The Power 1/2

Our World Is in Full Transformation

New forms of totalitarianism, more or less obvious, are emerging here and there, redefining our framework for understanding power. It is a polymorphic term that nonetheless always refers to a similar reality. It is often used to describe authority in politics, as in Montesquieu's theory of the three branches of government. In political sociology, Max Weber defines it as "the capacity entrusted to an authority or person to use the means appropriate to exercise the competence attributed to them, either by law or by mandate, also called 'procuration'." This is the most common understanding of power—the one that previously allowed Montesquieu to develop his theory in The Spirit of the Laws.

Yet, even within the political sphere alone, the concept seems outdated. It represents a limited and narrow vision of power. We have seen in the United States how social networks and influencers impact elections. Historically, journalism has already been considered the fourth estate since the 19th century.

Moreover, in other domains, the term is used to qualify varied situations. It is discussed in relation to companies and economic power, or the power of money. In the realm of creation, to describe extraordinary abilities—Harry Potter, comics, Marvel and DC. We also speak of the stripping power of a cleaning product, or purchasing power.

So, what is the reality of power?

According to the Le Robert dictionary, power can be defined as the fact of "having the possibility of" doing something. It is also "having the right, the permission to" do something. This definition marks the very essence of the question of power. It is a capacity for individual action, an attribute of individuality. However, the study of its synonyms and antonyms—control, domination, sovereignty, dependence, submission, or subordination, among others—highlights a secondary but essential dimension of the concept: the interaction between two entities. Thus, the definition retained in public international law appears more complete. It is "the capacity to act, to refrain from acting, to make others act, or to prevent others from acting." It encompasses both the personal and interpersonal dimensions of power. We have power over ourselves, over ourselves and over others. Since the definition of power in public international law is the most precise and concise, let us examine how it expresses itself.

Science, ethnology in particular, has shown that the idea of a state of nature, as conceived by philosophers from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, never truly existed. Even our distant ancestors and cousins—chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.—live in small communities with rules and hierarchy. Aristotle was right when he said that "Man is a political animal." Human beings are not capable of living alone in the long term. They are made for, and owe their survival to, life in community. In extreme situations precisely, it is groups, especially those that manage to remain organized, that survive the longest. Yet, if this reality never existed at the individual level, at the state and supranational level, the situation is different. At this level, there was no obligation for cooperation until recently. Each entity or country is free to act according to its own decisions within the limits offered by its strength. Even though since 1945 and the establishment of the UN things have evolved, the situation remains free in principle. This is not a plea for or against the organization of international political life. The subject is far removed. But the situation is a good illustration of what a state of nature can be, in its advantages and disadvantages.

From this example of international society and the definition of the notion of power, what conclusions can we draw? First, power is always linked to an entity, an individual. On the international stage, it concerns states and large corporations. Decisions are not made alone. A reality can evolve independently of individuals—for example, in the event of a natural disaster, or simply through the passage of time. However, this is not a decision; it is the environment that evolves and changes. For there to be power, there must be an expression of will. Will itself is the expression of a choice. Will can only be, by essence, to mark reality, to change it, to make it evolve. As for the definition of choice, that is another subject. To be brief, even following the movement or refusing to act can be a choice in its own right. Refusing to mark reality with a decision is already a possible choice in relation to all possible evolutions of that reality.

At this level, power has no particular form. An enumeration of powers makes no sense, except to limit them. The state or the company decides. It makes a decision. The decision is a fact. This capacity to make a decision, to enforce a will, is power—not the decision itself. For derivatives of power such as legislative, executive, or judicial power, for example, the scope of power is defined in its means and its object. But power has no predefined form in itself. This is precisely how it can be determined as raw.

In practice, this raw power rarely exists. Abstract omnipotence does not exist. It is the mechanics of community that apply. Power being the will to modify reality through a decision, this modification is not always possible in fact. Elements can oppose it. Reality itself is the first limit. A company can decide to stop the sun from moving so that people work and consume 24 hours a day. The effect will remain ineffective. Power does not appear ex nihilo or in abstracto. It is impossible for it to stop celestial mechanics for that purpose. At a lesser level, a company can decide that its product is wonderful. If it does not meet a market and demand, the product will remain in stock.

But other factors can limit this power. Another power of equal or greater intensity, or even a coalition of weaker powers, can prevent an entity from, failing to make a decision, at least from implementing it. One can even imagine that the entity self-limits by transferring part of its authority and sovereignty to an organization. This is the case for the European Union, for which member states have transferred part of their competencies within the limits in which it can legislate on the states themselves.

The community is indeed a system of individuals, each endowed with power and more or less able to use it according to the forces at play. This is true for the international community, which is a community of fact. Each entity is obliged to interact with other entities at this level, whether it wants to or not. This is also true at the individual level with national communities and sub-communities that can exist down to the individual level. Each level, in this case, consisting of a smaller number of individuals, more or less chosen.

The last characteristic of power is its interactive dimension. Power does not express itself in itself. A word has no value. It is the action associated with it that has value. Thus, power applies to someone or something. At the international level, the power of an entity will apply both to other entities at its level—states, companies—but also to the elements composing these individualities: citizens, employees, etc. But more broadly than applying to other holders of power, it can apply to reality itself. The decision of a country or a company to begin drilling or to build a port is power. It is even the original power, that of organizing and modifying one's own environment.

If the international situation perfectly illustrates a raw and primitive vision of power and inter-entity relations at the state level, we can by analogy extend the concept of power to the individual level. Human beings are indeed individuals endowed with characteristics in common with states and companies. They are capable of will and action. They are therefore in a position to exercise power over reality and within their community.

A comments section will be coming soon. Until then, you can leave your comments here.