(3) Power Phenomenon and Political Activity

(3) Power Phenomenon and Political Activity

a. Power

 

 

Organizations, which are continuous relationships of cooperation between people, can be seen as the sum of mutual cooperation relationships between each two people. Each cooperation relation- ship within such organizations is power. Therefore, the meaning of power is as follows.

 

         [Ch.2.7] (Political) Power is the ability to make or change rules of the organization (cohesion relation) and the ability to command.

 

Although power can be explained in a complex way, its essence is simple. It's about making decisions about the rules. This is the core of political phenomenon.

 

In the PKB case, listening to the words of Peter by Kevin and Ben in order to overcome the threat of the hunter is a power phenomenon, and the capability Peter holds at this time is power. Power is the concept of power understood in everyday life, which refers to the power that someone or an organization can command and coerce others, and its meaning is the same. When such commands and coercion are formalized and systematized, it is rules, so power can be said to be the ability to make or change rules. If you can make or change rules, you can change the way people cooperate. In other words, you can command and control. This is also the meaning of power that we understand in everyday life.

 

The essence of power is such that, whether in the past or now, presidents or members of parliament who have power are people who can make administrative orders or laws. Going back to the past, there were kings who had power, and sometimes the king's orders were law instead of a feudal system. If the rules are changed, the behavior of all people who follow the rules changes. At that time, the person who changes the rules can lead the behavior of other people in the direction they want. That is, to make them obedient.

 

The reason why the essence of power is generalized as the ability to create or change rules, rather than just limiting it to 'command' or 'legislative power', is to explain the political power of the same essence not only in the political organization of the nation unit but also in small political organizations such as alumni associations and schoolmates. In alumni associations or schoolmates, the power is not the ability to make formal rules like bylaws, but the ability to regulate interpersonal relationships in the organization. Therefore, it can be summarized as follows.

 

          [Ch.2.8] Power is a result of cooperation and cohesion (not in terms of morality, but in reality).

 

The practical power is the product of cooperation and cohesion. The first emperor of the Roman Empire, Augustus, declared that he was not a king who ruled, but a "first among equals" (primus inter pares), taking into account the fragrance of the Roman Republic. Even after Augustus became emperor, he could not stop constantly bargaining with the nobility to monopolize Roman power. In England in the 10th century, the heir to the throne could only firmly hold his position after receiving recognition from the nobles' advisory board. It's the same in the East. The early Goguryeo regime was also a 5-tribe alliance state, and later established a central bureaucratic political system in the 4th to 5th centuries. After the 6th century, the monarchy weakened again and changed to a noble federal system. From this, the power of the Goguryeo dynasty was formed through the cohesion of the 5 tribes, and after the 6th century, it was maintained through the cooperation of the Goguryeo king and the nobles.

 

In the 16th century, Queen Elizabeth I of England ruled with the support of a small royal guard, but was also strong due to the strong loyalty of the British people. In the 17th century, the reign of Tsar in Russia is often cited as a prime example of absolute monarchy, but the power of the Tsar was also a result of cooperation and unity. All people, including the nobility, were considered the Tsar's 'serfs' (kholopy), but in reality, he could not rule Russia without the cooperation of the nobility assembly 'Boyar Duma' and the national assembly 'Zemsky Sobor'. On the other hand, the Emperor of the Mughal Empire, Aurangzeb, failed to establish good relationships with local rulers and subordinates, and as a result, political order crumbled after his death. Wolfgang Kapp, who successfully led a revolt in Germany in March 1920 after the defeat in World War I, also failed to secure cooperation and was unable to gain political power.

 

As these historical facts show, power is a relationship of cooperation. The claim that political power is a product of cooperation and cohesion is often heard as an argument for the moral legitimacy of power, but it is true in the actual reality of existing power. However, only the cooperation of people with political competence is important.

 

People often misunderstand that political power comes from legal status rather than cooperation. Therefore, they believe that people will obey those who have high positions or great abilities, and that positions lead to cooperation (obedience). Leaders of the Soviet Union and Russia in the 20th century, such as Gorbachev and Yeltsin, also made this mistake. They thought of themselves as high-ranking national leaders and did not attempt to build their own cooperation power through their parties. In the end, they failed in their policies and politics to reform Russia and lost their power.

 

As a more micro-level example, there is also the case of the failure of King Edward I of England's enforcement of law and the government's forced relocation of indigenous people. During the Chinese Chunhua period, there are many stories left behind that the nobles of the time publicly insulted the king and spat on him, but received no criticism or punishment. Moreover, such nobles rejected valuable gifts from the king and played games with the king in his palace, and did not even receive invitations but went to the king during meals and ate the food laid out on his table. There is also a story left behind that when the king was invited to dinner in a noble's mansion and visited, he went hunting. The position of the king was a symbol of power, but in reality, it was powerless without cooperation with the powerful nobles.