michels's conclusion that in democracy, political parties establish a bureaucratic pyramid and central leadership seems inescapable in India too. However, though the general tendency of bureaucratic centralism, oligarchic leadership is evident, there are certain socially generated factors that work as checks on this tendency. Caste affiliations of many leaders make them behave in factional interest. At the level of top leadership, factionalism restricts emergence of any rigid oligarchic tendency. Generally, Michels oligarchic rule is faced with factional pulls and pressures.
In Britain, study of Robert McKenzie, British Political Parties, ‘concluded that the distribution of power within the two parties (the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) was essentially the same: both were dominated by a nexus of parliamentary leaders’.47 McKenzie's conclusion was contrary to the generally held view that the Conservative party was more elitist than the Labour Party, which has internal democracy.
Pareto, Mosca and Michels presented what is called classical position on elite theory. Elite model has been applied by many writers in their study of the power structure in capitalist, socialist and developing countries. McKenzie's study of the Conservative and the Labour parties in England, C. Wright Mills and Floyd Hunter's study of the power elite in America, Raymond Aron, Milovan Djilas and David Lane in socialist countries, Pranab Bardhan in India and Hamza Alavi in Pakistan have attempted to understand power structure of these societies. Writers such as J. A. Schumpeter, Giovanni Sartori, Anthony Downs, Robert Dahl, Harold Lasswell and others have used the premises of the elite theory such as, minority rule, mass apathy, manufactured public opinion and election as competition between elites, to discredit the premise of majority-based liberal democracy and argue for the elitist model of democracy. The elite model provoked debate and as a result modern political theory is not wholly reconciled to the Lincolnian position that democracy is ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’.
Pareto and Mosca focused on the psychological and personal aspects of individuals as the the basis of elite formation and recruitment, though Mosca also took into account the social background. Ostrogorski, Michels and McKenzie have discussed about the organizational basis of elite formation or elite tendencies found in political parties, bureaucracies, trade unions and similar other organizations. This means democracy implies inevitability of organizations and the later invariably leads to dominance of elite. Mills and Hunter have analysed power distribution by applying the institutional basis. It means that there are certain institutions which have such a structure that anyone at the top of it would monopolize power. These institutions are hierarchically organized, wield power either economic or political, and their occupants have interconnected interests and activities. Mills identified three such institutions, the major corporations, the military and the federal government. While the major corporations are repository of economic power, the military wields enormous power in terms of national defence as well as defence trade, and both these influence political power. A federal government has political power, which is concerned with military and economic activity. Thus, we have three pivots of power—economic elite, military elite and political elite. Since, these three groups of elite have similar interests and activities, their coincidence forms, what Mills calls, ‘power elite’ in USA. These are the conclusions which Mills's book, The Power Elite presents.
In addition to coincidence as power elite, Mill suggests that they share cultural and psychological orientations and their social origin. Their shared interests, activities and interconnected-ness manifest in each serving the other. Mills declares that ‘American capitalism is now in considerable part military capitalism.’48 This means when corporations manufacture military and defence equipments, both economic and military interests are served. To serve these interests, war must go on, national defence must always be in threat and there must always be an enemy to fight and if there is none, one must always be created. Similarly, the government's decision generally favours economic interests of big corporations. Mills's contention is that the power elite has similarity of interests. This similarity of interests is further solidified because of similarity in their social background. Empirically, Mills's finding is that the social origin reveals their background from the upper strata, mainly Protestants, native-born American and from urban areas in eastern USA. They share similar educational backgrounds, cultural and recreational gatherings and as a result inculcate similar values, attitudes, tastes and outlook. This further provides scope of interchange amongst the three elites. The political elite has been, or would be, a military or economic elite and vice versa.
Coincidence of economic, military and political power gives rise to the power elite and similarity in their social origin makes them cohesive and unified. They have overlapping personnel, and frequent interchange takes place. What implication does it have? Two direct implications can be noted. Firstly, emergence of power elite means concentration of power in a few hands and that too without they being accountable through formal channels to the people. Secondly, influence and dominance of these elites affects political decision-making and to that extent politics as a means of conflict resolution and reconciliation of interests is replaced by an extra-political mechanism of the power elite. He even hints that the decision of bombing Hiroshima during the Second World War was in fact decision of the power elite without any involvement of the people.
Robert Dahl has generally been critical of the elite theory and its assumptions because it focuses on those who have power and then concludes that those who have power are elites. Further, Dahl uses his polyarchical argument to present that power in one dimension may not result in power in another. For example, one who is economically powerful may not be so powerful politically. He criticizes Mills for treating potential for power equivalent to actual control. Actual control can exist when there is continuity in their control and that they control covers all areas of decision-making. The elite theory is also attacked due to lack of any explanation or possibility on social change.
However, Mills's study at the federal level was evidenced by another study at the regional level. Hunter in his book Community Power Structure investigated distribution of power at the local and regional levels in the states of the USA. He concluded that the small economic elite control and influence decision-making. They also control media and through them influence public opinion. and policy-making. It is said that since Hunter focused only on economic elite, he could not figure out the power of other groups.
While three different dimensions—personal and psychological, organizational and institutional, of elite formation and recruitment has been discussed above, some of the theorists have argued that elite formation is applicable across societies irrespective of economic set-up, particularly capitalist and socialist. James Burnham in his The Managerial Revolution maintains that a small group of managerial elite will control society economically and politically. His argument is that unlike what Marx predicted, capitalists do not own and control the means of production, rather ownership and management has been separated. A small managerial group directs and manages the means of production in the capitalist society. Sounding like Marx, Burnham holds that it is the control over means of production and distribution that is the basis of elite power. However, his similarity stops here and unlike Marx, he concludes that capitalists are not the owners of the means of production and distribution because they have been separated from actual operation. The managerial elite controls and directs the operation. Burnham's logic applies equally well to socialist societies where managers are required to operate state-owned production. If the managerial elite controls production and distribution, in socialist societies also they will emerge.
Aron, Lane and Djilas have done analysis of elite rule in socialist societies. Following the convergence argument, types and nature of societies are treated as influenced by industrial compulsion irrespective of being capitalist or socialist. Aron argues that power distribution in socialist and capitalist societies will follow the same pattern as political, economic and military power in a socialist society have also been concentrated in the same hands. If Mills's observation applies to concentration of power in a capitalist society, Aron's observation applies to a socialist society. Mills elite model more appropriately applies to the cohesive and unified power the elite concentrated in the socialist state. Milovan Djilas, Yugoslavian writer has pointed out that a communist party constitutes a ruling minority and it seeks self- interests. Djilas terms a group of privileged party leaders as a ‘new class’, which coincides with the elite status. David Lane has opposed Djilas's contention that the ruling elite work for self-interest and has argued that it aimed at industrialization and economic development.
Hamza Alavi has done an analysis of power distribution in Pakistan. He draws a general conclusion that a minority of the whole population dominates in landownership, business, representation in politics, bureaucracy, profession, military and government. Similar to the conclusion Mills draws in the American case, these elite members in civil and military bureaucracy, profession, government and business share their social origin and also their cultural and attitudinal orientation. Normally, many writers seek to relate the periodic failure of democratic institutions in Pakistan to a presumed limitation of Islamic tenets to be compatible with liberal democracy. However, one can argue that this is more a function of concentration of worldly powers than anything to do with religious tenets. Concentration of power due to coincidence of the interests of civil–military–business–landed-political elite in Pakistan may be a cause of democratic failure. Three visible orientations can be located in Pakistan—concentration of power at the elite level, military bureaucracy as the main regime type with a brief democratic lullaby, and mixing of military, elite and Islamic interests to further and perpetuate military rule.
The elite model, no doubt, is useful in understanding how power distribution gets concentrated in the hands of a few elite. The relevance of this model lays in its applicability across political systems, capitalist, socialist and developing countries. However, due to its focus only on those who wield power, the elite model fails to analyse what happens at the societal level. Its limitation in capturing the churnings before elite formation and recruitment makes it a limited model to understand social change. In a developing country where access to education and other means of capacity building and entrepreneurship is limited, rule and circulation of elite in a closed manner may be a possibility. However, recruitment from the non-elite into the elite category provides a major dimension of socio-economic change in society. Mere circulation of elites cannot be a process suitable for all round socio-economic progress of a developing society. For example, the phenomenon of factional and caste base intra-elite rivalry put a limitation on cohesive character of the elite in India. The elite theory alone cannot provide a relevant framework for understanding power structure and process of social change in developing societies.
