Written by Richard Maslin (Oct 2007)
Politics could be considered by many to be an abstract idea rather than something tangible. We all know that politics plays a major role in our lives, we all have preconceived ideas as to what politics means to us – but what is the concise definition of something so integral and important to the world?
As I will explore in this essay, there is no black and white answer with regards to what politics is; there are a number of theories and people will never agree on any one definition. In this essay I will analyse and assess each of the theories and try to form my own conclusions as to what politics means to me.
The Definitions
Government
This is the more tangible of the definitions. It essentially focuses on the most basic and public elements of the political world – the key players, the institutions and how it affects us all day to day. Political decisions are therefore made by those in authority, people who have been elected or appointed into positions of such power such as MPs, members of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister.
Public Affairs
Given that political decisions, by and large, affect us all, they are matters of public affair. As such, everyone should have some degree of influence over such decisions, either by voting a representative or taking part more directly through demonstrations, through the formation of forums of public opinion or through insider pressure groups. Those who are dissatisfied with a certain decision can protest against them, taking an active participation in politics. This is where the difference lies between this definition and the previous one – it suggests that the power lies with the people as well as with the Government.
This definition is essentially about political participation of varying degrees. The definition can be clarified by arguing a distinction between public and private life. In the public world, we are constantly dealing with other people, which may require diplomacy and politics.
Compromise
This theory is relates loosely around Aristotle’s view of humanity: humans are social creatures. When they live and work together to any extent, they have an influence over each other. Individuals may not agree with one another, so to maintain social cohesion within the group humans naturally compromise. If everyone feels that they have been consulted and included in the process then people are more likely to be satisfied with the end result.
In this definition, however, there is no inclusion of force. If Government attempts to impose a decision through force, the concept of politics is abandoned. As a result, people often separate the idea of a militant (forced) and political solution to a problem.
Power
This is the most abstract of the definitions, as it applies to many different aspects of life. This means that politics can be seen as a dynamic within a home as well as in the more traditional arenas such as Parliament. This definition contrasts strongly with Aristotle’s view of human nature, as it states that human relationships are firmly rooted in a balance of power and authority.
In this sense, wherever humans will be associated conflict, is unavoidable. People who view this definition as the most accurate are usually those who feel that one group in society holds more power than another – feminists believe it is males and Marxists believe it is the rich.
This definition also includes the use of force within politics. Some believe that every political decision is ultimately based on force and that the outcome of debate reflects the balance of power between the parties.
It is also important to note the difference between power, legitimacy and authority. Power is being able to influence people to do what they would not otherwise do and legitimacy is technical right to hold such power. Power does not necessarily have to be legitimate, while authority is where the public accept the legitimacy of those who hold the power.
Wherein Lies the Power?
In my own opinion, while there are elements from all the definitions of Politics that are correct, the most accurate, I feel, is the definition regarding power. Initially, I feel it was important to look at and consider all of the theories before selecting the single and arguably most important one, for reasons that I will later explain.
Therefore, from this decision I will narrow my essay and consider the most relevant theories in relation to who holds the power. I will also consider how these theories relate to modern government and politics and form a critique.
The Pluralist Model
This states that power is exercised by the population as a whole. This is displayed through the use of voting, ensuring that representatives have to act in a way that pleases the majority. Power can also be exerted by the population with political activity, such as joining parties and pressure groups.
By this definition, power lies with pressure groups and the public in general. My analysis is that pressure groups’ position in politics is debatable. The scope of their influence depends on the Government currently in power. During the reign of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, the majority of pressure groups and trade unions were ignored outright. This was perhaps too strong a move, as their proposals are still important and valid but should not all take precedence.
To counterpoint this, in my opinion, our current Government pays too much heed as to what every single individual thinks, which pressure groups take advantage of. As a result, the focus moves away from working effectively to keeping as many people as possible happy, which is unrealistic and impractical.
A happy balance needs to be found where a Government works to it’s own political principles and introduces laws that it believes will be of benefit to the country versus the need to respond to the legitimate consensus of the electorate and pressure groups.
The Elitist Model
This model suggests that true power is held by a small minority of the economic elite and policy planning networks, who use their power for their own personal gain. Their power is shown by the unequal distribution of assets and resources to benefit themselves.
C. Wright Mills published his book The Power Elite in 1956 claiming a new perspective on systems of power in the USA. He identified the 3 primary components of power groups – political, economic and military – who form a distinguishable, although not unified body, wielding the majority of power in any country.
Assuming then that in our country, the elite could be considered to be party officials and associates, I will look at the effect that they have on the balance of power.
Members of Parliament are influenced, not primarily by the electorate as one would expect of a democratic society, but by their political party.
Even if an MP has a conscience and listens to the voice of people, there is one consistently effective method of preventing such dissidence: the Whip system.
The Whip system exists within most political parties, and is designed to keep order and obedience amongst the party, from the backbenchers up to the cabinet. The Chief Whip can wield a large amount of power over those in their party. As was so aptly phrased by Francis Urquhart, Tory Chief Whip in the TV series ‘House of Cards’, “I keep the troops in line - I put a bit of stick about.”
For a Cabinet Minister in particular, the consequences for defying the party whip are absolute: they are dismissed from their position immediately, if they have not already resigned, and return to being a backbencher. Sometimes their votes in Parliament are called the "payroll vote", because of their higher salaries and the fact that they can be taken for granted.
If they try to disobey their party’s stance on a certain issue it will certainly count against them, resulting in punishments ranging from lower campaign funds to dismissal from the party. As such, even the most principled, conscientious MP has their hands tied when it comes to expressing dissent to their party.
From this, it is clear to see how any morality of elected MPs can be quickly repressed by this tyrannic institution. As such, the opinions and views of the constituents and pressure groups can be taken into consideration, but only with the consent of the political machine. New legislation can only be raised in the Commons provided is corresponds to the plans of that MP’s political affiliation.
Despite all of this, the voter has already given their approval for proposals made by the MP during their election campaign by voting for them. As such, they have contributed and made their voices heard by voting for them in the first place.
There is also the argument that people do not vote for the candidate themselves, but rather the party that they represent. In this respect, it does not matter what the MP does, so long as he is a member of the voters’ preferred party.
The Marxist Model
Like most liberal democracies, the UK is a strongly capitalist country. Although capitalists are fewer in number than the workers in their employ, they still hold the majority of political and economic control over the country. For these reasons, Marxists conclude that democracy and freedom in a capitalist country is an illusion.
With regards to the capitalist control over the country, we need look no further than the power of lobbyists. There is cause to argue against businesses and the use of lobbyists in the influence of MPs. Lobbyists are professionals, hired by companies for their political contacts and are technically considered to be a legitimate pressure group. For example, a lobbyist from the tobacco industry may try to persuade a group of MPs to vote against new legislation for the recent Smoking Ban. In fact, they may even go so far as to advise the MP on proposing a new Bill in favour of freedom of choice for smokers.
Lobbying and influence from businesses in the interest of profit over all else sounds despicable but this industry has been steadily growing in recent years and is now estimated to be worth £1.9 billion and employs 14000 people, with lobbyists being present in all levels of Parliament.
In my opinion, this institution breeds corruption in Parliament and should be fought against. If legislature is influenced by capitalism instead of the public interest then the system must be critically examined and these sources must be extinguished.
Conclusion
Clearly politics is not simplistic and, as such, it is very hard to generalise under one definition. As great theorists have understood for centuries; ‘politics’ means different things to different people. Because of this, any decisions I make are not conclusive but simply show my own opinion as to the meaning of politics.
Naturally the ‘Compromise’ and ‘Power’ definitions are more concerned with how decisions are made than by whom. I would argue that the first two definitions are important and can be taken into account, but the most important definition would regard how decisions are reached.
In my own mind I believe that the definition concerning power is the most accurate and relevant to modern day society. I believe that people who follow the ‘Compromise’ definition are too optimistic in their assessment of human behaviour.
When following the power definition, it is important to assess the three theories regarding who actually possesses the power. As I have shown there is evidence of control from all three sources of power; the people, the elite and the capitalists. However I would argue that the group possessing the majority of the power varies all the time, so a conclusive answer cannot be given.
We must also consider the equality in power, in so far as - the government or capitalist influences hold a greater ratio of power than the general population. An example would be that one man in the cabinet or the chairman of a nuclear arms dealership holds significantly more power than a single CND supporter. In this sense the balance of power will not be equal. It is only through the rallying and organisation of like-minded people that difference can actually be made. This is why there may never been an equality in the power held by different groups.
Nevertheless, in spite of these inequalities, they do prove that a balance of power is ever-present and ever-changing. This is why, in my opinion, the most concise definition of politics is that of consistent conflict and differences in power.
Bibliography: