Forms of Power

                   
Bertrand Russell was a wellknown mathematician, writer, philosopher
and statesman. In his essay, forms of power, he talks of how power can
corrupt people when it gets out of control. The potentialities of
power for evil have become much in this century than ever before.
Nuclear fission, aeroplanes and space satellites have given great
rulers unlimited powers, and media like radio and television have
extended the power of rulers over their own subjects and influence
over others. In his book ‘Power’ from which this extract has been
taken, deals with the various aspects of power and authority.
Russell classifies power in the manner in which it influences
people—a- by direct physical power over his body eg-when an individual
is imprisoned or killed- (as when it happened at Tianenmen Square in
China or as happening in Libya) b- by rewards or punishments
(promotions in jobs or withholding increments) c-propaganda (as in
Anna Hazares hunger strike). According to Russell, man exercises all these kinds of power directly
over animals when he gets them to do work for him. In a satirical
manner, he mentions that the same is exemplified in humans
too—reference to Nazi power. He also generalizes when he talks of army
and police using physical power over body, economic organizations
using incentives and dismissals, schools, churches  influencing
opinions.According to Russell, Law is a set of rules set by the govt to deal
with its own citizens-eg- fines(when traffic rules are broken) are
meant to make the action undesirable not impossible. Law, therefore to
be effective, has to have favourable opinion and sentiment of the
public.( eg reopening of the jessica lal’s case)
Another distinction Russell makes is between traditional power(as in
royalty when power passes from father to son) and newly acquired
power( as in the case of dictators like quaddaffi or
castro)Traditional power according to Russell, has religious sanction
which says resistance is wicked-and therefore the holders of
traditional power feel secure in their rule- until misuse of it in
form of injustice – it will be overthrown( as was during the French
revolution or more recently that of Saddam Hussain.)
 The third kind of power classification is naked power  which could be
in the form of internal tyranny(Phomn Penh in Cambodia)or of foreign
conquest(the British rule in India)But conquest has had its own
consequences- (conquests by Alexander the great brought in cultural
changes)- therefore Russell says that conquest by military power has
helped the spread of civilisation(India is a prime example of this-)
When traditional power ends, it can be succeeded, not by naked power,
but by a revolutionary authority that has the acceptance of the
majority(Indian struggle for independence)
 Russell also makes the comment that the difference between
traditional, revolutionary and naked power is psychological in that
each can succeed only if they command general respect. Each kind would
fail and give way to the other when respect wanes.
Russell further classifies power depending on its usage- eg, he says
power is revolutionary when it is used by a large no. of people united
under a common roof as in a religion ( when Protestantism first began
or communism was introduced in China). Power , he says is naked when
it is exercised by a power loving individuals or groups(like dictators
like hosni mubarak of egypt) and rules overits subjects through fear
and submission, not active participation.
 Another interesting observation that Russell makes is that of power
of organisations (like those of political parties- congress/bjp/ dmk
etc) and power of individuals within the organisation(like that of
sonia gandhi/sushma swaraj/stalin etc) this is true in plutocracy
also(rule by the rich)where hereditary rules( dhirubhai’s sons took
over the company after their father) in power by organizations,
individuals rise to the top because they suited the need of that time,
eg Lenin was fit for the 19 century, but would not have succeeded in
today’s political scenario. When power is achieved through learning( as in medieval times Church
was all powerful as were the mutts and temples of hinduism) it is
strongest where ignorance is high and low where people are
educated(because they question the veracity of the dictums as happened
in the catholic church when abortions were banned)
It is accepted that growth of knowledge leads to growth of
civilisations-but it does not lend itself to power hungry individuals-
because no longer remains mysterious- and therefore does not lead to
awe and respect-the electrician and the scientist are treated on par
as long as they make our life comfortable. At the same time, Russell
opines that men of learning inspired respect, not so much for genuine
knowledge, but for supposedly magical powers, and since science has
disproved magic, so too the respect for learned men like priests,
fakirs or medicine-men.In the 20-21 century, the growth of large economic organisations(like
Infosys, Microsoft, Apple)has seen the emergence of of a new type of
powerful individual- the executive(Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ratan
tata) who take quick decisions make fast insight into character,
inspires respect in equals and subordinates equally, and  can be both
a tough negotiator and a diplomat, depending on the situation( Ratan
Tata in Singur in Bengal)
On the other hand in a democracy  are a group apart-they have to get
the support of their party first and then that of the general
public.The methodology they use for the above 2 situations are not
identical, and he has to be shrewd and smart to gain control over
both.  Sometimes the party ensures control over the public without the
magnetism of the individual as it happened in the case of Hitler(the
Nazi party).Again this is dependent on the needs of the time- in times
of war an impressive speaker , can, with the power of his words, gain
control of power, but would fail in times of peace when men of sound
judgement have power over the people in the situation.
 Successful dictators, according to Russell, are those who abolish
democracy like Lenin and Mussolini, who took advantage of the
instability in the country and established themselves. But ironically
after their death, their successors failed because the very character
by which the dictatorship succeeded, changed creating instability,
palace intrigue and sometimes reversion  to some different system( as
in Russia when Gorbachov had to step down in favour of Boris Yeltsin
who created a different kind of dictatorship).Russell explores a different kind of power exercise, as done by thosewho pull the strings backstage, much like puppeteers (as the case with
neira radia) they do not hanker for glory, but enjoy the unseen power
they have on the dictators- they could be secretaries to ministers, or
mistresses of kings  and as a rule this kind of power is undesirable
since it will not contribute to the promotion of general welfare.