Application of Elite Theory in the Indian Context
In India, if one looks at the broad political spectrum, it appears that after independence the nature and composition of elites have undergone change. During the British period, there were limited choices and areas where elite formation or elite recruitment could take place, even though, after 1858, educational, business, professional and employment opportunities under the British government provided chances for elite recruitment. In fact, the nationalist movement for independence provided a platform for various personalities from the field of law, medicine, literature, education etc. to provide leadership to the national movement. It is true that national leadership came from the upper echelons of the society but rising national consciousness amongst the peasantry, workers, students, women, and others subsequently not only provided the base for a national movement, they became the sustaining factor. However, there is a school of historians called the imperialist school also known as the Cambridge School, which believes that the Indian national movement ‘was not people's movement but a product of the needs and interests of the elite groups who used it to serve either their own narrow interests or the interests of their prescriptive groups’.49 Historians, colonial officials and sympathizers charge that the interests and needs of the elite groups in India not only provided origin but also the driving force of the ideology of the national movement. These include Reginald Coupland, Percival Spear (Oxford History of India), Valentine Chirol (Indian Unrest), Anil Seal (The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in Late 19th Century) and J. A. Gallagher (along with G. Johnson and Anil Seal, Locality, Province and Nation. They further charge that these elite groups organized their interest around religious and caste identities and these elites mobilized the masses for serving their own interests. In fact, it is also charged that the national movement was a struggle of the competing elites for colonial favour. As pointed out by Bipan Chandra and others, Anil Seal termed the national leaders as ‘brokers’ with downward linkages forming a ‘broker–client relationship’ with the Indian masses and middle level leaders at provincial levels as ‘sub-contractors’. It appears that to discredit the mass base and national consciousness as the basis of the national movement, colonial sympathizers evolved this elite theory. Bipan Chandra and others in the book, India’s Struggle for Independence, have refuted these assumptions and have shown that the growing mass basis and national consciousness were the driving forces behind the national movement.
However, there have been differing opinions about the nature of the leadership of the Indian National Congress that led and steered the national struggle as the central movement. It is argued that the Congress has been merely a party dominated by elites belonging to the upper echelons of legal, academic and medical profession and landed gentry. It is accepted that the ‘professional elite’ dominated the Congress. Empirically speaking, even after independence, the Congress party leadership has largely been composed of persons belonging to these professions. Some observers of the Indian political process, for example, Atul Kohli and others have observed that ‘a number of intermediate castes … were traditionally ignored by the elite-dominated congress …’ and he adds that after the Green Revolution and benefit flowing from agricultural growth, these castes supported the non-congress opposition.50 Several political analysts51 observe that after the mid-1960s, mobilization of middle-caste elites at the provincial level, whose economic position as rich peasants coincides as middle class, became a rallying point as the non-congress opposition that culminated in the non-congress coalition governments in late 1960s in seven states. In the hands of R. M. Lohia, J. P. Narayan, Charan Singh, Madhu Limaye and others, mobilization of these provincial elite meant non-congress opposition unity and ultimately defeat of the Congress party in the late 1970s.
Francine Frankel has argued that entry of the ‘Other Backward Classes’ in the political process because of their mobilization ‘represents a formidable challenge to the politics of accommodation’. He suggests that this is due two factors. One, limitation on public offices and patronage that could be distributed amongst the new elite, and second, process of accommodation should be acceptable to the dominant coalition and ‘without overturning the overall structure of inequality on which the privileged position of the middle classes and the Forward Castes has rested since the colonial period’.52 However, after the 1980s, the emergence and dominance of middle castes/other backwards castes, is visible in formation of non-Congress governments. This appears to be an example of emergence of provincial level elites belonging to non-urban non-professional and non-industrial classes. This has reflection at the federal level also. Emergence of regional and provincial level elites meant their political intervention at the Government of India level. Restriction in the scope of the national elite and increase in the role of the provincial elite has reflection in the operation of the party system. Political analysts have called this phenomenon as ‘process of regionalization and federalization’ where national party gets regionally restricted in their base and regional/provincial parties come to play an active role at the centre in coalition formation. For example, Left parties have been regionally restricted to Kerala, Bengal, Tripura, Andhra and part of Bihar, etc., BJP to North and Western India, Congress in places where the Left and the BJP are not dominant). It has been argued that due to emergence of the provincial elite at the state and regional levels, political competition at the state level has increased and many political formations, state, regional and national parties compete for political power. It is also true that transfer of their expectations and political ambitions to the federal level by the provincial elites, coalitional competition at the centre has also increased. For example, Chandra Babu Naidu, Laloo Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and others interchange between the Chief Minister at the state level and Member of Parliament and Cabinet ministers at the Union. The present coalition government of Dr Manmohan Singh is an accommodated ambition of both national and provincial and regional elites.
If we go by the analysis as done by Pranab Bardhan in his The Political Economy of Development in India there are three dominant classes influencing government decisions. The industrial capitalist class, the rich farmers, and the professionals including the white-collar workers (urban professionals and bureaucracy including civilian and military) constitute the ‘Dominant Propriety Classes’.53 Bardhan argues that these classes on their own and individually may not be powerful but as a dominant coalition they are capable of forcing the government's decision-making and resource allocation in their favour—subsidies on water, electricity, fertilizer, agro-inputs, financial support at low interest rates, agricultural and food policy, etc. To this dominant coalition, we have provincial and dominant castes elites.
Unlike the pre-independence elites, in post-independent India the composition of elites has changed. Urban professional (legal, academic, medicine, management, banking, accountancy, IT etc.) and bureaucratic (civil servants and other white-collars) elite, industrial and commercial elite, voluntary sector elite (NGOs), agricultural and caste elite, etc., have been playing significant roles in creating pressure and pulls for favourable power distribution. A recent example could be cited of the contending arguments and protests regarding the reservation of seats for certain caste groups in the medical profession. Every society distributes its resources as per criterion it deems fit. Nevertheless, it may not be the only efficient and optimal way of power distribution. It is historically visible that no society has been able to distribute its resources by installing either by merit only as the basis or by showering only personal favour of the powerful or by excluding some of its own constituents.
Pareto's differentiation of governing and non-governing elites may be relevant in the Indian context to explain how different sets of elites staked claim for power and eroded dominance of the Congress party, displaced one-party dominance at the state level by regional and state elites and created a necessity for accommodating national and regional and state elite at the federal level. Though there is no clear-cut indication of Pareto's circulation of elites, there is stiff competition for accommodation, recruitment and share in power. At the state level, it is more of displacement of one set of elites by another than circulation. For example, in Bihar and UP compared to the 1960s when upper caste elite dominated the political scene, at present, middle caste elites are leading coalitions. One important factor that should be noted here is the practical problem in caste-based and party- based elite formation. It has been observed that factionalism in Indian politics spoils the possibility of a cohesive political and caste-based elite. For example, C. P. Bhambhri, analysing the causes of failure of the Janata experiment in the late 1970s as coalition government in India has observed that ‘the factional struggle in the Janata party was around five well-organised constituent groups which were competing fiercely for strengthening their control over the party’.54 Factions within political parties have been the bane of the political process in India. Political analysts and observers such as Morris-Jones, Rajni Kothari, Ramashray Roy, Paul Brass and others have analysed the way factions work within parties and create instability in electoral, political and coalitional processes. The presence of factional groups within parties points towards lesser relevance of Michels’ theory of Iron Law of Oligarchy in which each party is led by oligarchy as if it is cohesive. Mosca's analysis of sub-elites consisting of civil servants, managers, scientists, and scholars as an important element besides the ruling elite is relevant in understanding the composition of the Indian middle class and how it behaves. However, the primary contention of all the three elite theorists, Pareto, Mosca and Michels remains that even in a democracy, power distribution is elitist and held by a minority, either a governing elite (Pareto) or a ruling elite (Mosca) or oligarchy (Michels). To this extent, their cynicism about impossibility of democratic dispersal of power may not hold good in India. Power is distributed on multiple dimensions. Intervention of the state, welfare activities, empowerment of the women and depressed classes, adult suffrage and electoral process, operation of local bodies and above all, the provisions and operation of the Constitution of India created a context for power sharing by majority.
