Ideologies are the sets of basic beliefs about the political,

economic, social and cultural affairs held by the majority of

people within as society.

absolutism. System where the rulers have unlimited control.

anarchism. Society without government, laws, police or other authority.
System of self-control.
aristocracy. The privilege of social class whose members possess
disproportionately large percentage of society's wealth, prestige and
political influence.
autocracy. Supreme political power is in the hands of one person whose
decision are unregulated..
capitalism. Right-wing political system where the principle means of
production and distribution are in private hands.
communism. Extreme left-wing ideology based on the revolutionary
socialist teachings of Marx. Collective ownership and a planned economy.
Each should work to their capability and receive according to their needs.
conservatism. Governmental system where the existing institution are
maintained, emphasizing free-enterprise and minimal governmental
intervention.
democracy. Government by the people usually through elected
representatives.
dictatorship. Government by a single person with absolute control over
the resources of the state.
egalitaranism. Belief where all citizens have equal rights and privileges.
fascism. Extreme right-wing ideology where the existing social order is
protected by the forcible suppression of the working class.
imperialism. The extension of power and rule beyond established
geographical boundaries.
liberalism. Representative government, free-speech, abolition of class
privilege and state protection of the individual.
Marxism. Developed by Marx and Engles, it proposes that all is subject
to change and resistance to change necessitates the overthrow of the
system through class struggle.
Maoism. Interpretation of Marxist communism emphasizing the
development of agriculture.
Monarchy. A form of rule in which the head of state is a King or Queen.
nationalism. The unification of the state and release from foreign rule.
oligarchy. A system of government in which virtually all power is held a
small number of wealthy people who shape policy to benefit themselves.
populism. Collective noun for the ideologies which demand the
redistribution of political power and economic leadership to the 'common
people'.
socialism. Left-wing political system where the principle means of
production, distribution and exchange are in common ownership.
theocracy. Rule by the church.
totalitarianism. Government control of all activities.
Trotskyism. Form of Marxism incorporating the concept of permanent
revolution.
THE LEFT
liberty. The freedom of speech and the right to dissent.
equality. A classless society with the redistribution of wealth through a
welfare state.
fraternity. The communal brotherhood, working and living as one.
THE RIGHT
authority. The preservation of order through an evolved authority.
hierarchy. The continuation of the existing social order.
property. The right to private ownership.
 WHAT IS GOVERNANCE?
MEANING OF GOVERNANCE
Governance in General
1. The word “governance” came from the Latin verb “gubernare,” or more originally from the Greek word “kubernaein,” which
means “to steer.” Basing on its etymology, governance refers to the manner of steering or governing, or of directing and
controlling, a group of people or a state.
2. Governance is essentially related to politics, in that politics is often defined as the art of governance. Just as politics talks about
governments, institutions, power, order, and the ideals of justice, governance also deals with the public sector, power structures,
equity, and ideals of public administration. Nevertheless, they are distinct from each other in the sense that politics is broader
than governance. Traditionally, the study of politics entails the concept of the “good life” and the “ideal society,” which are so
broad they include a web of subjects and every possible form of government. The study of governance, on the contrary, is
generally attuned to the concept of democracy, and on how the government and the civil society arrive at a decision in meeting
their needs.
Definition of Governance
Governance is commonly defined as the exercise of power or authority by political leaders for the well-
being of their country’s citizens or subjects. It is the complex process whereby some sectors of the
society wield power, and enact and promulgate public policies which directly affect human and
institutional interactions, and economic and social development. The power exercised by the
participating sectors of the society is always for the common good, as it is essential for demanding
respect and cooperation from the citizens and the state. As such, a great deal about governance is the
proper and effective utilization of resources.
Governance and Government
1. Governance is traditionally associated with government. In literatures, they are often used interchangeably. But in the 1980s,
political scientists broadened the meaning of governance as including, not just government actors, but also civil-society
actors.[1]Today, governance includes three sectors: the public sector (state actors and institutions), the private sector (households
and companies), and the civil society (non-governmental organizations). These three sectors are said to work hand in hand in the
process of governance. This new use of the term focuses on the role of “networks” in the achievement of the common good,
whether these networks are intergovernmental, transnational, or international.[2] In other words governance is broader than
government in that other sectors are included in it.
2. Many authors also distinguish the two by associating government with “control and domination,” and governance with
“decentralization and relational management.” On the one hand, government refers to a central institution which wields power
over its subjects. It is the instrument patterned after the model of “command and control,” the government being in command
over the affairs of the people. On the other hand, governance is closely associated with the concept of decentralization of power
and the need for inter-sectoral management. Governance is based on the realization that the government cannot do everything for
the people, so that in order to survive the state should not only rely on government but also on the other sectors of the society.
3. Thus, under the current trend, there is a need to move from the “traditional hierarchical exercise of power by the government” to
the new notion of a “dispersed and relational power in governance” – from government to governance. To govern should now
mean to facilitate or regulate, not to dominate or command.
Importance of Studying Governance

