Relating the Politics of UK with Steve Theory of Power - Essay Example

ESSAY By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Relating the Politics of UK with Steve Theory of Power Introduction The British constitution as mentioned by Paun and Hazel (2008, p.3) is based on a dynamic balance between the political trends that are dynamically decentralized freed by devolution and formal centralized power that goes beyond devolution. The unsettled tensions flanked by the aspects of territorial politics in Britain have since 2007 come into the open when the dominance of Labour Party all through UK ended. Without a doubt, power is a phrase that has experienced much debate and discourse, given that its meaning has been developed and discussed by lots of people from different backgrounds; scholars, theorists, politicians, and scores of others. Power as mentioned by Shapiro (2006, p.147) is a term whose conception is important in understanding how humans live in and view their social world, since it is a model that manages our day-to-day way of life in a number of ways. Steven Lukes, a social and political theorist, describes power based on what he terms as ‘dimensions'. Such faces or dimensions of power are methods, which can be utilised to study the relations of power. In this case, three dimensions of power, which Lukes terms as ‘conceptual analysis” are used to study the theory of power. Lukes explains an inherent proposition that the effectiveness as well as level of power in any institution may be examined through these criteria (Lukes, 2005, p.15). The three dimensions of power are in this essay associated with the UK politics and power, which has become a topic of growing concern in the modern literature. Discussion Three conceptual maps are sketched by Lukes, revealing the differentiating attributes of three views of power: the one-dimensional view (the pluralist view); the two-dimensional view (the critics’ view of pluralism); and the three-dimensional view (the third view of power). The one-dimensional view of power concentrates on decision making, behaviour, observable (overt) conflict, key issues, interests (subjective), perceived as preferences of policy shown by political involvement. Two-dimensional view of power concentrates on control and decision-making over the political agenda (not essentially by means of decisions); potential and existing issues, observable (covert and overt) conflict; interests (subjective), perceived as policy grievances or preferences. Finally, the three-dimensional view of power concentrates on control and decision making over the political agenda, potential and existing issues; observable (covert or overt) as well as dormant conflict, and real as well as subjective interests (Lukes, 2005, p.18). Lukes hold the view that the first and second dimensions of power are insufficient; arguing that the third dimension of power is an adequate way of examining the relations of power. The third dimension of power as stated by Likes subsists where the public are made to experience domination and comply with that domination. The intentional standpoint enables certain people to foresee and expound the behaviour of others in a manner that is unrecognisable to those agents. In this dimension, the agents are denied their privileged access to their personal motives for actions. Modern politics in UK offers an ideal example of how truth and power are entangled taking into account the ‘cuts are necessary’ statement. According to DeLong (2011), this is not a policy statement; rather it is a statement of fact that is disputed. So, the present coalition government’s power depends on the majority accommodating the verity of this statement. The coalition government political support as mentioned by DeLong (2011) is not their main source of power, bearing in mind that the present government composed of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party was constituted because no party got the majority votes in the previous election. So, their lawfulness depends on most Britons accommodating the verity of the “cuts are necessary” statement. The Labour Party leadership has time and again condemned the coalition based on their policies, and not over the verity of this statement. The enormous civil society mobilisation in 2011 steered by its activists in London was a test to the verity of the “cuts are necessary” statement, instead of just attacking the policies of the coalition government (DeLong, 2011). However, there exists no substitute to truth or, instead, falsehood can be the best substitute to truth; so, individuals who cast-off the truth can be seen as deficit-deniers. This connotes that it is not rational to just differ with the truth, one have to deny it. So, the setback of the civil society activists during the 2011 protests was to persuade the public that the “cuts are necessary” statement was not true, but a lie; this could have proved that the government lacked the legitimacy, and for that reason had no power. In UK, the youth akin to their older contemporaries, seem to be doubtful of the manner the political system in UK is led and organised. DeLong (2011) posits that dissatisfaction with the political system in UK has turned out to be a noticeable occurrence since 1970s and numerous studies exposing a dominant sense of discontent with the UK’s democracy functioning. In comparison with the young Italians, Americans, and Germans, Henn et al. (2002, p.69) paint undesirable portrait of the support of youthful Britons for political institutions as well as government, indicating a largely inauspicious sense of national identity as well as a vital personality towards the global role of UK. What is more, youth in UK do not have faith or trust the functioning of democracy. Currently, there seems to be a prevalent dissatisfaction with UK political institutions and politics, with latest indicators showing that youth are less engaged as compared to their cohorts in the older age. In case there is legitimacy crisis in UK pertaining to politics and power, then according to Henn et al. (2002, p.70) this crisis can be alleged to be profound if the young people are taken into account through traditional quantitative behavioural or attitudinal measures. Contrary to their cohorts in older age, youths in UK are less likely to take part in elections, to be political organisations’ members, show less or no interest in power and politics and are less inclined to provide party political identification (Henn et al., 2002, p.70). Additionally, most UK youths are dissatisfied with the politics operation and show extremely low system efficacy levels. So there is a historical political disconnection among youths in UK. Power has been a central sociological concern, its relationships can be organized around a various institutions, but in Britain, the main relationships are the market and political power: the market power (the economy) is the capacity to make use of labour or property, which is important in determining access to scores of social material resources. The political power (the state), is the right to impose directives with the help of law, and has turned out to be more and more prevalent through various areas of social life. In 1998, the laws enacted to establish new subnational institutions in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland highlight the division of power (executive and legislative responsibilities) between the subnational and national tiers of government. Even though there existed noteworthy differences between the three, in each the pertinent legislature outlined numerous policies where bodies at