Besides the industrialists, politicians and proprietors in sunrise areas such as the Information Technology sector and service areas, the Indian middle class consisting of a variety of groups, professions, castes and occupations, provides fertile ground for emergence and recruitment of elites. Origin of middle classes in India is considered as a product of the colonial period. A. R. Desai, Social Background of Indian Nationalism and B. B. Misra, The Indian Middle Classes, Their Growth in Modern Times are the two serious attempts to map the rise of middle classes during the colonial period. It is agreed that formation of the Indian middle classes owes to the emergence of professional services (legal, medicine, etc.), educational achievements, government services and industrial and commercial activities during the colonial rule. B. B. Misra, for example, points out that unlike Europe where the middle classes were a natural product of industrial revolution, in India no such precedent is available. Francine Frankel corroborating Misra opines that ‘Indian middle classes … were artificially created under the British rule, primarily by educational policy introduced for meeting the administrative requirements of the Raj.’55
No doubt, many of the professional and government services were the administrative and colonial requirements, but nevertheless, the social base of the middle classes was very much rooted in the traditional caste system. Early educated classes largely drew from the castes of Brahmans and Kayasthas, who had historical monopoly on literary and knowledge tradition. When the Indian National Congress pressed for Indianization of the civil services, it was certainly an interest of the English educated upper castes, though it was also a matter related to self-government. However, there is coincidence of traditional caste-based elites and modern education and profession-based elites. Frankel highlights the strong correlation between upper caste rank, English education, professional classes and civil services in the first half of the twentieth century. We can add that this correlation did not disturb the elites’ composition after independence also. The introduction of reservation, initially for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and subsequently for Other Backward Class in education, government employment and now in professional institutions has become one of the causes for breakdown of this social background and middle class correlation. We will not be wrong in saying that it is the breakdown of this correlation, which is the centre of controversy in the form of anti-reservation struggles.
Concept of the elite could be helpful in understanding power and influence exercised by groups or sections or class of people on resource allocation, governing and policies by government. In India, the Government's policy on education, public employment and positive discrimination has resulted in recruitment of elites from weaker sections of society. Concept of empowerment is used to describe the processes that result from the benefit being drawn by the policy of reservation for economically, socially and educationally weaker sections of society. An elite theorist may argue that empowerment is nothing but elite recruitment. On the other hand, it can also be agued that it is a process of social change and social upliftment. However, this requires two conditions: (i) to uplift and empower all those who are already benefiting should be excluded from further protection and this we can call second-generation exclusion principle. (ii) the basic educational qualification will be made available in such a manner that there will be equality of opportunity to all within the protected group for upliftment, and this we can call condition of equal protection principle. Exclusion principle under the concept of creamy layer applies in case of some sections of society and the requirement at (i) is met. However, this concept is not applicable in case of all the sections covered under the policy of protection. Furthermore, even if the second-generation exclusion principle is made universal, in the absence of the condition of the equal protection principle, the policy of reservation will result in elite formation. For example, if within the category of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 70 per cent people remain without basic qualification for the employment being protected, what possibility is there that policy of reservation will not result in elite formation or appropriation of the protection by a few groups within this category. In a society with extreme historical discriminations and injustice, policy of protection, though laudable, cannot escape the process of elite formation unless equal conditions to enjoy the protection is given to all members of the category protected. We argue that policy of reservation can be helpful in social change and upliftment only when criteria of second-generation exclusion principle and condition of equal protection principle above are met, lest it results in elite formation.
Contemporary Indian society has elites being recruited from a variety of social backgrounds and bases. Expansions of industrial, commercial and service sector activities; increase in managerial, professional, and academic activities; role of post-independent civil services; reservation in government employment; Green revolution and economic betterment of many middle castes peasants; all provide bases of elite formation. However, a pertinent question arises here: how much interested are the elites as far as the political democracy in India is concerned? Even if it is conceded that the national movement under the Congress was dominated by the elites, it cannot be denied that they struggled to establish democracy in India. In fact, Bipan Chandra has rightly argued that ‘it was, in fact, the Congress, and not the bureaucratic and authoritarian colonial state … which indigenised, popularised and rooted parliamentary democracy in India’.56 However, we are presently faced with a different situation. The attitude of the contemporary middle class elites suggests that they are not only apathetic to politics but appear as if they are ‘fatigued’ by democracy. Pavan K. Verma in his The Great Indian Middle Class has discussed the apathetic perception of the middle class about politics and has concluded that given their consumption requirements and apathetic attitude, one may need to revise the traditional view of the middle class as the main supporters of political democracy.57 A balanced middle class as the mainstay of democracy was the Aristotelian formula that has really been part of the liberal democratic thinking until it has been challenged by the elitist and pluralist theories. In India, while social, economic and professional bases of elite recruitment have increased, it is doubtful, whether the urban elite is a political man and political woman anymore. Most of them are interested in politics to network and influence resource allocation but not to participate for democratic stability, institution-building and participatory democracy. When the middle class grows apathetic and treats politics as undesirable, while allowing it, to paraphrase Bernard Shaw, as the first refuge of the criminals, corruptors and pettifoggers, political democracy is bound to suffer and degenerate.
Pluralist Perspective on Distribution of Power
One of the powerful refutations to the elite model comes from the pluralist model of power distribution. Pluralists find fault with the elite model because the latter confuses between power in one scope say, economic or intellectual or political as if, it leads to power over other scopes. For example, people having intellectual ability or organizational power or economic power, will exercise influence over areas of others. Pluralists refute this assumption and develop a model of power distribution wherein power instead of being concentrated, is dispersed amongst various interest and sectional groups. Accordingly, various groups such as industrialists, workers, traders, cultural and educational groups, religious groups and consumers wield power within their respective realms. Unlike the Elite model or the Marxian Class model which divide power distribution in dichotomous ruling or dominant and ruled or dependent categories, the Pluralist model considers a multidimensional distribution of power. In fact, the pluralist model redefined the liberal democratic political process as continuous competition amongst a variety of groups. The following general features of pluralist model may be noted:
- Industrial society is composed of a variety of social and sectional groups and they have their respective organized interests.
- They are independent of each other in society and press for their interests, compete, negotiate and reconcile.
- Political power is widely distributed amongst these competing groups in liberal–capitalist industrial societies.
- Political process is seen as competition amongst these competing groups for decision-making, resource allocation and favourable power distribution.
- Politics is a ‘business of bargaining and compromise58 and negotiation and reconciliation of interests.
- Political decisions are outcomes of negotiation, bargaining and reconciliation amongst this variety of groups.
- Government is seen as composed of two or more political parties, competing for electoral support and elections are seen as a competition amongst political parties. Political parties appeal to a wider audience and interests than sectional and social groups. As a result, the resultant government is seen as representing a wider, compromised and balanced interest of society. In short, the government is seen as an arbiter, mediator and ‘honest broker’, which coordinates and compromises between the demands of various groups. It works as a balancer of conflicting interests and demands. The political process is seen as conflict resolution, negotiation and compromise.
- The pluralist perspective views power distribution in liberal democracies on a multi-dimension scale. Power is not seen as concentrated in the hands of either a class, or elite or dominant group but shared amongst competing groups. Though there is difference of opinion as to whether power of one balances that of the other, balance of power between groups, or some are more powerful than others. John Kenneth Galbraith (the same author when he was American Ambassador to India, 1960s has termed Indian democracy as ‘functioning anarchy’) in his American Capitalism holds that there is dynamic equilibrium amongst competing groups as there is balance of power. Robert Dahl who has given the theory of Polyarchy (democratic government that takes into account interests of many groups in society compulsorily) in his book Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy holds contrary view. For him, there are groups, which ‘are more equal than others’.59
The pluralist model of power distribution finds its base in the works of Arthur F. Bentley, The Process of Government and David Truman, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion, which furthered the thesis of group politics and located the political process in the interest and conflict of various groups. J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, argued that democracy is about competing elites and election is not an exercise of peoples’ power, rather a means for selecting from amongst the competing elite groups. It assumes that there is competition amongst various elite groups. Robert Dahl has studied pluralism in his Who Governs? and Modern Political Analysis and proposes a theory of polyarchy as a pluralist form of democracy. Arnold M. Rose in his The Power Structure: Political Process in American Society followed Dahl's approach of multiple sources of power and influence. Both Dahl and Rose reject C. Wright Mills thesis of power elite and maintain a ‘multi-influence hypothesis’ where power is dispersed.
