The battle between propaganda and populism in the America elections.

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” – Malcolm X.

I have never seen the full force of propaganda and populism at work than in the 2016 American Presidential elections, with both Candidates religiously adhering to the Principle of “propaganda and deceit”.

Clinton has used the media machinery at her disposal to execute a total annihilation of Trump’s image beyond repairs. Whilst on the other hand, Donald Trump plays on the emotions and the long standing non-empirical fears and concerns of Americans.

Clinton’s effective propaganda machinery cannot wholly be blamed on Trump’s lose talks sometimes, but can be credited to the biased media outlets in the USA. To make matters worse, the rest of the world swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker and heightened the fears thrown out by Team Clinton against her opponent.

All advanced constitutional democracies are built to be robust and not be “a one-man show”. As advanced as America’s democracy appears to be, and with the strict practice of separation of powers, why do people intentionally create the impression that Trump will be out of control once elected? Are we being told that the almighty American political system of about 200 years is not as robust as it has always been painted?

On the other hand, Donald Trump has done more damage to himself than Team Clinton could have envisioned. His hard talk was enough to win him the primaries, but he should have realized that the national elections goes beyond the ideals of Republicans. His bundling of facts and sometimes unsubstantiated claims has exposed his political naivety.

His isolationist policies, scandals involving women, and loose talks took a lot of the shine away from his campaign. His name has been continually mentioned in the media, but for the wrong reasons.

This battle between propaganda and populism was more profound during their three encounters at the presidential debates. Like others, I expected the Presidential debate of Almighty America to be pregnant with policy ideas, but to my disappointment, unnecessary propaganda, populism and innuendoes took center stage with virtually nothing of policy relevance coming to play. Characteristically, Clinton answered the question of “how are you going to create jobs” by saying “Trump has evaded taxes”, as Trump answered the same by saying “Senator Clinton is a disaster and has been keeping emails”.

How does any of these answers put food on the table of the young Americans in the street?

As a by-stander and a student of politics and policy, I know America is torn between the Devil and the Red Sea. But for the two, I prefer the former, after all, I can bargain with the Devil.

In the context of bad judgment as exemplified in the Libya and Iran case, deceit and “politricks” of Clinton, and the Populism and political naivety of Trump, I prefer the latter. I’m convinced that the American political system can sober the hotheadedness of Trump.

Don’t judge a book by its cover!

Introduction

Moises Naim in his book “End of Power” challenges the traditional notion of power. He theorizes that power is easy to gain, difficult to use and hard to keep, in modern days. Backing his claim with numerous examples and testimonies from Authorities in various facets of human endeavor; from academia, economic, social, religious to the political, his book is an important addition to the discourse on the ever-changing power dynamics of the world. The question that readily arises is “is power ending?”

He premised his thesis on the “more”, “mobility” and “mental” revolutions, which are fostered through the “muscle”, “pitch”, “code” and “reward” channels of exercising power. He examined the changing constellations of power of the State, Political Institutions, International Bodies, Businesses and Multinational Corporations.

By “more revolution” he meant that the exponential growth in population, life span, internet usage, media and knowledge amongst others, have made difficult the control of people and the consolidation of power. The ease with which people can move across countries, in his opinion, has exacerbated the decay of power. More radical of his prepositions was the “mental revolution”. With people acquiring and seeking more knowledge, there is a higher propensity that they can make better judgments. This has resulted in a paradigm shift from the traditional way of perceiving power as sacrosanct and emboldened people to seek accountability and demand that their leaders are called to book, making them more difficult to control. With internet and virtual mobility, people are abreast with best practices, which now forms the bases for their demands on their respective leaders.

Resulting from these, he argues that the barriers to power are fading out making it easier for people to rise to the corridors of power. In his opinion, the widely accessible nature of modern day power constrains leaders in the application of their powers and consolidating or maintaining their hold on power. The fundamental question that it raises is “how has power reinforced itself under this growing order of “more”, “mobility” and “mental” revolutions”?

