Powerful individuals can have power or be had by power with the difference being determined by who between the two is in charge. Further, there are two main types of power to wit the power to cause things to happen and the power to influence others (Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010, P. 924). Each of these two types of power impacts individuals variously. Another factor that comes into play in the relationship between individuals and power is their respective nature and nurture attributes. These create a complex situation with power based variables relating to both power and the individual wielding thus resulting in several possible permutations. Within the USA, power is vested in well-established constitutional instruments and then bequeathed to several individuals through the same instruments. Out of a fear of the aforesaid permutations, a system of checks and balances was established to avoid and/or forestall the adverse consequences. As long as normal power is vested by each of the instruments and their holders, adverse consequences are avoided and the checks and balances work. However, during situations where there is need to give absolute power to an instrument or an individual, all checks and balances fails and the singular individual ends up being owned by the power with devastating consequences (Michaels, 2015, p. 518). Power empowers and mostly has positive outcomes but absolute power corrupts and will always have adverse consequences and ramifications no matter how positive the personality of the power wielder is.
Background of Power from the Perspective of Balance of Power in the USA
The American Concept of Separation of Power
After the failure of the confederacy, the founding fathers created an immense and powerful eagle in the name of the president of the United States upon enactment and promulgation of the US constitution. They, however, created a way to clip the wings of the eagle through the democratic concept of separation of powers. This concept involves an executive led by the presidency, Congress that is made of the representatives of the populace and the judiciary, led by the 9 member Supreme Court of the United States. Normally, the President determines policy, Congress debates on these policies and develop them into laws with or without amendment. As part of the power of congress to control the executive, congress can come up with its own laws and reject laws that would actuate policies that Congress is uncomfortable with (Michaels, 2015, p. 536). Finally, the courts interpret the laws and use it to determine if either the president or the congress has acted ultra vires . This is how power is set up in America and is designed to avoid abuse of power or leaders being adversely affected by too much power. Under normal circumstances, this system works perfectly.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Fallacy of the effectiveness of Separation of Power
Unfortunately, separation of powers was not designed for normal circumstance and, therefore, the issue of its effectiveness under normal circumstances is a non-issue. Unless a building is on fire, the efficacy of its emergency apparatus cannot be fully judged. The perfection of fire drills can only be confirmed when the actual fire really happens, and the drills saved lives flawlessly. The test of the efficacy of American separation of powers can only be established if the system works properly under pressure. America has faced many adversities but three of them stand out. These are the Great War, the Second World War and the terror attack dubbed 9/11. In each of these crises, the separation of power fails, and the respective presidents are given absolute power. In a majority of these times, the sitting presidents are among the greatest that America has ever had but the absolute powers cause them to do things that tarnish their respective legacies. In 1917, Woodrow Wilson, a candidate for best president ever, enacted and implemented the Espionage Act of 1917 (Michaels, 2015, p. 517). This act obliterated free speech in America in the name of supporting the war effort. In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ordered the incarceration of Americans of Japanese descent immediately after the Pearl Harbor attacks. All of them were innocent and were denied their fundamental right to the due procedure. Further, both he and successor Harry S. Truman authorized the annihilation of thousands of innocent people through indiscriminate bombings in inter alia Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the September 11th, 2001 attacks, then President George Bush took America to two wars that America is still trying to get out of. He also established the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Great Americans were, due to a crisis, given absolute power and used it to ruin their respective legacies (Michaels, 2015, p. 584).
The Power of Power
The Power Factor
There are two main types of power the first being the capacity to make things happens and the second being the ability or capacity to influence others. A billionaire may have no influence over people but still, wields a lot of power because money can make a lot of things happen. On the other hand, a religious leader or the leader of a movement may not have any title, money or active follower but have the capacity to change the world through influencing people (Goldstein & Hays, 2011, p. 595). Tarek el-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi, jobless Tunisian man protested by setting his country’s flag on fire while wrapped around him. He died from the fire, in the full glare of the public and with so much courage that at no time did he try to extricate himself from the flag. His action triggered the Arab spring whose effects have been felt globally and which through Syria is threatening a global conflict. The world is full of Bouazizis who have great influence over others. As has been said: power is a social-relational concept and an individual’s power can be understood only in relation to another individual or group of individuals (Anderson et al, 2012, p. 315). Through their influential abilities, they have gotten into formal and informal leadership positions. In a majority of cases, however, the two types of power are not mutually exclusive with most of the powerful people in the world holding both types of power, albeit in different proportions.
Further, the amount of power which a human being holds acts as a bearing factor upon how the individual will react to the power and what manner of relationship the individual will have. Normally, the smaller the amount of power, the greater its impact on the individual (Goldstein & Hays, 2011, p. 593). To understand this concept better, it is important to have a definitive understanding of power. It has been said that the American president is the most powerful man in the world. Normally, this is a fallacy since his own members of staff can miss their pay due to a government shutdown triggered by Congress. On the other hand, a dictator who controls some of the weakest countries in the world can access other countries at will and/or send the country to war at his whims. That small country leader has more power than the US president. It is this understanding of power that the statement that the more the power the more it influences and indeed corrupts the holder becomes a fact.