Before we discuss the pluralist model of power distribution, let us distinguish for the purpose of clarity, political pluralism of Gierke-Maitland and Laski, MacIver and Barker and group theory of Arthur Bentley and Truman from that of Dahl and Rose. Allan Ball calls the pluralist model as modern pluralism. Gierke-Maitland's thesis of associations, which was further taken up by Lindsay, Laski, MacIver, Barker, Follett and Figgis, is based on the consideration of independent associations in society and demand for recognition of their prior and independent status vis-à-vis the state. Here the state as an institution is posed as amongst one of such institutions and it is demanded that the power of the state should not be overriding in society. Political pluralism is a demand for a pluralist state where state is one of the associations. Study of Bentley and Truman is from the perspective of pressure and interest groups, which are informal institutions but influence the political process. Pressure and interest groups in society are treated as the pivot of political action because their behaviour determines the political process. Politics is understood in terms of group conflict and interest of groups as the basis of this conflict and political behaviour. The government is treated as ‘adjuster of group conflict’. The pluralist model of power distribution of Dahl and Rose is in continuity with the assumptions of Bentley, Truman and group theorists. However, unlike political pluralism it does not make groups compete with the state, rather they compete amongst themselves to influence the state in resource allocation and decision-making. Unlike political pluralism, Modern pluralism and group theorists are not concerned with juristic and corporate personality of groups and associations but their competition and influence on decision-making in the political process. While political pluralism wants the state compete with other associations for a citizen's loyalty and obligation, modern pluralism wants the various competing groups operate through representative political parties and formations to influence the decision-making. Reconciliation and moderation of various interests are done by multiple political parties and parties which succeed in projecting as the great reconciler wins. Parties cannot simply be a carrier of sectional interests because to be elected to power requires multi-section support. In this chapter, we are dealing with modern pluralism as a model of distribution of power.
Dahl's study of local politics in New Haven, Connecticut (USA), Who Governs? is to explore how decision-making is done. Dahl feels that only by examining actual decisions one can find out the distribution of power. His hypothesis was to check whether a single group monopolizes decision- making in community affaires. Alternatively, whether different groups exercise power based on their respective power realm and issue areas. Dahl concludes that: (i) there is widespread dispersal of power among various interest groups; (ii) these groups compete and negotiate as per their issue areas (nomination for political offices, teacher's salaries, city development, etc.); (iii) these groups do not form a unified group with a common interest as Wright Mills power elite hypothesis suggests; and (iv) there is no overlap of personnel amongst different groups. As a result, Dahl rejects Mills conclusion of power elite and suggests that ‘local politics is business of bargaining and compromise without any group dominating the decision-making’.
Based on his conclusions and observations, Dahl suggested a model of democracy where various groups participate in decision-making. He calls this polyarchy. Polyarchy refers to a model of democratic decision-making where multiple groups participate in decision-making without anyone of them dominating. Dahl accepts that there is no equality of participation by all groups but he assures us against a single elite group that dominates. He also refutes the thesis that a combination of power elite groups can dominate. Dahl examined the relative power of three groups – politicians, economic notables and social notables, as respective dominating groups. He found that none of the three groups dominated. Dahl's polyarchy bears all the characteristics of a modern representative democracy60 such as universal suffrage, free and fair elections, freedom to hold political office or the right to criticize and protest, elected government as representative of the people, relative independent groups and associations and alternative sources of information. One important implication of polyarchy model is that minority groups also get a wide range of chances to participate and influence decision-making. In classic–liberal majority model, minority is at the receiving end. On the other hand, compared to the elite model where minority dominates, in polyarchy the minority (e.g. elites, politicians) cannot dominate for long as they would be required to, dependent on the majority for being selected to the public offices.
Arnold M. Rose's The Power Structure reflects Dahl's conclusions on power distribution. He studied the policies of the National Associations of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce, the two bodies that represent the economic elite. Rose proceeds to examine whether political and economic elites work together so as to produce the effect of a single ruling elite’ or power elite as Mills argues. He concludes that plurality of elites, relatively small, are operating in different spheres. He identifies several influencing centres such as economic, political, military, associational, religious and others. Leading from such conclusions, Rose proposes a ‘multi-influence hypothesis’61 where a variety of influences go into decision-making instead of dominance of any single group.
Dahl and Rose reach more or less the same conclusion and suggest pluralism as the basis of power distribution. However, while Dahl does not hint at elite within the respective groups, Rose tends to hold that there is pluralism as plurality of elites who are competing. In any case, it is apparent that decision-making even if based on plural participation, necessarily requires representation by a few from the respective groups for ease of coordination, gathering and decision- making. Rose sounds like Schumpeter who talks of decision-making amongst competing elites. Rose's pluralism suggests elite pluralism.
Pluralism provides an important model of power distribution. It relies on decision-making as one of the empirical methods to examine power distribution. Unlike the elite model, the pluralist model does not challenge the liberal democratic assumption except focusing on people as organized groups and associations. Dahl's polyarchy appears as a modern representative liberal democracy plus concern for group dynamics in the political process. Based on empirical examinations, pluralism contests any hypothesis or suggestion of concentration of power in the liberal–capitalist industrial society. Marx's class power based on economic dominance or Mills power elite based on a trio of power centres is refuted by pluralism. However, the pluralist theory has been criticized by many writers.
Pluralism has been attacked for being selective in its decision-making methodology. It is argued that decision-making methodology of examining power distribution fails to see why a particular issue has reached the stage of decision-making and why certain others have been excluded without consideration. It is possible that certain issues do not at all reach the level of decision-making and are excluded by the dominant elite. Related to this is the second apprehension. It is possible that there is elite formation within the respective groups. After all, what is the scope of a democratic decision-making and deciding issue areas democratically within a group? Thirdly, though separately, there are plural interests, some of these can combine to produce concentration of power in the form of dominant classes, power elite, etc. Besides, there is a difference of opinion within the pluralist fold on two issues. Firstly, are all groups in equal competition amongst themselves when negotiation, bargaining and decision-making take place? Galbraith has suggested there is balance of power and equality amongst the groups but Dahl differs and holds that there may not be equality of decision-making. Secondly, whether the state is a neutral mediator or it has an interest of its own? Does the state only mediate and honestly brokers amongst competing plurality of the group or does it protect and further its own interests?
The pluralist approach has provided some inputs to the study of distribution of power in socialist countries such as erstwhile USSR, Eastern Europe and China.62 Analysts and observers such as J. Hough (‘The Soviet System: Petrification or Pluralism’ in Problems of Communism, March–April 1972)) and D. Hammer (USSR: The Politics of Oligarchy) had observed that due to emergence of an industrial society various interests and functional groups appear. The dominant party needed to share and accommodate their demand. It has been termed as ‘bureaucratic or institutional pluralism’.
Application of the Pluralist Model in the Indian Context
Can the pluralist model of power distribution be relevant in the analysis of contemporary Indian situation? Pranab Bardhan has illustrated the influence of the dominant proprietary classes comprising the business–industrial class, rich farmers and landed proprietary class and the bureaucratic class on decision-making. Bardhan's study excludes the possibility of pluralism as the basis of decision-making in India. Bardhan's conclusion about the dominant influence on decision-making was also reflected in the book, In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State by Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph. Rudolphs argued that the Indian state oscillates between ‘command’ and ‘demand’ economy and demand by a variety of dominant interests create problem of overload for the system. This means that though decision-making is based on plural participation of demand groups; it is not based on negotiation and resolution. Dominant demand groups enjoy better chance of influencing the State policy than others.
However, we may recall that some of the keen analysts of Indian politics such as Rajni Kothari (‘The Congress “System” in Indi’’‘, Asian Survey, 4(12) had discussed the phenomenon of what he called ‘the Congress system’. Rajni Kothari and Morris Jones had characterized the Indian party system under the dominance of the Congress party during the 1960s as ‘One-party dominance’ model. It was argued that dominance of the Congress as a party depended on it being a comprehensive and all-inclusive system of party interaction. Kothari treated the Congress party as a ‘system’. This means the party includes a variety of groups, interests and factions within itself. These groups, factions and interests within the Congress party were positioned as such that they were in communication and interaction with similar interests in opposition parties. This was a situation of intra-party pluralist competition within the Congress party. Here a variety of interests, factions and groups compete within a single party to further, negotiate and reconcile various interests. Congress party as such appears as a ‘party of consensus’ and ‘grand coalition’.63 Consensus building through such a party model suggests relevance of pluralism. This pluralism manifested in terms of Congress seeking consensus from various interests outside through its own relevant factions and groups. For example, on issues relating to poverty alleviation, nationalization, labour relations, etc. the left-to-the-centre faction of the Congress communicates with the left opposition parties; on issues of right to private property, the right-to-the centre faction would be in communication with the economic right parties. Nevertheless, the Congress system itself sought to maintain left-to-the-centre ideology. However, this pluralist model of consensus building has been made irrelevant after the emergence of credible multiparty opposition to the Congress party and further due to emergence and onset of coalition politics in India.