Notwithstanding the good disposition of ideas, the following questions remain unanswered;

1. Does power have different dimensions apart from “power over”?
2. What are the new barriers to entry?
3. Does deconcentrated/decentralization constitute a decay of power?
4. Is power not in an evolution unabated?

In this critique, I hope to examine the thesis of Moises Naim in his book “End of Power” by speaking to these questions and other observations he alluded to. Much of my focus will be on the power of the state and how it is used for greater efficiency. I seek to establish that power is involved in an evolution unabated which does not necessarily constitute a decay, and that along with every stage of the evolution of power, comes new barriers to entry. Under the current dispensation, power is more difficult to get, relatively easy to use and less difficult to maintain, using his conceptual framework of the “more”, “mobility”, and “mental” revolutions.

Definition of Power

Power is a normative concept that has transcended several generations. Its has been ascribed various definitions by various scholars from respective disciplines. It wields some social, political, managerial, cultural, legal and financial dimensions. It holds within itself many ways of expression; either the hard way or the soft application or both, and through different channels.

In his book “The End of Power”, Moises Naim defined power as “the capacity to get others to do, or to stop doing something.” This definition given by Moises Naim reinforces the notion of power as the ability to impose a superior will (power over) over a supposed subject in an environment of contesting values and will. This reflect the Weberian assertion of power as the chances of “a man or group to realize their own will” even in the face of opposition. His notion of power emphasizes that power is an ‘all win” affair where losing connotes weakness or in the words of the Former Dictator of Uganda, General Edi Amin, “a fading fist”.

This definition of power is narrow in scope. For this critique, I will define power as the ability to get things done. Power has several dimensions which include among others “power over”; “power with”; “power in”; and “power within”. Moises premised his fundamental argument of the decay of power on the first dimension of power (power over). Power is not always exercised over people, it may as well be defined in terms of one’s ability to accomplish a goal by himself or herself, and not having to involve an external agency (power within); people or states act as rational actors in pursuit of their interest and not fundamentally because they have been influenced (power in); and the coming together of persons of like-mind and stature to achieve an end (power with). But since the author’s interest was in the play out of power relations among parties, “power within” dimension won’t be applicable in this analysis. In the 21^st century, most power structures are in a seismic move towards decentralization (devolution) which promotes popular participation.

Decentralization(devolution) of power

With the attendant failures of the concentration of power, intricacies of growth and development, governance and failure of the old power order to meet the ever-increasing needs of society, new concepts of power relations were developed. Concepts like Human Resources Development and Management, New Public Management, Organizational theories amongst others emphasized the need to build consensus as a sustainable means of growth enhancement and state building as opposed to the traditional concept of power relation which found expression in impositions and orders. This model does not erase power structures but it flattens it and makes room for popular participation and contribution to decision making, with the head as the final decision maker. One major realignment of power structure and relation is the concept of devolution as a type of decentralization.

The concept of concentration of power has generally lost grounds in the 21^st century, paving way for decentralization (devolution of power); a new government and governance thinking. The concept of decentralization (“streamlining or re-arranging power or authority to provide a system of co-responsibility between governance institutions at the central, regional and local levels”) has globally shaped the line of development thinking, administration, and governance.

“Countries around the world are decentralizing key services to the local level to improve the efficiency of the state structure and bring decision making closer to the people affected by policy makers’ decisions”. – E.M. Bonsu.

All countries and power structures, whether democratic, despotic, corporate, private or public have not been left out in this seismic move towards being fully decentralized. The assertion of decay by Moises Naim represent a radical conclusion of a deliberate action at injecting efficiency into government and governance. This kind of dimension explain the expression of “power with” the people or subordinates.

The source of power for States

The Author fails to tell his readers what the source of state power is. That would have formed a good basis to understanding his analogy that state power is decaying. Referencing from his examples on the decay of the power of States, it is reasonable to infer that the Author was largely predisposed to concentration of state power. To understand his claim, the sources of power will be key especially in the case of State.

