Political Science Final Exam -

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 Political Science Final Exam - International and domestic political power Emilie Christine Jaillot 1

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1-2 International Politics and Domestic Politics: two different spheres The concept of Power applied to Politics - Lukes and Parson's power of decision making and authority - Bachrach and Baratz's model of agenda setting power Legitimacy of Power and Representation 4-5 Institutions and their functioning 5-6 A hierarchy between IP power and DP power? - IP and DP: a different field of action - The lack of national sovereignty The probation of enforcement and credibility of political power 6-7 in both international and national contexts Conclusion 7-8 List of References 8 Introduction 2-3 3-4 6 The separation between IP and DP might not always be that distinct anymore, especially in a contemporary context of increased Globalization: indeed, both decisions taken in international politics IP) and domestic politics DP) directly affect the Western world's citizens nowadays. Therefore it's relevant to discuss whether the concept of political power is truly similar in IP and DP and if not, to what extent that concept is different. 2

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 After defining the distinction between IP and DP, this paper will first look at the theoretical features of power and study how they are respectively applied in IP and DP, and secondly it will compare the specific features of political power in IP and DP that are legitimacy and representation, institutionalism and finally sovereignty. Through all paragraphs the construction of the argumentation will be the same: it will start by focusing on the common features of political power in both IP and DP, and then it will set out arguments focusing on examples that emphasize the differences of political power in the two spheres. In order to illustrate my argumentation, I will mainly rely on examples about the United Nations and the European Union for the IP part, and on general and common characteristics of European Democracies for the DP part. International Politics and Domestic Politics: two different spheres It's essential to set the spatial framework of the subject and to clarify what IP and DP refer to, because observing the frame and the context of politics can explain basic differences between political power in IP and DP. Politics exist both at the national scale with governments, and at the international scale with transnational organizations. Thus IP and DP correspond to two different scales in terms of space. The divide is first a territorial divide: DP embrace what concerns everything inside the state's boundaries whereas IP includes what's outside the state Heywood, 2013: 24). Concretely political power in DP deals with all the internal matters of the state whereas political power in IP deals with the relations between the states and international policies. From this we can conclude that IP and DP don't exactly have the same role and mission. It's also important to mention that IP have an impact on a bigger population than DP that only concerns the state's citizens. But all citizens are affected by international policies and by their state's own policies. Actors in DP and IP are not the same and don't have the same influence. Even if states are playing a part in both spheres, they don't have the same importance. In DP the state is the supreme authority and it embodies it on its own; no contestation is possible. Yet in IP all the world's states are taking part, and on top of this there are other actors: the international organizations such as the United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Those 3

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 transnational actors are gaining some power Heywood: 2013, 23) because of today's context of increasing globalization. The Concept of Power applied to Politics Differences in political power in IP and DP can also be explained from a theoretical approach. To highlight and compare political power in the two spheres it's necessary to have a look at both the concept of decision-making power and then at the agenda-setting power. The concept of power is a concept that has different meanings according to which field it's applied. Steven Lukes assess that someone is in power when he affects someone else and do not act in the interests of the other Haugaard: 2002, 38). To some extent, it gets to another approach of power, which is more clearly linked with politics: someone is in power when he makes someone else act in a way the other wouldn't have acted without the first one's intervention Haugaard: 2002, 50). In another way, decisions are taken according to the one in power's interests Heywood: 2013, 9). It's possible to interpret that in terms of authority: the one in power then disposes of authority, as Parson points out Haugaard: 2002, 45). Indeed, political leaders and governments impose their decisions to the populations. We can suppose that without speed limitations on roads, people would drive their cars much faster. This aspect of political power is one that is common to both IP and DP: no matter if a law is national or international, it has to be respected by all citizens. Thus, taking into account the basic definition of power, we could think that there obviously are common theoretical features of political power, no matter which area of politics. However, the conclusion is not the same if we have a look at Bachrach and Baratz's agenda setting approach. They assess that political actors can't all access to the decision-making process nor to the enforcement of those decision. Both accesses are blocked by what they define as "filters" Haugaard: 2002, 42). First, when we have to apply that theory to IR and DP, it seems clear that the "filters" they're talking about are not the same at a national scale and at an international scale. Lobbying, which can be classified as a filter, exists in both IP and DP Heywood: 2013, 371) mainly because the interests of actors that exert lobbying are both national and international. However, it's essential to take into account the probability that in the world, all national political actors don't have interest that goes hand in hand with the 4