Given a variety of sectional, caste, religious, professional and associational interests in India, it would be difficult to pronounce with any certainty that decision-making is not based on plurality of inputs. There are caste associations, business and landed interests, professional, bureaucratic and middle-class interests and a variety of social, cultural and religious interests that put demand on the Government and channels of interests aggregation for influencing decision-making. Nevertheless, phenomenon of dominance by certain groups within plurality is not ruled out.
Corporatist Perspective on Distribution of Power
The corporatist theory relates to organized interests and their participation in the decisionmaking process. In a way, it focuses on the decision-making process that involves various groups. Dahl and Rose's study mentioned above, adopted the decision-making approach. However, corporatism especially focuses on organized capital and labour and how the industrial relations between employer and trade union are mediated by the intervention of the state. This means the corporatist model of power distribution deals with incorporation of certain organized interest, mainly employer and labour, into the process of decision-making and government. Alan Ball while recounting mutual benefit to be drawn out of this says, ‘the state benefits from the co-operation and expertise of groups such as industrialist and trade unions in the implementation of political decisions, while the groups gain from a share in political power and the recognition of their monopoly as representatives of certain societal sectors.’64 Unlike pluralism, corporatism does not look at interest groups as mere voluntary groups, rather they are viewed as organized interest groups with heavy centralization. For example, trade union groups, on the one hand, and industrial and merchant-commercial interests, on the other, present highly organized and centralized groups.
Corporatism is mainly concerned with three power centres—the state, employer and trade union. The state is seen as ‘resolving and institutionalising industrial relations at its own level’.65 This means participation of the organized groups is not incidental and based on whims of the government, rather it is established as an institutional mechanism in the form of a ‘tripartite negotiation’. However, the British Labour government's efforts to ‘secure social contract with the unions’ is also considered as corporatist power distribution. The corporatist model of power distribution has three distinct implications. Firstly, incorporation of two organized groups, namely the industrial and commercial employers on the one hand and the trade unions on the other, takes away many issues from the conflict and competition zone. This way, large number of issues become depoliticized so to say. Secondly, in addition to the territorial representation, ‘centrality of functional representation and corporate power’ is recognized and their interests incorporated. Thirdly, mechanism of tripartitism develops in which representative bodies of government, business and trade unions are established as a consultative mechanism. In UK, the government, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC); in the USA, the government, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Federation of Labour Congress of Industrial Organisations (AFL~CIO), for example, provide a tripartite set-up. However, it should be noted that this demotes and devalues the activities of consumer and other interest groups, as they lose any formal consultative mechanism.
Corporatism has been a stable mechanism in many countries to allow various organized interests to influence formulation and implementation of public policy. Heywood mentions that the corporatist model of economic management and public policy is said to be practised in many countries such as Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Japan. He further mentions that it is also seen as a mere symbiotic relationship between organized interests and the state where both benefit from incorporation. However, we must differentiate the neo-corporatism from corporatist economy that fascist regimes propagated before the Second World War. Neo-corporatism emerged in the 1960s and 1970s in liberal–capitalist democracies, which stands for incorporation of certain organized and privileged groups in governments’ policy formulation and power sharing in decision-making through an institionalized mechanism. Participation of these organized groups such as trade unions, industrial chambers and commercial chambers in policy and decision-making by the state is a matter of an established consultative set-up. However, Fascist corporatism means state becoming an economic actor and disallowing independent trade union activities, while threatening industry.
If decision-making is one of the criteria of measuring distribution and exercise of power, corporatism provides three bases of power—state, trade union and industrial and commercial chambers. However, corporatism has been criticized from various sides. New Right has attacked it as it gives chance to the trade unions to bring their demands, which the state cannot escape. They feel this will result in overload of demands that the state will be unable to handle. Supporters of democratic accountability feel that the corporatist consultative mechanism falls outside the public scrutiny. Hence, it is against the dictum of parliamentary control and public scrutiny. Marxian theorists have attacked the corporatist model as the state's strategy which is meant to dupe the unions and give a false sense of social recognition. Lenin's view on trade union econo-mism may be relevant in the context of corporatism. Lenin has warned against trade union comprises on small concessions. The Marxian perspective would treat the corporatist mechanism as states’ strategy to protect the interests of the capitalist class by incorporating the trade unions and thereby doing away with the rigour of class exploitation and antagonism.
However, some observers have hinted at alternative possibilities for socialist transition through corporatist mechanism. Can corporatism, through the institutionalized participation of the working class, open chances for them to dominate the state and effect peaceful transition to socialism? At least two writers, J. D. Stephens (The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism) and W. Korpi (The Democratic Class Struggle) have taken up the issue and have discussed such possibilities in the medium term. It has been argued that a form of corporatism that has prevailed in Sweden has ‘enabled the working class to become entrenched in economic and political life to the extent that from such a basis, a peaceful transition to socialism can be launched over the medium term’.66 However, it is still speculative whether state in a capitalist system would allow such a takeover. There may be an environment when the tripartite consultative mechanism combines with labour dominated political party forming a government. Nevertheless, the corporatist model, as it prevails, does not allow any such possibility of peaceful transition to socialism. In fact, it very well fits in the liberal notion of the state as a reconciler of interests including even that of the labour class. One may treat it as an engineering consent on behalf of the capitalist class.
In the Indian condition of mixed economy, planning and public sector undertakings, the state is not only a political power, but also an economic actor. Private business and trade union activities also exist. However, trade unions draw their major strength from labours employed in public sector undertakings owned by the state. In such a scenario, the state in addition to becoming a mediator also becomes an interested party. Trade unions in India generally operate through their affiliations to particular political parties and influence governmental policies. Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) is associated with the Congress party, All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) with CPI, Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU) with CPI-M, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) with Bhartiya Janata Party. Industrial and commercial chambers such as Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI), and ASSOCHAM influence government's decision-making in a variety of ways. It is understood that they contribute to party funds, bear election expenditures, lobby through legislators and influence by controlling media (e.g. Times of India, Hindustan Times, etc., belong to big industrial houses). Though certain decision areas, such as budget-making of the government, are open to wide consultation including the business and trade union concerns, this is not an institutional and formal consultative process. As such, in India there is no formal corporatist model of power sharing at a tripartite forum where the government, the business and the trade union consult.
Feminist Perspective on Distribution of Power
The Feminist perspective insists that society is male-dominated and power is normally exercised by males in their favour. Society is seen divided into two groups based on gender distinction. Feminists feel that biological distinction is used to create artificial distinctions in terms of material, intellectual and moral resources. Thus, males extend natural and biological distinctions between male and female to appropriate material resources, rights and privileges. This distinction and resultant discrimination determines the power structure of society. Males, who take all decisions, either in the public or private domain, always hold power. Distribution of power in favour of males and their dominant position in society, public arena and family and private domain is characterized by feminists as patriarchy.
Patriarchy meaning ‘rule by the father’ or the elder male has been considered as the earliest form of authority. Henry Maine from the historical school and R. M. MacIver from the sociological school have presented patriarchy as the earliest form of authority. They have argued that the authority of the father or family elder subsequently passed over to the authority in community and in political arena. On the other hand, Lewis Morgan, Friedrich Engels and Edward Jenks have argued that matriarchal authority was the earliest form of authority. However, it is understood that possession of authority in the family, tribal organization, larger community forum and initial form of political authority in the course of historical evolution, has been in the hands of the father, a male elder or male family head. In family and social relations, community decision-making and larger political organizations, males have always dominated. This historical coincidence of evolution of authority and male domination has been a perpetual feature. However, in the arena of power and authority, male domination has been discriminatory, exploitative, humiliating and morally and psychologically indignifying to females. This is the patriarchy that the feminist insists should be removed.
In the contemporary period, feminist advocates and campaigners have used patriarchy to describe authority in ‘general sense as “rule by men”, drawing attention to the totality of oppression and exploitation to which women are subjected’.67 Patriarchy is used to signify gender inequality, discrimination in terms of unequal rights and privileges or absence of them, lack of economic and political capacity and freedom and physical, sexual, moral and psychological oppression and exploitation. The feminist movement accordingly attacks all these aspects. The crux of the feminist position is that merely because of physical power possessed by males and biological distinction in which the female is compared to the male, historically, power, dominance and resource allocation has been in favour of males. This means natural and biological compulsion of childbearing, what Canadian feminist activist Shulamith Firestone says, ‘curse of Eve’, has been used against the females. It is also argued that female biological and childbearing make-up, is used as weapon of violence against women. In civil wars, conflict situations and such other conditions of rivalry, women are subjected to mental, physical and sexual violence. The feminist model looks at the political arena as an extension of the general patriarchal relations obtaining in social relations. It is not always easy to differentiate between the attack on power distribution in the political arena and the nature of the state from the general critique of patriarchy.