In the contract theory of the state, people gave up some of their rights to the state in exchange for protection. These powers that are exercised by states emanated from the sovereign will of their people. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln’s definitions of democracy, state power is power from the people, for the people and by the people. Without them there is no state.

Evidently so, the 4^th Republican Constitution of Ghana in Article 1 Clause 1 opens gracefully as;

“(1) The Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in this Constitution”. -1992 Constitution of Ghana

The Constitution of the United States of America in like manner opens as;

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^{[note 1]} promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – Wikipedia.

Like all other constitutions, it is readily admissible that power belong to the people. Almost all constitutions concede to this fact. It is therefore not admissible that a diffusion of power to the general populace, from whom state power emanates, constitute a decay.

Power of businesses and firms

The Author in his thesis on the decay of power in the economic and business fronts does not explain the context within which these business empires are built and the forces that safeguard or serve as barriers to their power. The elastic or inelastic nature of a company’s service or product goes a long way to ascribe some degree of power to it. A monopoly holds more power than firms in a competitive market. The market share of the firm may as well ascribe a degree of power to the said firm. In China, there was a deliberate effort by the State to invest in strategic sectors of the economy, to wit, some companies were given super-normal business advantages. In 2015, Ghana government invested an amount of $65million in the operations of ten (10) chemicals industries and granted them tax exemptions on the importation of raw material and machineries, all to boast the potential for growth of the sector. These factors among others, to some extent, defines the powers of these firms. Such firms will enjoy economies of scale and out-compete smaller and mushroom firms.

In most countries, State institutions exert a lot of power through their monopoly of vital institutions that provide public goods. In Ghana, the provision of public goods like water and electricity resides with quasi-government institutions established by Acts of Parliament. The Acts establishing these agencies have given them enough leverage to legitimize their power. Because of the essential nature of some of these commodities, legal barriers are mounted just to prevent influx from private sector.

States as rational actors

Another unarticulated point in his argument is that, people(states) may act the way they do not necessarily because they have been influenced, but because it is in their interest to do so. People (States) are rational actors who seek to maximize gains and minimize loses. States are economic actors who seek to maximize their gains, as was rightly pointed out by Henry Kazinger that “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interest”. That is the underlying principle of diplomacy; “state’s interest”.

His definition gives no credence to the capacity of power players to amalgamate toward the pursuit of common grounds and ideals or acting as rational actors. For example, membership to all international and sub-regional bodies are open decisions that States make or refuse to make on the balance of their varied interests. Without inducements and influence, the actions of all players in the power structure are tailored towards a need or agenda. South Africa, Burundi, Gambia and recently Russia have all expressed their interest to exit the International Criminal Court. The United Kingdom voted themselves out of the European Union in the popular “2016 Brexit referendum”. There exist several treaties that most States are not parties to because they perceive them as not serving their interests and vice versa.

States will align with the hegemon if their interests will be served and will be quick to oppose the dictates of the hegemon if its directives are endemic to their survival. North Korea in recent times has consistently flouted the dictates if the United States and other super powers in relation to their calls for an abatement of the nuclear plans of North Korea. Russia has neglected the calls of USA in its recent attacks on Syria. They do these not because they are micropowers but for the sole reason that their interest is at stake. A country in need of foreign grants will eat the humble pie to have what it wants. Power, on the global stage, is therefore expressed in terms of mutual benefits; a concept of meeting each state half full than half empty.

Evolution unabated

Power has been in a process of evolution unabated. The excessive control of information, knowledge and the little advancement in transportation, internet, globalization, in the earlier years of civilization enforced the traditional barriers and the concentration of power.

The ages from the Babylonian Empire in the 18^th century BC through the Persian Empire to the Pax Britannica (“British Peace”) in 1914 experienced different power dynamics and had threats to their consolidation of power. At various times in history, they felt major damages by micropowers. History is told of how King Darius of Persia ransacked the Babylonian Empire and how a young Greek, Alexander the Great, from nowhere became a de facto ruler of the world through conquest. Like the Hobbesian State of nature, man/states are in a perpetual search for power and that has continually been a headache for power wielders. The case in the days of the Empires are not markedly different from today, only that the brute and barbarian nature of the contest has changed, but has no less limited the contest for power between superpowers and micropowers.

