Powertics

As defined at the beginning of the commentary, powertics involves the interactions of governmental and nongovernmental actors that take place in both formal and informal networks that are operative in the political decision process. These networks are labeled ìpowertic networksî and are comprised of formal and informal relationships among the actors including nation-states, coalitions, interest groups, political parties, and individuals. These networks are comprised of five types of actors:

governmental actors elected as the representatives of the people;

self-appointed totalitarian governments and individuals;

appointed governmental actors (bureaucratsóappointed heads of agencies);

supporting bureaucracies (civil servants); and

nongovernmental actors (economic and non-economic interest groups) who press their demands on the decision process of the political system.

Both related and unrelated issues are operative in these networks. The political decisions that result from the interactions in the networks impact on both domestic and international policies. The term ìpowertickingî describes the dynamics of proponents and opponents of a pending political decision attempting to out-power the other sideóthat is, gather enough support (votes) to control the decision.

Professors Lowi and Ginsberg illuminate the context of powertics within the political system. They narrow the term ìpoliticsî ìto refer only to conflicts and struggles over the leadership, structure, and policies of governmentsî (2000, 14-15). They contend that ìthe goal of politics...is to have a share or a say in the composition of the governmentís leadership, how the government is organized, or what its politics are going to beî (15). They conclude that having a say in politics is related to power and influence (15).

Powertics is a behavioral phenomenon that complicates understanding because of the uniqueness of each of the human actors who brings to the decision interaction a unique set of values in addition to knowledge, skill, and referent powers. For governmental actors, organizational power comes from the position to which they are elected or appointed. For nongovernmental actors, power comes from the interests they represent and the resources they have that allow them to press their demands on the political system. The powerless find themselves unrepresented or underrepresented in the powertics phenomenon.

Jerome Mileur captures the essence of powertics in the origin of the American political system:

The Framers, in their passion for liberty, wrote a Constitution that splintered power and, in doing so, institutionalized politics to secure freedom. It has worked. The division of power meant that nobody has it and everybody had to deal with somebody to get what they want. The study of power in political science has been rich in describing this dealingóthe bargaining, trading, and compromiseóbut it has been impoverished in its theorizing about power. (1987, 3)

Mileur suggests that those who framed the Constitution set forth the best notion of power. He contends that the framers linked power to structure: ìPower inherited in the office, not the manóin the structure of politics, not the playersî (1987, 3). This view is dramatically reinforced when a new president is about to be inaugurated. The outgoing president arrives at the ceremony as the most powerful man in the nation, and possibly the world. After a simple swearing in of the new president, the now ex-presidentís power is largely diminished as he retires from the stage of power in a manner William Shakespeare captured in Macbeth over four hundred years ago: ìLifeís but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets upon the stage and then is heard no moreî (1969, 1133).

Graham Allison used three conceptual models to look at decision making during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. He explored the area that this commentary labels powertics. He contends, ìMen share power. Men differ about what must be done. The differences matterî (1971, 145). He suggests that what matters in decision making is ìthe power and skill of the proponents and opponents of the action in questionî and not the merits of the issue or the ìroutines of the organizationî (145). He articulated the difficulty in observing decision making. He concludes that we need ìmore satisfactory accounts of each playerís position, more careful specification of action-channels, etc.î (275). His work supports the need for understanding the phenomenon of powertics in a specific decision action that takes into account the varying skills and perceptions of the actors involved, a difficult research task.