We’re Taking Over Power
Lying in a writhing mess, the embrace between power and politics has turned
what was meant to be a champion for justice into a festering pit of corruption. Power
here being defined by Magstadt (Mg) as “the capacity to influence or control behavior of
persons and institutions, whether by persuasion or coercion” (Mg, 3), and politics as
“the process by which a community selects rulers and empowers them to make
decisions, takes action to attain common goals, and reconciles conflicts within the
community” (Mg, 3). Politics is inexorably linked to power as two sides of the same coin
for politics without power accomplishes nothing and power without politics is just a tool
with no governance. To combat this people must engage themselves in the political
arena so that they can have a say in their lives and futures. If the mass of people unite
in the hopes of a common good then public interest can be made the forefront of policy.
My thesis is if people are ever going to stand against corporate and private interests
successfully then they must unite for a greater good and become directly involved in the
politics that govern their lives.
There are a myriad of ways that power can be expressed. The two main
categories of power are “hard” power and “soft” power. Hard power is defined in
international politics as “the use of military force or threat to use force or other coercive
measures such as freezing foreign assets or imposing strict economic sanctions” (Mg,
476), whereas soft power is “the ability to get others to want what you want by example
and moral suasion, as well as respect and admiration earned through the success of
your ideas, institutions, and actions in the world” (Mg, 477). Some of the biggest
players when it comes to power are leaders, states, and corporations all of whom are
engaged in a balance of power system: “a classic theory of international relations that
holds that nations of approximately equal strength will seek to maintain the status quo
by preventing any one nation from gaining superiority over the others. In a balance-ofpower system, participating nations form alliances and frequently resort to war as a
means of resolving disputes, seizing territory, gaining prestige, or seeking glory” (Mg,
461). So leaders, states, and corporations all wield power to advance their particular
politics however since no one wants anyone else to get too far ahead everyone works
together to maintain a status quo strategy: “a national policy of maintaining the existing
balance of power through collective security agreements diplomacy, and negotiation, as
well as through legitimizing instruments, such as international law and international
organizations (Mg, 465).” Multinational corporations are in particular disturbing as they
can wield both hard and soft power. The reason they can manage both is because they
are not restricted in any particular capacity and can afford incredible expenditure. As
such they are free to go about their business almost in secret as they see fit. With the
money to back up any plan they need a corporation can just as easily fund a PMC to
stabilize an area for exploitation of resources or they can lobby for whatever it is they
want at the moment. A leader can also wield hard and soft power whether it be a
politician such as Abraham Lincoln (Mg, 314) or a citizen-leader: “an individual who
influences government decisively even though he or she holds no official government
position” (Mg 307) such as Wael Ghonim (Mg, 330). Political leaders in government
decide the fate of the nation and as such can yield soft power through its actions and if
that fails a leader can always rally whatever army he or she has and send them to war
in force as a form of hard power whereas the citizen-leader such as Ghonim can use
technology to communicate and coordinate something as immense as a revolution or
Rosa Parks (Mg, 328) who first led by example, soft power. So leaders, states, and
corporations all have a role to play with power on the political stage whether it be hard
or soft.
Leaders are in a unique position of power because the power rests with the
individual as opposed to a body with more than one opinion, so inherently the leader
wields enormous power. This can invariably be used for incredible means whether it is
wielded by a statesman: “a political leader who possesses, vision, personal charisma,
practical wisdom, and concern for the public good and whose leadership benefits
society” (Mg, 307) or a demagogue: “someone who uses his or her leadership skills to
gain public office through appeals to popular fears and prejudices and then abuses that
power for personal gain” (Mg, 307). One person of note that could be seen as both is
Vladimir Putin (The Putin System - TPS). This individual yields power in every cunning
way he can. He learned the power of setting up business contacts in Dresden, East
Germany during his days in the KGB. Contacts such as these allowed him to fund
initiatives to combat the winter of 1991. In St. Petersburg Putin during his charge as the
head of privatization he barters with his German contacts to trade oil for food and learns
of the power of energy. His stay with the KGB also taught him a plethora of corrupt
practices such as framing the prosecutor who sought to find millions in embezzled funds
by filming him sleeping with prostitutes or the accusation of legal violations such as
those he accused the oligarchs of like tax evasion which he then used to send them to
jail or force them to flee. Later on to achieve victory in the Ukraine one can easily
believe that it was Putin’s doing that had the Pro-Western candidate for parliament
disfigured with acid and when that was not enough returning to the idea of energy being
power Putin cut off all gas to the Ukraine as a method of hard power to force them to
bow to his will, Russian importation of Ukrainian goods was even stopped. This form of
hard power achieved his goal of acquiring a pro-Russian prime minister for the Ukraine.