I agree with the author that the three revolutions namely “more”, “mobility” and “mental” revolutions are the factors of the rapid evolution of power. That notwithstanding, these factors are not new to the process of power evolution, except that the alacrity with which these factors are metamorphosing power relations are been energized by the growth in knowledge, internet usage, easy mobility across countries, advancement in commerce, globalization, etc.

Moises Naim’s assertion that with the more, mobility, and mental revolutions, it has become increasingly difficult to control people and hard to consolidate power is not admissible. His assertion is too broad a claim especially when his predisposition is towards the centralization of power.  Decentralization of power makes easy the control of a large population through units, zones and electoral areas.

With every stage of the evolution process, comes, new barriers to entry. New barriers to entry emerge with the unique dynamics that the three revolutions present at each time. In todays business world, capital isn’t enough, neither are ideas sufficient. Even when a firm has the two factors, the firm is met with a fierce competition from existing companies, which mostly end up causing the death of mushroom firms at birth. In the political context, the three revolutions have created an enabling platform for competition which is mostly determined by a universal adult suffrage. Even in the traditional systems of dynasties like the United Kingdom and Ashanti Kingdom, it is difficult to decide now more that ever, because there are more people who qualify today to inherent these thrones than there have ever being. Person’s who emerge as winners in this system are the ones who defy the odds and are the “primus inter pares”.

FIGURE 1.

Figure 1 represents how power structure will always look like. Power structure is like a pyramid, even in traditional hereditary process as dynasties. In this pyramid are three segments; (a) people with equal opportunities; (b) people excelling in their trade; (c) the Leaders. For example, every student has an equal opportunity to pursue a career in Academia. Above them is a team of Professors and Instructors who are excelling in their trade. But for a Professor or Instructor to be referred to as an Authority in a subject matter, the individual should have done some extensive research or propounded some theories that his/her colleagues can speak to.

Like all other power relations, the three revolutions have rather made cumbersome the struggle for power. The value of the Leader is put to test by measuring his/her content against a societal standard and the value of other contesting opinions and characters.

Institutionalism and systems

In the 21^st century, effective application of power find expression in institutions and systems. When institutions and systems are made the foci of power, it engenders trust and cooperation from the citizenry rather than concentrating power in a single person. With the proliferation of knowledge comes the quest for predictability of power relations. It calls for a system of processes and procedures, redress mechanisms, rights and responsibilities, powers and mandates, selection procedures and an independent umpire who in the case of conflict, all other things been equal, would adjudicate the conflict without fear not favor.

Major Jimmi Wangome of the Kenyan Army recounts in his paper “Military coups in Africa–the African ‘neo-colonialism’ that is self-inflicted”, how Africa experienced twenty-one (21) coup d’états during the first phase of independence of 18 African countries from 1960 to 1969. These were days of high illiteracy and lesser appreciation of issues. Leaders in this post independence era concentrated power in themselves and sought to rule by the muscle and rewards. The opaque style of power relations contributed to the difficulty and resistance some leaders faced in controlling their citizens. Ghana was no exception.

It is easier to control people now than it was in the 1960s to1980s. This can be attributed to the rapid growth of the three revolutions. From 1966 to 1981 (15years), Ghana experienced five (5) different coups. With the introduction of a more predictable and open system from 1993 to 2016, Ghana has held five (5) successful elections. After the 2012 elections in Ghana, the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) and their Flag Bearer, Hon. Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo felt aggrieved with the electioneering processes. Contrary to the notorious image of post-election wars on the African continent, the opposition party petitioned to the Supreme Court of the Ghana. After eight (8) months of court sitting, the opposition party lost the case. In his after-verdict speech, he stated, “I disagree with the verdict but I accept it”. To decide to seek redress at the Supreme Court was an act of trust in the judicial system. In the US elections between Bush Jnr and Al Gore in 2000, because of the believe they had in their judicial system, both candidates were ready to abide by the verdict of the court.