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 international community's interests. National interests and international interests are sometimes contentious. Consequently we can wonder which interest takes precedence over the other, in most cases there is a hierarchy between political power in IP and in DP. One has to be superior to the over and it builds up a difference between political power in IR and in DP. Legitimacy of Power and Representation The concept of legitimacy is more concrete than theoretical approaches of power and therefore it will allow us to discern some more perceptible and practical differentiation. When it comes to representation, the common discernible point of political power in DP and IP is the existence of representatives who act on the behalf of population Heywood: 2013, 197). DP and IP political power thus have that feature that they're applied and detained only by a few. In both cases the basics of the representation theory are applied: a few represent either the population / the state and act in their interests. Political power gets different between IP and DP when it comes to how those representatives and political leaders are chosen and to how they got their authority. In order to be legitimate, both IP and DP representative have to be accepted by the population Wakefield & Fleming: 2009, 191). A way to make sure that the population approves representatives is through elections that are at the heart of any democratic process. This principle is easily applied at a democratic state's scale: the democracy s population elects democracy s political leaders, for instance presidents. But it takes a whole different sweep when it comes to the representatives of the international political power. Indeed, transnational organization's leaders are not elected, such as the ambassadors to the United Nations and the IP sphere seems completely disconnected from the population's approval. We can also find an example of that lack of democratic legitimacy in IR within the European Union Kurian: 2011). European commissioners can be compared to national ministers to the extent that they have a strong influence in legislative power because they decide which policies are going to be discussed or proposed. Globally, ministers are appointed in a more democratic way than European commissioners who are nominated by their member state and by the Commission President. The way they're chosen has no link with any kind of election or population's approval. Therefore we can conclude that democratic legitimacy thus separates clearly political power 5

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 in DP from political power in IP since domestic political power is the most legitimate one from a democratic point of view. Institutions and their functioning Studying institutions so as to distinguish political power in IP and DP is relevant because institutions are elements and bodies with a defined mission that are directly related to political power Heywood: 2013, 15); they ensure the strength of political power, particularly regarding political decisions. To illustrate the divergences I will use the example of assemblies: national Parliament for domestic political power and the United Nation UN) assembly for the international political power. It's relevant to use those examples because both a national parliament and the assembly of the UN are in charge of a kind of legislative power through deciding and making policies Heywood: 2013, 310), but they're also often responsible for distributing evenly the political power among several actors. Moreover, all decisions that are taken either in the national parliament of the UN assembly have an impact on the citizens. In general, the rules concerning the members of assemblies are well defined and precise: in democratic assemblies, all members have a limited duration of their mandate, and they all have one seat, consequently they're equal. It is the case in European democratic national parliaments, such as the Bundestag in Germany. However, in the UN assembly, all members are not valued the same way, the "big five" of the permanent Security Council have a biggest importance than others Heywood: 2013, 441). Thus political power is less equally divided among the members of international institutions than among those of national institutions. The accessibility of debates and of the process of decision making to the population is also a functional feature that varies in IP and in DP. Indeed the population is allowed to attend any national assemblies' sessions but it's not the case for the UN summits. This practice weakens the democratic aspect of international political power since it excludes the citizens. On top of this the existence of a veto for the members of the UN Security Council increases the inequalities between the assembly members. It's contrary to the concept of political equality Heywood: 2013, 90). There's nothing for parliament representatives to prevent any political decision if the majority of the members voted for it. This imbalance in international political power can be interpreted as harmful for democracy: political power and especially decision- 6

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 making at the international scale might thus seem discretional whereas national political power thus appears to be more conciliatory and consequently democratic. A hierarchy between international political power and domestic political power? Owing to the basic difference between national and international politics, political powers in IP and DP basically have distinct fields of action. Political power at an international scale aims a peaceful international collaboration between states Heywood: 2013, 422) and thus promotes global order's interests. Political power at a domestic stake promotes national interests. Consequently it's obvious that those interests don't always go in the same way, they can be conflicting. As said previously, when it happens, either the political power in DP or the one in IP has to win. Most of the time, it's the international political power that wins due to the interdependences between states today. It creates a hierarchy between IP and DP, at least for European countries. The example of the European Union "Stability and Growth Pact" that constraints individual states' fiscal policies illustrates this superiority of international political power's impact over national political power's one. The fact that national political power is weakened and relegated to a position of secondary importance can be linked to another concept, the one of state's sovereignty sometimes defined as "absolute power" Heywood: 2013, 58). Since national political power is inferior, it's not the state that has the final decisions concerning policies that affect him but it's the transnational organizations: we can conclude from it that the state's sovereignty is damaged. In a nutshell it seems that on the political scene, international political power gets more important whereas the national political power doesn't have an essential role anymore. The probation of enforcement and credibility of political power in both international and national contexts Traditionally, political power is enforced thanks to hard power that is to say with military and police forces and / or sanctions. Since the end of the Cold War, that form of power is less and 7

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 less used at a national scale Sørensen: 2013, 88). Military forces are not the priorities of states and as a consequence, states are less credible and seem less authoritarian. Adding the fact that there's no real and efficient international military force for any international organization, more and more issues emerge such as terrorism Heywood: 2013, 76), threatening both international and national political powers. Nowadays conflicts threaten both the individual state and the world's global order. It would be necessary to develop global means to assure the international political power Heywood: 2013, 399), but it seems that both state's and global order's political powers are not credible anymore. The state's political power and its sovereignty are made weak by the increasing international cooperation. In parallel, that international political power, which should be strong, can't impose anything concretely because its institutions lack of legitimacy and the interests it promotes are sometimes discordant with the populations'. As a conclusion, political power, neither nationally nor internationally, is not as powerful as it used to be. Conclusion Political power has some general similar features in both the national and the international framework. In spite of those common points and of the fact that the concept of power is basically applied in the same way in both political powers, they are different. First, as obvious as it seems, it's because of the spatial independence between international sphere and domestic sphere Heywood, 2013: 24) and of their basic features. Second, those similarities between national political power and international political power's features can be explained by different approaches of the concept of power. Political powers don't have the same purpose nationally and internationally. By then having a look at examples of legitimacy, representation of political power and at some of its institutions, the main distinction appears to be that the national political power is more legitimate and democratic than the international one. However, quite unexpectedly and because of the increasing interdependence between states, international political power most of the time constraints the state's political power, as it is the case for European Union's states: European policies impinge on state's decision making power. At that point we could conclude that although international and national political powers resemble each other on power theoretical aspects, they differ when it comes to concrete cases 8

PoliticalScienceFinalExam2013 and to democratic legitimacy. But there's a last element that joined to the weakened state's political power jeopardizes the concept of political power itself at both scales: that is the relative inexistent capacity of international political power to solve any international conflict and to prevent threats. This last conclusion is in accordance with the assumption that all ravages to states' sovereignty weaken the peace of world order Heywood: 2013, 423). As a conclusion, even if they're built on the same broad power characteristic, international and national political powers are different in terms of democracy. Their diminishing credibility follows from the fact that they convey opposed interests and that they struggle. It's thus legitimate and justified to think that it would be necessary to orientate, nay reduce, the international political collaboration in a way so that states' interest wouldn't be compromised. List of References Haugaard, Mark 2002): Power: A Reader, Manchester University Press Heywood, Andrew 2013): Politics, Palgrave foundations Kurian, George Thomas 2011): The Encyclopedia of Political Science, CQ Press Sørensen, Jackson 2013): Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press Wakefield, Alison and Fleming, Jenny 2009): SAGE Dictionary of Policing, SAGE Knowledge 9