Talk:Power (politics)

Political Authority[edit]

I notice political authority redirects here - is this actually the same thing as political power?134.219.158.221 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POWER ABUSE[edit]

Power politics needs to be defined clearly or else people will get confused and think POWER ABUSE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.197.118 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

Umm, this article is missing something. What IS political power???

-G

--- The question of power has received rather thorough theoretical treatment within political science, and from different perspectives within it such as in international relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_in_international_relations

it seems like this article should include this, or set to distinguish itself from this.

I added in a quote from Hannah Arendt with a definition of power. I intend to add a little more in the article. Needs thinking about as although I find Arendt's definition compelling and coherent it is not mainstream within political theory and so would need caveats but the comment above illustrates the value of Arendt. Oxford73 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ON POWER PERSONIFIED:

There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power:

It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin.

Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee.

The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence.

Find it at: [1]

--Scroll1 22:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What IS political power???

It is a combination of an ability to get people to vest you with authority, ie, that they are willing to obey you, combined with the information required to use that authority to get things you want done.

Initially a dictator can get things done, because the fear that comes later, has not yet paralysed information channels required to be able to use immense power with knowledge. As fear grows, so information channels fail, leaving dictators in a fantasy world which unhelpfully fails to match reality. At this stage people tell a dictator what he or she wants to hear, not what they need to know. This is why political power is fleeting for dictatorships and most dictatorships fail soon after the first dictator departs.

Democracy has a clever trick of removing authority when politicians lose the plot with information. This is a neat check, the balance is that a democratic assembly is a superb system of providing information the rulers need. If the rulers follow the information a democratic assembly provides they will not only have great political power, but will keep their jobs. This is the balance.

Informaton + Authority permits Political Power. It's as simple as that.

Ths article could use some actual political philosophy and history instead of random ideas of what someone thinks political power is. Just for starters political power can never come from a single person. You must separate strength from power. For more information on these concepts and for clearer definitions read through Hannah Arendt's work or find someone to write this article that has read more of her work than I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.236.56 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why African Coutries degenerate into political dictatorship immediately afetr independent. ==

1. External influene from other countries. - Immediately after independent, the colonialist did not fully withdraw from the African countries, they still possesed the largest fertile land, owned large bukldings. Their influence can still be felt. Take for example South Africa where major decesions can not be done without consulting the elite. The plundering of resources in west african states where the same are exported to Countroies outside Africa, the same is exchaged with guns, bullets. 2. Protection of their wealth. the dictators in Africa has ammased so much wealth, they are so rich that they feel if anonther person comes into power, his wealth will be under threat. so they hold on to power. Mobutu of Zaire is an example, the former dictaor, since deceased was so rich that he could not imagine his wealth being taken away under his watch. 4. Protection of their families. Most African countries degenerate into autocratic regimes as a way of protecting themselves and their families, they belief that if another president comes into power, his misdeeds will be unravelled, and the expresident can be put on trial together with their families. 6. Fear of arrest by International courts, The current example is the Presdent of Sudan, as per now it will be difficult to convince such a person to surrrender power to another person as he will feel insecure. 5. Protection of terorists. In somalia for example, the govermanet is in total collapse since the fall of their president. there has been entrants of runaway criminals such as alquaeda which has set base there. they fear that if a new centralised goverment is installed, they will be exposed. 7. Reward of cronies. In zibabwe, the surporters of the presidents party Zanu PF has been invading white owned farms under the oresidents watch. neither the police nor the army has done anything to stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.151.69 (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Arendt[edit]

I would like to add in a bit about Arendt's definition of power. Any comments from anyone? Oxford73 (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]