Under systems and institutionalism, power is vested in the offices and not the person. The power of office holders co-terminates the very day their tenure ends. Power is communicated in laws and mandates, to wit, the parameters for exchanges between the power players are set.  The tenure of office and powers of Office holders, and the rights and responsibilities of subordinates are defined; it gives hope to opponents of the leader that they will have an opportunity to change the Leader someday. With such a predictable system, consolidation of power doesn’t become an issue because the mandate of Leaders is defined. For example, the President of University of British Columbia has specified power which co-terminates with his tenure of office. His powers are consolidated in his mandate, wherein, gives him a de jure interest in all policies enacted within his jurisdiction. There may exist an appellate body that can overturn an ultra vires decision he makes and to whom redress will be addressed to. With such a system, people will not be apprehensive even if they disagree with the leader because they know where to seek redress.

Figures 2 gives an insight into how the three revolutions interact with the four channels of expressing power.

Figure 2. Adopted and modified from Figure 4.1 in the End of Power (page 72)

Figure 2 represents an ideal picture of the evolution process and how it will shape power relations. The “more”, “mobility”, and “mentality” revolutions have “undeniable positive consequences in the 21^st Century.

Moises Naim posits in his book that this has led to “freer societies, more elections and options for voters, new platforms for organizing communities, more ideas and possibilities, more investments and trade and more competition among firms and thus more options for consumers, are engrained in a system of predictability and trust.”

Conclusion

The “changing patterns of globalization have also changed the territorial or spatial relations of power, meaning that power increasingly must be understood not only at the local, the national, or the global level, but also in their inter-relationship.” – powercube

Power never decays. History proves that at every stage of human existence, power relation had its dynamics features which made power relevant to all actors. Concentration of power was a stage of the evolution process of power, it wasn’t the destination. In the 21^st Century, power finds expression in systems that can be trusted and predicted. As Leo Strauss, the German-American Political Philosopher pointed out that change is inevitable, power will continually change its dynamics from generation to generation, but will not be no less relevant.

The three revolutions ascribe some level of legitimacy to the power in the 21^st Century. They have opened the traditional decision making to popular participation channel. This gives the general populace a chance to determine who their Leader should be, no matter how the process is policed.

People will be willing to defend, maintain, and when necessary, make positive changes to power relations for the good of society. Change is an important and constant factor of every human establishment including power relations.

References

Aldo Matteucci. “350 – Are states “rational actors”? Reflections on Diplomacy. January 2, 2016 https://deepdip.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/350-are-states-rational-actors/   November 10, 201

“Understanding power for social change” powercube. http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/expressions-of-power/ November 11, 2016

Geoffrey Debnam.“The Analysis of Power: A Realist Approach”. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0quCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&ots=r_6pWY-Xgx&sig=YqANQQRkmlD08nN_CeHtwdJ-Q_o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false  November 11, 2016

Omodei RA. “Beyond the Neo-Weberian Concept of Status”. Journal of Sociology. 1982 Aug 1;18(2):196-213. http://jos.sagepub.com/content/18/2/196.short     November 11, 2016

Nancy Ferrell “Power Over Versus Power With”. Beyond Accountability.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/audiodisplay/ferrell-3-power-over-vs-with  November 11, 2016

Ghana, S. (2010). “Making Decentralisation Work for the Poor”.

Evans M.B. “Disbursement and management of public funds in MMDSs: (A case of the Offinso North District Assembly). August 2015. http://ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/8671/1/EVANS%20MENSAH%20BONSU.pdf  November 11, 2016

Major Jimmy Wangome (Kenya Army), “Military coups in Africa — The African “Neo-Colonialism” that is self-inflicted”. CSC 1985. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/WJ.htm  November 20, 2016