The Human Factor
As already established above, the more the power, the more the adverse influence. This confirms the contention that power has the ability to corrupt with absolute power having the ability to corrupt absolutely. Fortunately for mankind, it is impossible for anyone to have absolute power. The human factor herein, therefore, focuses on what human attributes occasion different reactions to different people (Anderson et al, 2012, p. 324). There is also the important aspect of how humans consider different people when they are in power. Everyone has the capability to abuse power when power reaches a certain point. However, some people have a low threshold for abuse of power. For example, President Obama was a powerful man during his reign. He, however, had the ability to place his power aside and act the normal father acting alongside his daughter serving people in a restaurant. This reflects a high ability not to be influenced by power. On the other hand, there are individuals who get the second promotion in a convenience store and develop pride. This is a low threshold for abuse of power. From a psychological perspective, the determination of the threshold for being adversely influenced by power will be determined by nature, which is mainly genetic and nurture which relates to upbringing, academics and personal discipline (Anderson et al, 2012, p. 327). It must, however, be noted from a historical perspective that no matter how high the threshold of being influenced by power is, all men are fallible at some point.
On the other hand, power from a perspective of influence is a relational issue. It, therefore, includes the concept of leader and follower. A leader is a person who is in a position of power while the follower is the individual who falls under the influence of the said leader. From the perspective of being influenced, followers are discriminatory in nature. A good example is when a woman is seeking for political office. The statement: cultural stereotypes not only describe how people expect men and women to behave, but they also contain a prescriptive component explicating how men and women “ought” to behave (Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010, P. 924) shows that followers have an impact on the power of power. Therefore, when seeking to understand who to alleviate the corrupting power of power, some of the focus should also be placed on followership even as the main focus is made on leadership. An integral aspect of power, when looked at from the perspective of followership, is the perception of the leader, towards the follower. From a psychological perspective, humans use themselves as the meter stick for normality. They, therefore, consider those above them as superhumans and those below them as less than human (Gwinn et al, 2013, P. 469). The ability to alleviate this instinct and be able to see those below as equally human is an unreal part of good leadership.
Discussion
Bad Power versus Bad People
The culmination of the foregoing creates the ability to answer the all-important question of whether bad leadership in America stems from bad men taking positions of leadership or does power itself corrupt. In answering the aforesaid question, it cannot be said that all American leaders have been good. They have however been good enough to get elected in the complex American electoral system. Most of the so-called bad leaders are accused of being bad because they did not achieve much, not because they committed atrocities (Driver, 2013, p. 407). It can however, not be said that atrocities have not been committed in America, but these atrocities seem to be associated more with the events that took place around the time when they were committed than to the leaders accused of having committed them. Indeed, many of these leaders are remembered for the better things that they did than their atrocities. Woodrow Wilson led America to victory in the Great War, upon which America was recognized as a superpower while Roosevelt led America towards victory in the Second World War, which some commentators consider having been unwinnable more so in the Pacific Theatre. George Bush prevented America and indeed the free world from falling apart after the massive terror attack dubbed 9/11. It is however, during the achievement of these feats that these three leaders got corrupted by powers and committed atrocities (Driver, 2013, p. 421). Within that scenario lies both the problem and the solution thereto.
The Problem and the Solution
Separation of power is designed to prevent abuse of power even in times of crisis and not just during the normal times. The problem in the American version of separation of power lies in the fact that it is only effective when there is no crisis. Yet, it is during a major crisis that separation of powers ought to work more efficiently to prevent any form of atrocities. From the perspective of the instruments of separation of power, the moment a crisis hits America, Congress and the Judiciary rally around the presidency. These two organizations fall upon themselves seeking to give the president everything necessary to avert the crisis. This negates the significance of separation of powers and vests all the power of the government upon the president. From the perspective of followership, when America is under attack, the populace rally around the president for assurance and a solution. The democratic power of dissent is broken as the populace now speaks with one voice while listening to the president with both their minds and their hearts.
In December 1945 just as in September 2001, the respective American presidents were practically the most powerful men in the world. They had active control over the full resources of the US government which is too much power for any one individual (Driver, 2013, p. 409). At some point, they reached their threshold, cracked and got corrupted by the power. Arriving at the problem creates a means to also arrive at the solution. This solution lies in ensuring that the de facto and de jure separation of power that exists in America during normal times also exists in America during a crisis. The problem, however, does not lie in the de jure part and separation of power is well established in the constitution. It lies in the de facto part where as a culture, the law is forgotten in exchange for solving a crisis (Driver, 2013, P. 419). This culture must be changed from the perspective of leadership as well as followership. Americans must understand that the opportunity cost of solving problems at all cost is being judged harshly by history due to abuse of power. Let the culture of suspending separation of powers when there are a crisis end and the problem of power corrupting good leaders will end too.
America does not elect bad men into leadership but the good men they elect at some point in time, more so when there is a crisis becomes the victims of too much power. This happens when the security cordon of separation of powers is lifted by Congress, the Judiciary, and the populace to enable these leaders to solve the crisis. These leaders then become the victim of too much power to withstand and eventually, power overpowers them and they become corrupted. However, if the populace, Congress, and the Judiciary refuse to fall over themselves to aid the president during major crisis, and the president is still called to account in the middle of a crisis to ensure that the power vested in the presidency is constantly checked, the problem of presidents being overcome by power and adversely transformed by it will be a thing of the past. However, unless powerful individuals are actively protected from too much power, they will eventually be corrupted by it.
References
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of personality , 80 (2), 313-344
Driver, M. (2013). The lack of power or the power of lack in leadership as a discursively constructed identity. Organization Studies , 34 (3), 407-422
Goldstein, N. J., & Hays, N. A. (2011). Illusory power transference: The vicarious experience of power. Administrative Science Quarterly , 56 (4), 593-621
Gwinn, J. D., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2013). Less powerless human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 (3), 464-470
Michaels, J. D. (2015). An Enduring, evolving separation of powers. Columbia Law Review , 515-597
Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 (7), 923-936
Pozen, D. E. (2014). Self-help and the separation of powers. Yale LJ , 124 , 2. 48-90.