Three distinct streams of feminist critique of power distribution have been identified. Initially, it started with the demand for equal rights and privileges for women as enjoyed by men. An immediate reflection of this was demand for equal political rights, mainly equal right to electoral suffrage and to hold public offices. This stream of feminism can be called equal rights feminism or what some call, ‘first wave’ feminism. John Stuart Mill in his Essays, ‘the Subjection of Women’,68 advances a major argument for equality and analyses historical and social presumption that prevail against women. He writes:
That the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.
He goes on to argue against the assumption of ‘mental differences between men and women as natural’ and attributes it to cultural factors. His contention is that in a context of male domination and inequality between males and females, it is difficult to know whether the female has systematically divergent attitudes that warrant unequal rights and privileges. Mills's version of feminism is considered as a ‘classical statement of liberal feminism’. Long before Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft in her A Vindication of the Rights of Women argued for equal right on the grounds of females also being ‘human beings’.69 This work is considered as the earliest work on feminism and was written against the backdrop of the French Revolution. Demand for women's voting right gained momentum in the mid-ninteenth century. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an anti-slavery and civil right activist in America organized women's rights convention in July 1848 and demanded the right to vote along with other rights such as property rights, admission to higher education and church offices. This wave of feminism advances the liberal feminist model of power distribution in the form of equal rights and privileges. This wave favours reform and gradual changes in political institutions and processes for equal rights and participation. Inequality is considered as a bias of the state and demand is made to remove equality. By the very fact of demand for equality, liberal feminism does not reject the state outrightly. Rather, it is expected to mediate, reform and provide conditions of equal participation between males and females. The state and political process is seen as agency that could redress inequality problem.
The second stream of feminism also known as the ‘second wave’ feminism is more critical and radical than the first one. It gained momentum during the 1960s and 1970s and instead of focusing on equal rights and neutrality of the state, it was oriented towards women liberation and emancipation from social, sexual and political oppression. Radical feminism is critical of the state and political power and considers the state as a reflection of male power structure, oppression and patriarchy. Radical feminists argue that the state is not neutral and cannot serve the purpose of female equality. This view goes beyond rights and equality concerns and seeks means and ways to remove oppression, exploitation and subordination. Heywood points out that the most famous slogan of the second wave of feminism is ‘the personal is the political’. This signifies that as far as women's position is concerned, politics is not confined to mere political and public arena. Rather, politics permeates in all aspects of life and reflects in the totality of oppression and subjection and sexual relations. Gender and the female's image is seen as a political construct based on feminine and masculine and stereotypical social roles. Thus, radical feminists treat gender as socially imposed, politically perpetuated and sexually exploited.
Simone de Beauvoir, a French social critic and novelist, in her famous The Second Sex has argued how the feminine and the masculine are dichotomized and masculine is taken as the positive norm and normal, while the feminine as the ‘other’, inconsequential and second to the first. This image construction and artificial and stereotypical ‘otherness’ inhibits females to express their humanity. This radical feminist formulation was fully espoused by other feminists such as Kate Millett in USA, Shulamith Firestone in Canada and others. Millett argues that patriarchy is universal and runs through all political, social and economic structures. This means irrespective of economic structure—capitalist, socialist, mixed economy, patriarchy is a constant phenomenon, she calls ‘social constant’. In her Sexual Politics, she challenged conventional family as the chief institution of patriarchy and argued for replacement of the conventional family.70 Shulamith treats natural division of labour, i.e., reproduction and childbearing, as the curse for a female's role in society. In its radical form, feminism argues that public affair is organized in such a way that it excludes females. They cite the example of power theory, which is based on male orientation in politics. It is not that feminists are only interested in public affairs. In fact, the male orientation of public affair, leads to assigning a private and domestic realm to female. It has been argued that patriarchy creates a dichotomous situation to dominate. Males are treated as powerful, courageous, brave, enduring and manipulative and females as submissive, soft, tender and pliable. This distinction becomes the basis for female exclusion from a variety of activities including politics, military and works that require courage and endurance. Alternatively, females are considered fit for jobs that require less rigour and less physical endurance, e.g., receptionists, sales girls, nurses, social workers, etc. An image of care, tending, warmth and tension and pressure-buster for males? The underlying basis of such a division of work is the submission and sacrificing nature of a female. Feminists argue that this is artificial dichotomy to organize and exclude certain arena from the reach of females. And based on the biological and natural division of labour, the female is confined to family chores and that too dominated by males. Shulamith (The Dialectic of Sex) goes to the extent of denouncing natural childbearing and opting for medical and technological aids such as test tube babies and artificial wombs to escape the oppressive natural division of labour. It would not be out of place to add that lesbian tendency can be attributed to the radical feminist position where women liberation is taken to its extreme and considered as compatible only with its own gender. Sexual relationship with the opposite gender is treated as a manifestation of dominance.
A third stream of feminism also called ‘third wave’ feminism has treaded on socialist lines. It uses the Marxian framework and attributes female subordination to the capitalist mode of production. Economic significance of female is confined either to the family, or in the market it is defined as commodity. In family, women's domestic labour is unrecognized and unpaid. Juliet Mitchell, New Zealand born British writer, has espoused socialist feminist arguments and maintains that patriarchy has social, cultural and economic and political roots. Change from capitalism to socialism may reduce the patriarchal rigour but will not be sufficient, as it has cultural and ideological roots. It has been argued that market treats the female body as a commodity like any other as a means to promote, sale and earn profit from. In proof of this are oft-cited examples of a female's appearance in promoting and endorsing market products. Preference given to female in appearance and endorsements is a reflection of the same stereotypical image of women—caring, soft, pleasing, attractive, home maker, sensual, sexual. Consider her appearance in the promotion of male undergarments, deodorants, shaving creams, hair gels, and even a pair of shoes and trousers. She appears in promoting her stuff only as if she is meant to tease, seduce, and finally win over the elusive male. It would be interesting to hear a radical feminist position whether a female walking on the ramp, appearing sensually and furthering the stereotypical image, is emancipating or commodifying?
In India, for example, the Constitution removes any inequality between male and female and provides equality of rights and opportunities. India has adult universal suffrage and equal right to hold public offices by males and females. The Indian Constitution adopts liberal feminism and provides equal rights to women. Further, there is a possibility to secure some special privileges such as reservation in public offices and employment for women to mitigate and compensate for their historical and social discrimination. Two recent developments have also advanced the liberal feminist conception in India that the Constitution upholds. The government has provided one-third of reservation in the seats in local bodies for women. Recently, the Government of India has introduced ‘gender budgeting’. This is meant to specify and monitor gender-related allocation of resources and utilization.
However, liberal feminism in India faces its limitation when it encounters the personal laws and other discriminatory assumptions in inheritance rights, marriage and divorce, etc. Additionally, radical feminism treats state intervention and welfare voluntarism to favour women as a system of public dependence of women. The central understanding is that the state as an extension of patriarchy cannot be a genuine sharer of power with females. In the Indian context, to some extent this apprehension gets credibility when we look at the dynamics of decisionmaking, participation and independent standing of female office holders in the public offices in local bodies. It has been reported that female office bearers in local bodies (where one-third seats are reserved for females) act as proxy to their male family members and on their behest take decisions.
To a large extent, the feminist model of power distribution in terms of patriarchy and division between a dominant male and subordinated female, natural and biological division of labour which is exploitative, female as a commodity in the capitalist system, sexual and familial exploitation through subordination and unpaid domestic labour, etc. are not only historically and sociologically true but glaring and still continuing. However, this does not mean power structure, political space and gender equality have not progressed. Equal rights, protection against discrimination and exploitation, basic facilities for capacity expansion and gender empowerment have been a constant effort at the international (including the UN) and national levels.
Marxian Perspective on Distribution of Power: Class Rule, Dominance and Hegemony
Elitist, Weberian and Pluralist models discussed above talk about power originating from a variety of sources. These sources include personal qualities and merits, social standing, educational and professional qualifications, cultural and religious privileges, political and public authority, economic means, etc. No single base or source of power is taken as the primary or the only base or source of power, rather a multidimensional view of power distribution is upheld.
