Strategic Power

I have argued that parties are associations of individuals who from time-to-time come into conflict with one another over principles, priorities or policies. But when individuals act or come into conflict with one another they do not do so in a vacuum. The contexts in which they operate (for example, local parties, parliament, party conferences) are, especially in formal organisations and institutions, subject to certain rules and codes which govern not only conduct but the basic functions of the organisation itself: how policy is made, how candidates and officers are selected, how members are recruited and so on. Such rules could be accepted as neutral arbiters, that is, as the means by which fair competition is facilitated, but another way of looking at them is as a key source of imbalances in power. Rules are the means by which power is mediated, amplified and perpetuated because they are controllable and manipulable by those in a position to do so (often, but by no means always, elites). My argument in this chapter is that although, by exercising Individualistic Power agents can achieve their goals, consideration also has to be given to their starting positions and those of their rivals. A party leader, as well as having more resources, may have more scope to bend or bypass rules in her favour than a local activist, or to press for change in those rules so as to exclude certain voices from being heard at all.

Argument (complex analysis) · Business · Competition (biology) · Individualism · Law and economics · Parliament · Political science · Politics · Position (finance) · Power (physics) · Public relations · Scope (computer science) · Sociology · Subject (documents) · Computer Science · Law · Political Systems and Governance