Also through Gazprom Putin is able to nationalize the cost of operation and privatize the
profits giving him access to incredible wealth. Gazprom also allowed for the purchase
of NTV which allowed Putin to control the final piece of media that was holding out
against him. Another method of Putin’s propaganda is his youth movement the Nashi.
By seeking to restore Russia to its former glory Putin kindles hope in those who can
remember the days of pride and prestige and among the youth he instills a new desire
for a strong Russia, one that can achieve all of Putin’s dreams. Thus Putin is in a
position where he controls all of government unopposed by other political parties,
controls a major source of energy for Europe, controls the media, and has sparked in
Russians a desire for the greatness Putin believes they can achieve.
At this point in history corporations now wield such power that they are more
likely to dictate foreign policy than adhere to it (Ethos). This is largely due to
globalization: “the process by which values, attitudes, preferences, and products
associated with the most technologically advanced democracies is being spread around
the world via mass media and trade” (Mg, 467) corporations now wield a power that can
over shadow governments as they are now a multinational corporation: “a company that
conducts business in more than one country; major MNC’s operate on a global scale”
(Mg, 492). So the politics of the corporation can be sunk deep into wherever they can
expand their empire and effectively ignore justice: “fairness; the distribution of rewards
and burdens in society in accordance with what is deserved” (Mg, 9). Corporations are
dangerous because they are unaccountable to anyone other than the bottom line by law
(Ethos). This motivation for profit puts a nasty spin on everything done and adds
callousness to the business. In fact the corporation is so detached that it is entirely a
third party separate from any one individual in the organization, so it doesn’t matter if
the individual thinks it might be morally wrong to go through with a business matter
because it is the right thing to do for the corporation and so it is done. For instance the
former head of Shell agreed with the protesters who went to vandalize his house that he
too was concerned about the environment and what could be done (The Corporation).
However this does not matter because his individual sentiments don’t guide the
corporation so despite his best wishes the overall impact of the corporation is still a
negative one. As stated in the film The Corporation by the corporate intelligence agent,
meetings where corporations such as Shell and Coke were hobnobbing with the
military, intelligence agencies, PMC’s and such were not uncommon. Corporations can
use hard power to enforce their will such as when they tried to privatize water in Bolivia.
The corporation Bechtel used the Bolivian government and military to try and suppress
the people from revolting against the new law. However more often than not
corporations are known for their soft power, that is dubiously assuaging politicians to do
their nefarious bidding. Such as with Monsanto and rGBH or its other number of patents
on what some call the very designs of life or their suicide seeds or through mass media:
“the vehicle of mass communication, such as television, radio, film books, magazines,
and newspapers”(Mg, 265). Corporations already have astounding power and with no
one to govern them other than themselves they seek to consume everything in their
path in hopes of greater profits.
Even the lives of average citizens are affected by the ambitions of corporations.
As is said in Bill Moyer's Journal you can have wealth concentrated in a few hands or
you can have democracy, you can’t have both so since corporations are gathering such
great wealth among so few individuals they are essentially standing in the way of
democracy. For instance big agriculture in Iowa sought to spread manure from factory
pig farms over frozen ice which would have affected the environment, and House File
2324 is an attempt by corporate agriculture to gut clean water protections that were
enacted by the legislature the previous year. More often than not citizens pay the price
for corporations this is a process of externalization (The Corporation). So corporations
are willing to make others pay the price for their profits. Another prime example is in
This is What Democracy Looks Like as people protested against the negotiations of the
World Trade Organization WTO in Seattle. The WTO weakens democracies by forcing
its members to adhere to their rule set. By imposing their will on the very means of
labor in a nation they affect the livelihood of each person. As such the mass people
protested against the vested interests of the few and they were squelched with violence.
However all is not lost, the people who fought against House File 2324 won, people can
make a difference if they unite, and by the same token the presence of the protesters
empowered third world representatives to also help the close the WTO (This is What
Democracy Looks Like). People can make a difference if they unite as the saying goes,
“El pueblo unido nunca sera vencido” (This is What Democracy Looks Like).
It would seem as though the nature of power in politics is one of a symbiotic
relationship, they need each other, however what is done with them can either be for
the greater good or for private interests. So if people are to successfully move towards
a positive future then they need to actively participate and take control of their lives
otherwise someone else who is looking to exploit them will more than happily take
control for them.
Works Cited
Bill Moyer's Journal Iowa Citizens. Dir. Bill Moyer. N.d. Online.
The Corporation. Dir. Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. 2004.
Ethos. Dir. Pete McGrain. N.d. Online.
Magstadt, Thomas. Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions & Issues. N.p.: n.p., n.d.
Print.
This Is What Democracy Looks Like. Dir. Rick Rowley and Jill Friedberg. N.d. Online.