The Marxian theory, on the other hand is a theory of one-dimensional power. Economic base is considered as the only source of power. In the Marxian perspective, economic activity is given primacy because it is important for basic livelihood. All human beings engage in producing those material conditions, which are necessary for meeting basic human needs. Historically, material and economic activities are the primary human activities. It may happen that these activities are organized based on individual ownership and share in material and economic resources and benefits derived from them. In this case, it is a capitalist system. Alternatively, these activities are organized based on equal participation in ownership and equitable share in the material and economic resources. In this case, it is called a socialist system. It is generally argued that human beings by nature, are selfish, at least self-interested, and can be motivated only when they are sure as to what benefit will come to them. As such, the capitalist system of organizing economic activity is more realistic, and may be, the only way to organize society. Everybody says so, must be true!
Marx, however, felt otherwise. He suggests that the capitalist system is organized in such a way that it is exploitative, repressing and dehumanizing. This is because a single class, the capitalist class, is the owner of economic power and engaged in profit-making. The capitalist class owns the means of production, i.e., property ownership, technological equipments and technical knowledge that are required for production. The labour force is engaged in a relationship of dependency due to wage labour and concentration of ownership of means of production in a particular class. Marx in his Das Capital considers economic ownership of private property and means of production as the single most important source of power. The class that owns it is the class that wields power in society. Historically, there has always been a division between those who wielded power because of ownership and those who have been deprived due to lack of it. This division, Marx says is class division. It has manifested in the division of two classes, master versus slave (ancient period), patrician versus plebeian (Roman period), lord versus serf (feudal period) and now bourgeoisie versus proletariat (capitalist period). While the master, patrician, lord and bourgeoisie class has been the owners of private property and means of production, the slaves, plebeians, serf and now the proletariat, have been exploited and oppressed. It appears that Marx suggests a zero-sum concept of power where power of one class is deprivation of the other. Power is based on economic source and the class, who owns the economic powers, wield power. In zero-sum, power of one class is deprivation of others.
Orthodox Marxian Position on Distribution of Power
To explain the distribution of power, Marxian distinction of base and superstructure should be understood. Marx divides the whole society into two categories. One relates to economic activity and production, private property, machinery, equipments, technology and techniques of production, labour force, etc. and another, to the rest of other activities such as politics, culture, law, etc. While the first category refers to Base or Infrastructure, the second is called Superstructure. Economic activity is considered as base because this is the primary activity—each human being engages to survive. Other aspects of life become reflection of the base activity. While economic activity is base, others, such as politics, legal aspects, cultural and religious aspects, intellectual and ideological aspects, etc., become superstructure. Andrew Vincent remarks that the ‘Marxian theory tends towards political economy’71 proves the singular importance given to economic power by Marx. The implication of the base-superstructure dichotomy is that there is only one source of power and that is economic power. Power in all other aspects of life is manifestation of economic power.
To the Marxian view, economic power is concentrated in a single class, the capitalist class. Since economic power determines the dynamics of power in other aspects of society—political, legal, intellectual and ideological,—the capitalist class holds overall power in the society. This unequal concentration of power is the reason of dominance of the capitalist class as the ruling class. Economic power determines political power. Politics and economics are allies and those who have economic power are also the wielder of political power. Alan R. Ball, explaining the relation between economic power and political power, suggests that ‘political power is concentrated in the hands of a ruling class as a consequence of concentration of economic power in the hands of a few’.72 The owners of the means of production are also the politically dominant class.
The dichotomous relationship of power between the ruling class (bourgeoisie) and the dependent class (proletariat) is, in fact, a relationship of exploitation, oppression and coercion of the latter by the former. This relationship Marx terms as class struggle. It is a relationship of exploitation of one class by another. Class struggle is struggle of the workers against the owners of the means of production, in short, struggle of the powerless against the powerful. Marx, however, accepts the link between class struggle and political struggle. He suggests that to fight against inequality of economic power, workers would need to use political struggle to organize. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx declares that ‘every class struggle is a political struggle’.73 We can interpret this statement of Marx in two ways. Firstly, since political activity is determined by economic activity, any struggle that goes on in the economic realm will have to be fought in the political realm as well. Secondly, class struggle needs, what Marx says, ‘ever expanding union of the workers’ and ultimately a political party.74 This would be necessary to organize workers as a class in the class struggle. Political struggle must go along with class struggle. The final objective of class struggle of the workers is to overthrow the capitalist system and establish socialist ownership of the means of production. This is to be achieved by means of a violent and forceful revolution that is needed to overthrow the capitalist system, take over the capitalist state, which is the repository of political power. The descriptions and discussions on Marxian views on distribution of power suggest the following:
- Source of all powers is economic power, which emanates from ownership of means of production.
- In a capitalist society where private property and capitalist means of production prevail, economic power is concentrated in the hands of the capitalists.
- Concentration of power in their hands means absence of the same for others.
- Concentration of economic power in the hands of a single class and all power flowing from the same single source, means that the economically dominant class is the ruling class.
- Ruling class use their overwhelming power for economic exploitation, oppression and coercion of the subject class.
- Power used in such a manner is illegitimate and coercive—illegitimate because it is used against the interests of the workers and coercive because it is exploitative.
- However, power used in such a manner by the ruling class, is still accepted as legitimate and rightful. This is due to ‘false consciousness’ in the workers, which mystifies the fact of coercion, exploitation and subjection by the ruling class.
- In the Marxian view, power is always used as class power. In a capitalist society, it is power of the capitalist class, which is in minority; during revolution, violent force is used by the workers against the capitalist; and after establishment of the socialist state, power shifts in the hands of the proletariat, which is in majority. Nevertheless, at all three stages of transition, the Marxian view treats power as class power, which is used by the one class against the other. In a capitalist society, economic and political power is with the minority, in a socialist society economic and political power is combined in the state and under the leadership of the communist party.
Neo-Marxian Revision on Distribution of Power in Capitalist Society
The orthodox Marxian position as explained above, has been slightly revised by some neo-Marxian thinkers. In this, the capitalist class is seen as cohesive and their power unified. Exercise of political power is viewed as class power because the ruling class is also the politically governing class. This means the capitalist class organically, ideologically and coercively dominates the state. Organically dominating means that the state is staffed and run by the ruling class, maintaining the conditions favourable for capitalism through ideas and coercion and force. This is because the economic base determines the superstructure with politics. In the orthodox Marxian view, state power is considered as being exercised in favour of capitalist class.
In his The State in Capitalist Society and Marxism and Politics, Miliband has analysed the role and nature of the state in capitalist societies. He holds that the concept of state in the Western societies as a neutral arbiter amongst social interests is misplaced. He concludes that the state is not able to separate itself from the ruling class factions. Thus, the state is not relatively autonomous. This conclusion is based on various factors.75 These include: (i) in contemporary Western societies there is a dominant or ruling class which owns and controls the means of production, (ii) the dominant class has close links to powerful institutions, political parties, the military, universities, the media, etc., (iii) the dominant class has disproportionate representation at all levels of the state apparatus, especially in dominant positions. This leads Miliband to infer that though the state can achieve independence in certain times like war or national crisis, is by and large, not relatively autonomous. Miliband suggested an organic link between the ruling class and the state power.
Nicos Poulantzas, a neo-Marxian theorist, on the other hand, does not agree with either Marx's position or Miliband's conclusions. He suggests that the state in a capitalist society is not an instrument of the bourgeoisie in the way Marx suggested. Marx in Manifesto of the Communist Party says, ‘The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.’76 Marx treats state as an instrument of the whole bourgeoisie and treats the later as the ruling class. Lenin in his State and Revolution supports and elaborates on Marx's position. Poulantzas on the other hand, puts forward the view that the state enjoys a degree of autonomy from the ruling class, though ultimately it protects the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. In his, Political Power and Social Class (1973) and in an article ‘The Problem of the Capitalist State’, Poulantzas discussed the nature of the state power in capitalist society. According to Poulantzas, the state in the capitalist system serves the long-term interests of the capitalist class. This means the state is structurally in the service of the capitalist interests even if the capitalist class is not the ruling class in a unified and cohesive manner. In fact, he argues that the ‘capitalist state serves the interests of the capitalist class only when members of this class do not participate directly in the state apparatus’.77
His position is that the capitalist class is not cohesive and unified in its immediate interests and is broken up in ‘class fractions’, i.e., internal division. This may include manufacturing, financial and commercial interests, as they will always present differing interests. It is also apparent that the state provides democratic rights and carries welfare reforms, which is opposed by the class fractions of the capitalists. In this way, divisions within the capitalist class are recognized by Poulantzas. Implication of this argument is that Poulantzas does not agree with the ‘executive committee’ view of Marx, which holds that the state is a mere instrument of the ruling class as a unified class. He suggests that the state is autonomous and regulates the economic and political conflicts in society. He says, ‘the ruling class is not the politically governing class.’ Why does this happen and how does the state, then serve the interests of the capitalist class?
