Power: A fluid but fundamental dimension of social relations

The moment one hears the word ‘politics’, associations such as ‘manipulation’, ‘corruption’, ‘deception’ and the like are instantaneous. Politics, very simply from a sociological lens, taps into how power as a fundamental dimension of social relations, operates.

Politics tracks the dynamic flow of power from one entity to another, operating via multiple institutions.

As an ice breaking example, let us take into account Arvind Kejriwal, a former bureaucrat and current Chief Minister of Delhi. He entered the realm of politics with the vision of passing the Jan Lokpal or Anti- Corruption Bill, publicly stating he would never fight an election. However, utilising the momentum of power struggle he gained from fighting against the Congress, it turned into a stepping stone for him to enter mainstream politics and he fought the 2013 elections. To resist one power-holding entity also requires the use of power, which is precisely what happened in this afore-mentioned example. For instance, in a bid to quickly scale up the political ladder, Kejriwal, who rose to fame as an anti-corruption crusader,is today involved in various controversies with many of his cabinet ministers in prison for money laundering, which is so disappointing.

In order for effective resistance to occur, a power-holding organisation or structure must be present, explaining the very essence of why political parties are formed. Political parties as social institutions function as mechanisms via which ideologies can be structured and realised through collective actions. Parties are a medium of gaining, exercising and struggling for power. Political parties, albeit non material themselves, provide an outlet where abstract ideas of democracy, rule, etc are materialised. Parties, as any other organisational structure, works on the basis of hierarchy. Just the way water flows downwards from a higher to lower point, similarly power flows down from one powerful apex to the base.

And, when new political parties or groupings try to break this natural “flow of power” by disrupting the conventional scheme of things, either the system gets cleansed for good or the entity that sought to cleanse the system, gets sucked into the whirlpool of dirty politicking. Very rarely are political leaders able to circumvent political compulsions, the organisational hierarchy and the “flow of power”, to be able to make a positive difference to the lives of millions, without getting corrupted by the political system. One such leader is Narendra Modi.

Power seems to work in a symbiotic fashion when contextualized in politics. The masses lend their voting power to political leaders who in turn consume it and use this very borrowed power to give it back to the people they borrowed it from, in altered forms such as bills, reforms, development projects, and so on. The grey area that needs to be addressed is that this give-and-take of power is neither equal, nor consistent. Not equal because a fraction of the power borrowed from the masses’ support is kept aside, accumulated within the grasp of the political leader, which only compounds over time.

In a numerical sense, it operates as “I will borrow ten units of power from each supporter and return nine units back, once I am an elected leader. No one would miss a single trivial unit now, would they?” This single unit of power, from an entire cohort of supporters, compounds to produce immense power seen in followers and their bhakt culture. While the bhakt culture comes with its own set of faults and misgivings, it also helps to reinforce the larger political ideology, intent and policy making initiatives of the concerned leader and government.

Surveillance too, plays a role in all the webs of power relations we experience around ourselves. Employing yes-men and supervisors at booths, puts a policing system into action which once again, is contingent on power relations. Possessing the power to watch over someone puts one in a position of authority. Who gives this power and authority to the supervisors? People who are simply even more powerful, of course.

Up until this point, power as an abstract relation has been the focal point of this piece. Power manifests itself materially as resources; resources of any kind- alcohol, drugs, connections or literally just loads of cash, are all tokens of power at the end of the day. To be able to bribe someone with something, one must possess it themselves in the first place. A power dynamic only takes place in the presence of a giver and receiver. We all talk about ‘disrupting’ the cycle of bribery, but without understanding how it functions. With no one to consent to power, backdoor schemes like these leave no alternative path for power to flow out from, thus rendering it dysfunctional. Hence for the cycle to break, transparency is a must.

The maintenance of power and power relations through capitalist structures is often overlooked. Party symbol laden flags, badges, T-shirts, phone covers and just about any political merchandise, is accounted for by capitalist producers. This kind of merchandise certainly includes the profit aspect, but in hindsight, is originally designed to ‘manufacture’ support for a particular ideology. Using a certain party themed phone cover, works as an identifier of one being congruous with that party’s ideologies. On a psychological level too, it serves to unconsciously lead us to evaluate certain parties more positively, simply by possessing or seeing the merchandise of those political parties more frequently.

Lastly, the media is a paramount source of power, and perhaps the most monstrous one at that. Adorned in the jewels of seeming neutrality, the media holds immense power in determining how power dynamic narratives are portrayed and perceived by an audience. By choosing to represent or not represent a particular issue, the media acts as a lighthouse that decides what direction it must steer in. The media acts as not only a filter paper in this flow of power from one vessel to another, but also as a catalyst with the potential to electrify the power flowing by, that may or may not electrocute either or both sides. So while the media is termed as the fourth pillar of a democracy, often the media’s own biases for a particular political ideology, make it a biased optical tool that serves only certain vested interests.

While “power is the chance to impose your will within a social context, even when opposed and regardless of the integrity of that chance,” as Max Weber states, we must also keep in mind that power is neither good nor evil, but what the wielder makes of it.

Yashee Jha, a multi-faceted student, is an avid commentator on various topical issues. Views are personal. 

Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .