Deconstructing the idea of power and national agenda

Beyond Boundaries

The concept of power is basic in international politics and is yet not always understood. Like in the case of individuals, power is often seen as an end in itself: someone or something with authority, weight or influence, to be respected and not to be meddled with. In that sense power is virtually synonymous with strength, a desirable quality. It is true of nations too, but in this case, it is more relevant to see it as instrumental with a purpose in view, power to do what, or against whom?

Traditionally nations were seen as powerful if they were large and had military might. The notion was that they could wage wars and win them, defend themselves when necessary, and other rulers had to think twice before troubling them.  This was the case with ‘great powers’ of Europe, England, Germany, France, but also with ‘powerful’ rulers elsewhere, the Mogul emperor at one stage or the rulers of Vijayanagara, till they lost to more powerful forces.

 But today, national power is seen as having several components, of which the military capability is still one, but only one. Recent events in Iraq or Libya have shown, irrespective of our judgment of the action, that the US and the US alone is the world’s supreme military power, capable if it has the will to change the political order in another country. But 9/11 demonstrated the asymmetrical nature of modern power in the sense that the most powerful military might was incapable of defending itself.

The dilemmas that Israel faces in its neighbourhood also shows that military power is necessary for a nation, but is not sufficient in its navigation of security challenges.  We increasingly recognise other components of power: the objective physical factors — size, population and resources, economic strength, technological prowess, and  further some intangible elements, the political status, and ‘soft power’ based on culture and appeal to others.

Shifting power
Many of these factors are in a state of constant change and therefore the calculus of power keeps shifting. The US is the strongest military power, but its status is perceived to be declining mainly because of its economic problems and some dysfunctional aspects in the polity. UK and France are traditional great powers, but lack the size and demography of emerging economies like China, India and Brazil, described as the ‘emerging powers.’

There are quite a few studies at ranking nations in terms of their power:  a Singer index by a political scientist, the Chinese concept of Comprehensive National Power, among them. In all such rankings, US is still number one followed usually by China.

 India is in the first five in many of these; it is bound to be so given our size, population, the GDP and the size of the armed forces.  Where a country figures depends on the relative weight given to different parameters mentioned above. It should be no surprise that countries generally regarded as idyllic or ‘cool’ do not figure in these lists at all, Switzerland, New Zealand, Sweden or Singapore. To be prosperous is not the same as being powerful. Nor is to be powerful to be confused with being at peace. 

Which should bring us to the question of what is power for?  In a traditional view of politics, whether domestic or international, power was seen as an end in itself. If expansion, domination, or hegemony are the goals – and these were at one stage – such a view was tenable.  But no longer.

If we regard peace and prosperity as ideals, as most countries normally declare today, we need a different understanding of the uses of power. It is seen as an ‘enabler’ allowing a nation to pursue its legitimate interests: live with security within its borders, exploit or share or access resources necessary for its economy, carry on trading unhindered by constraints etc.

Are some countries more successful than others in using their power? Yes. This is because they can ‘convert’ their power potential to a nationally willed purpose and can do so systematically and relentlessly.

The ability of the political system in terms of  conscious ‘will’ to change a given situation to its advantage is what makes some countries wield power effectively. China is the most quoted example in this context.

 What is the Indian notion of power?  We have always constructed power in ‘peaceful’ terms as enabling us to carry on with our national agenda, unimpeded by forces or choice of others. Such autonomy or freedom of choice or action is not an absolute as no nation lives ‘as an island.’

The power play of international politics has to be seen as a process of give and take, of adjustments and alignments to allow a nation to pursue its agenda, in our case, the declared agenda of a focus on development.  National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon put it thus in a recent address: “ For a considerable time to come, India will be a major power with several poor people. We must, always, therefore, be conscious of the differences between weight, influence, and power. Power is the ability to create and sustain outcomes. Weight we have, our influence is growing, but our power remains to grow and should first be used for our domestic transformation.”
 (The writer is the Indian Ambassador in Brazil)