He argues that due to internal divisions within the ruling class, there may be differing interests to protect the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole; the state must stay relatively autonomous and maintain the cohesiveness of the system. According to Poulantzas, the state must ensure: (i) political organization of the dominant class to represent their common interests, and conversely (ii) political disorganization of the working class by diffusing their radical potential by giving concessions, (iii) long-term interests of the capitalist class by keeping itself relatively autonomous and presenting the state as representing public interests. Louis Althusser, a neo-Marxian, has also supported the conclusion that the state, to serve the interest of the capital as a whole, needs to remain autonomous from the ‘explicit capitalist direction’.
In fact, J. Westergaard and H. Resler in their empirical study, Class in a Capitalist Society concluded that though, in Britain as well as other advanced capitalist countries, the state has implemented a wide range of reforms to improve health, social security, safety in work places, age old pensions, free education etc., these reforms have left the basic structure of inequality unchanged.78
There are differing views within the Marxian fold on distribution of power in a capitalist society. Orthodox Marxian position expressed in the views of Marx, Engels and Lenin is that the political and economic power is in the hands of the ruling class as a unified class with cohesive interests. Miliband sought to examine this position and its relevance in the contemporary British capitalist society. He agreed with the orthodox position. However, Poulantzas and Althusser take a different position and argue that though the interests of the capitalist system as a whole are protected by the state, it remains autonomous of the domination of the capitalist class. Study by Westergaard and Resler showed the capitalist face of the welfare state. However, some argue that emphasis only on social class, as dimension of power may not give a full picture of the nature of the distribution of power. Various studies including that of Ralph Dahrendorf have suggested that the proletariat class itself is no more a unified deprived class. Instead, there is a process of upward economic, status and professional mobility from amongst the proletariat. This process is described as ‘embourgeoisement’ of the proletariat, i.e., the proletariat attaining bourgeois lifestyle. James Burnham has shown that the emergence of the managerial class has led to differentiation between the owner and the manager. He concluded that the power in production and market lies with the managers. Raymond Aron suggests that due to public shareholding of companies, the concept of the capitalist class as the sole owner and dominant class is no more valid. However, all these studies that seek to show that the capitalist class is no more to be reckoned with, take up only certain points that do not reveal the process of implicit and ideological dominance that the capitalist system generates. Notwithstanding changes in the overall composition of the capitalist as well as the working class, the capitalist system sustains and protects the interests of the dominant class. The process of sustenance and domination is achieved in a subtle way, what Gramsci calls ‘hegemony’. This means people were ruled by ideas and not by coercion alone and the capitalist system is presented as legitimate system.
Hegemony as Power
Gramsci, also a neo-Marxian theorist, gave importance to the superstructure, politics, state, ideology and cultural and educational institutions. He advocated the relative autonomous view of the state and suggests that politics has autonomy of its own and should be ‘distinguished form the realms of economics, morality and religion.’79 Gramsci suggests that the domination of the capitalist system is maintained not only by force and coercion but more by hegemony. Hegemony is ideological domination created by various social, religious, educational and civil society institutions. Marx and Engels in The German Ideology, has stated that ideas of ruling class are ruling ideas. They discussed about ‘bourgeois ideology’ that disguises and mystifies the class divisions and contradictions in the capitalist system. Gramsci discusses about hegemony that is generated in a subtle way and by using ruling class ideas.
He distinguishes between two levels of the superstructure: (i) society or the civil society, and (ii) state or the political society. The state or the political society represents state power and uses force for exercising domination—structures of coercion. On the other hand, society or civil society uses a more subtle way of domination. This is achieved by the use of various means including educational, religious, intellectual and moral agencies—structures of legitimation. Thus, according to Gramsci, the superstructure consists of two levels—civil society corresponding to which are structures of legitimation and political society corresponding to which are structures of coercion. For Gramsci, civil society is different from what Marx understood. It does not refer to economic relationship as in Marx, but to superstructure. It includes the organizations and means by which hegemony is diffused in all domains of culture and thought. These means and organizations include educational, intellectual, moral, religious and political and not merely economic. Thus, coercion and consent are two elements of domination, which prevail in the superstructure and determine the base. As such, for Gramsci the state is not instrument being determined by the base. The state is relatively autonomous and is a key area of struggle.
Civil society provides the means of legitimation and what Gramsci calls, hegemony. Civil society represented in organizations and institutions like family, schools, church etc., provides the basic rules of behaviour, respect and moral deference to authority. By the help of educative, religious, familial, cultural means, hegemony is achieved. Hegemony stands for ‘intellectual, moral and political leadership and not merely economic domination’.80
Hegemony is not only economic domination or coercive domination, but is based on consent generated in a subtle manner. Gramsci uses hegemony to define ‘the ability of a dominant class to exercise power by winning the consent of those it subjugates as an alternative to the use of coercion’.81
Through his concept of hegemony, Gramsci showed the crucial role that ideas and ideology play in helping the economic domination of the dominant class. A hegemonic leadership controls coercion + economic power + consent. Gramsci showed how hegemonic power leads to emergence of what he called ‘common sense’. Common sense is explained as the philosophy of the masses, that accepts the morality, customs and institutionalized behaviour of the society in which they live as if they are real.
Gramsci's idea of hegemony is helpful in analysing how the capitalist system maintains its legitimacy and despite various changes, keeps it stability. Louis Althusser upheld that there can be economic, political, ideological and theoretical or scientific spheres in society, each of which has certain autonomy and capacity to influence the other.
However, there are others, who have also dealt with the issues relating to mystification and distortion of reality in capitalist society. Ralph Miliband in Capitalist Democracy in Britain argues that liberal democracy in a capitalist society is capitalist democracy because it has biases for private property and stability of capitalism. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent discussed how mass media distorts information to generate acceptance based on propaganda.
However, there are other neo-Marxian thinkers, such as Jurgen Habermas, The Legitimation Crisis, who has discussed about crisis tendencies in a capitalist system. He finds ‘tensions between a private-enterprise or capitalist economy … and a democratic political system …’82
This he calls legitimation crisis. Habermas suggested that the liberal democracy could not satisfy popular demands for social security and welfare rights and requirement of market based on private interests. Habermas's idea sounds as if the liberal democracy would have a demand overload. This aspect has been used by many writers to analyse the political process in many countries, including India. The concept of the legitimation crisis and overload has been used by Atul Kohli to analyse what he calls India's ‘crisis of governability’.
Power is an important factor in understanding the dynamics of decision-making as Dahl and Rose showed. Power is an important variable for many theorists to understand distribution and location of power. Power, however, is required to present itself as legitimate for acceptability. Hegemony is a subtle way to maintain overall dominance by a class by permeating its ideas and attitudes and behaviour in a society as if it is normal. In the framework of the political system and structural–functional analysis, we have political socialization as a concept of political recruitment. Political socialization helps individuals acquire, retain or change attitudes and behaviours which are politically relevant. These are important for maintaining continuity of the political system and recruitment for political offices. Political socialization takes place in the family, in schools, in the market, in the football ground, in offices, in rallies, etc. It is a means of recruitment in the political system. Cultural reproduction refers to imposition of culture of the dominant class on society as legitimate. Pierre Bourdieu, French sociologist, introduced the concept of cultural reproduction to analyse how the dominant class imposes its cultural values as general values. Legitimacy, hegemony, political socialization and cultural reproduction becomes the means of non-coercive elements in any system of domination. They help in maintaining and sustaining a system. Power can be as subtle as hegemony of the ‘common sense’ and even more, power of non-decision-making.
Review Questions
- What is power and how is it related to authority? Does reliance on authority limit the use of power?
- Discuss how power, authority and legitimacy are related.
- Power is the only analytical variable to understand politics. Elucidate.
- What are different forms of power and how are they related?
- There is no legitimacy in political power exercised in the capitalist system; it is only hegemony and dominance. Critically analyse.
- What is power dynamics in capitalist and socialist systems and how is power distributed?
- What are different approaches for understanding power distribution in society?
- What are the types of authority? Critically analyse Weber's classification of authority. Does Weber's classification adequately account for authority in a democratic system?
- In modern democracies, the idea that power belongs to the people is a myth. In the light of this statement, examine the relevance of elite theories in understanding political process.
- Power in a capitalist society is a combination of coercion and hegemony. Discuss the Marxian concept of power in a capitalist society.
- ’Legitimacy, hegemony, political socialization and cultural reproduction are means of non-coercive elements in any system of domination’ (Bottomore). Critically analyse.
- In a developing country like India, elite theory is relevant to explain of power distribution. Discuss.