the subnational level would have no part (Paun & Hazel, 2008, p.4). Such reserved powers consisted of defence as well as foreign relations; consumer protection, regulation of businesses, in addition to the labour market; policy on immigration and asylum; social security; the constitution; and the energy strategy. This is theoretically evidenced by Luke’s second dimension of power, which concentrates on policy preferences shown by political involvement. In this case, the control of the civil justice and criminal systems are retained by the UK government, save for Scotland. These ‘exclusive competences’ provision of UK government is not rare in decentralised political systems, but a number of the reserved powers in UK case are worth noting. For instance, the UK has monopolised its taxation and social security system with the intention of maintaining the status of the country as a single social and economic space, which is rare, and is certainly the basis of hullabaloo in the UK. Predictably, the reserved powers effect is to limit policy independence at subnational level (Paun & Hazel, 2008, p.8). Still, a more notable facet of devolution in UK might be the virtual significance of the devolved policy areas such as education, health, culture, local government, lots of transport responsibilities, and the environment. Debatably, the rationality of British devolution is for a clear delineation of powers. Lack of provision for ‘shared competences’ of periphery and centre, or what Paun and Hazel (2008, p.6) terms as framework powers at least for Northern Ireland and Scotland set centrally to limit the magnitude of policy discrepancy. Therefore, the devolved institutions have for that reason managed to develop policy that considerably varies from the England one, and frequently despite the disapproval of British government: the proportional representation introduction for Scotland’s local government as well as the obliteration of Wales’ pharmaceutical charges are two notable examples. This can be related to the second dimension of power, which comprises of more subtle non-decision making and observable decision making. UK in this case does not exhibit upright decision making, given that decision making is a choice of one option from various alternatives, rather they exhibit non-decision making, which involves overpowering an interest conflicting the standpoint of decision-makers. Shapiro (2006) study differentiate between actual and potential political issues, in so doing drawing a different metamorphosis from the view of the pluralist that just view the ‘main' issues, which are essentially in the discourse. In view of UK politics and devolution, one can conclude that power cannot at all times be derived from observable behaviour. This is recognised by Lukes two dimensional view of power, which states that the power mechanisms as well as the manner it functions can rise above what meets the eye. Therefore, power is not merely focused on the struggles inside the governmental and political system, but is existent in determining what may and cannot be incorporated into these systems; defining the system boundaries (Lukes, 2005, p.16). Functionalism, a dominant sociological theory claimed that the worst extremes of capitalism can be prevailed over by the welfare state and mixed economy. Economically, this consensus was uttered through the power of Keynesian theory with the highlighting focussing on the positive role played by the government in regulating the economies of the market. Politically, the acceptance of this view was voiced through the pluralism. Basically, criticism on pluralism surfaced from top theorists, but Marxism is a theoretical position that drew a lot of support all through the 1970s. Progressively, the political theory arose to reveal the broadening gap in politics of Britain, whereby the liberal democracy was critiqued all sides. For instance, the Marxists generally claimed that liberal democracy was a mock while the New Right argued that it was destructive to capitalism. They both held the view that the confrontational politics signified a continuous change or of policies constantly and that for politicians to win their respective sought after political position meant that they had to make improbable promises. Additionally, scholars like Paun and Hazel (2008) believed that pressure group politics was overloading the government, and as a result it caused economic inefficiency. The analysis of UK’s state power is significantly important since there is the need to rise above the democratic standpoint on politics. Lukes sees the power at the government and state level as being one and no different. In UK, politicians believe that if they win in the election and form a government, they have also won the state power control. These politicians see the government as the state controller, but relating this notion with Lukes’ power dimensions, then the state should is used by government because it is, unbiased and easily accessible. Nevertheless, underneath the visible and democratic public expression of voted politicians, there exists the secret state with no power. The secret state includes non-elected institutions that enjoy considerable independence, and which have a tendency to be secretive and closed. Such secret states do not have power for the reason that they are responsible for parliament and controlled by the government, or are legally inhibited. Conclusion In conclusion, politics and power in UK has been related with the three dimensions of powers as theoretically presented by Steve Lukes. It has been argued that territorial politics in UK have been changed by the surfacing of governments with opposing political agendas. For this reason, through their power to set a constitutional reform agenda, the subnational governments are looking for more powers. In spite of the strong formal powers at the centre, the British government have not succeeded to contain such developments. As exhibited by numerous studies. With regard to attitudes and behaviour, UK youths are unquestionably less positively inclined to processes within the political sphere as compared to their cohorts in older age. UK politics in this essay has been related to the Lukes’ three appearances or dimensions of power: that is decision-making (as evidenced in the politics of devolution), which focuses on the decision makers activities like government departments. Another power dimension that has been discussed in the essay is the non-decision making (whereby subnational governments are given power to decide but limited to making certain decisions), and it focuses on the manner in which power is utilised so as to limit the pool of decisions where decision makers make their choices from. The third dimension is rooted in shaping desires, wherein people’s beliefs and attitudes are manipulated in order to accept decisions that they are not interested in. References DeLong, D., 2011. Foucault's new conceptualisation of power. [Online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/1833116/Foucaults_new_conceptualisation_of_power [Accessed 24 January 2015]. Henn, M., Weinstein, M. & Wring, D., 2002. A generation apart? Youth and political participation in Britain. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 4, no. 2, pp.167–92. Lukes, S., 2005. Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Paun, A. & Hazel, R., 2008. Centralised Power and Decentralised Politics in the Devolved UK. IACFS Conference Paper. London: IACFS. Shapiro, I., 2006. On the Second Edition of Lukes’ Third Face. POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW, 4, pp.146–55. Read More