From the information learned in the discussion of governance, the people, most especially the
citizens, will be aware of the need for good governance. Consequently, such awareness should move
them to action. For their continued empowerment and sustainable development, they have to know
how to fight for their rights by knowing what to expect from Philippine governance. Thus, what will
follow is an exposition of the basic concepts of governance, the ideal type of governance, and the
status of the Philippines vis-à-vis the indicators of good governance.
 PROCESSES AND ACTORS IN GOVERNANCE
Decision-Making and Implementation
Governance entails two processes: decision-making and implementation of the decision. In broad terms,
decision-making refers the process by which a person or group of persons, guided by socio-political
structures, arrive at a decision involving their individual and communal needs and
wants. Implementation is the process that logically follows the decision; it entails the actualization
or materialization of the plan or decision. Governance is not just decision-making because decision
without implementation is self-defeating. Neither is it just implementation because there is nothing
to implement without a decision or plan. Thus, the two processes necessarily go hand-in-hand in,
and are constitutive of, governance.
Actors and Structures
1. Understanding the two processes requires an analysis of the “actors” involved and “structures” established for making and
implementing a decision. An actor is a sector or group or institution that participates in the process of decision-making and
implementation. A structure refers to an organization or mechanism that formally or informally guides the decision-making
process and sets into motion the different actors and apparatuses in the implementation process.
2. Having such a broad scope, governance has different facets and may be applied in different contexts, such as corporate
governance, international governance, and national and local governance.[3] In each context, governance has different actors and
structures. Depending on the kind of decision made and the structure implementing it, governance may be good or bad
governance.
3. The government is almost always the main actor in governance, whether it is in the corporate, international, national or local
level. The government is called the “public sector.” While it is the biggest actor in governance, it is not the only actor. Modern
complex societies, in order to meet the growing demands of development, are managed in different levels by various actors. Even
communist governments work with other sectors, especially with international organizations and multi-national corporations, in
meeting their communist ends. The main role of the public sector is to provide an enabling environment for the other actors of
governance to participate and respond to the mandate of the common good.
4. All actors other than the government are called the “civil society.” The civil society includes non-governmental organizations,
and other community-based and sectoral organizations, such as association of farmers, charitable institutions, cooperatives,
religious communities, political parties, and research institutes. These organizations are private in nature but have public
functions or objectives. The Philippine Red Cross, for instance, is a non-governmental organization. It is a private charitable
institution the serves the community especially during disasters and emergencies by providing medical assistance and disaster
support services.
5. The study of Philippine governance, however, includes the business or private sector as an indispensable partner in development.
To cope with the ever growing demands of development, the public sector must necessarily tie-up with the private sector most
especially in the financial
6. In the national and international level, decision-making is greatly influenced by actors like the media, international organizations,
multi-national corporations, and international donors. Thus, from the foregoing, it should be clear that governance involves
several actors in multi-level structures.
Informal Actors and Bad Governance
1. Other informal actors also exist, such as organized crime syndicates and powerful families. Their influence is felt more clearly in
local governments, and in rural and urban areas. Most often than not, these actors are the cause of corruption, in that legitimate
government objectives are distorted by their illegal and private interests. Worse, they manipulate government officials and
agencies, and cause widespread yet organized violence in the community. In urban and rural areas, for example, the rich and
powerful families control the economy by controlling the local government officials. They bring about a controlled environment
so that decisions must always favor them. Allegedly, even government officials, both local and national, are not just influenced
but themselves members of organized crime syndicates with the purpose of using public office and, consequently, public funds
for personal aggrandizement.
2. When these actors and informal structures disrupt, corrupt and upset the legitimate objectives and ideals of the society, bad
governance will result which is considered as the chief problem of the society. Problems deepen and multiply because of bad
governance. Inasmuch as economics and politics are interrelated, poor economy is caused by bad governance. International aids
and loans, for instance, are scarce in a badly governed country. International donors and financial institutions are increasingly
basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure “good governance” are undertaken.[4]Recognizing these
realities, current economic and political goals of countries all over the world are aimed at “good governance.” It is an ideal so
broad and elusive the realization of which is yet to be achieved. More so, the contemporary meaning of “development” is good
governance, or more specifically a reform from faulty governance to good governance. What good governance is will therefore
be discussed next.
 INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
Eight Indicators of Good Governance
1. Good governance is understood through its eight indicators or characteristics: (1) Participatory; (2) Rule of Law; (3) Effective
and Efficient; (4) Transparent; (5) Responsive; (6) Equitable and Inclusive; (7) Consensus Oriented; and (8) Accountability. They
are inextricably related to each other. For instance, without active participation among the various actors in governance, there
would be a concomitant lack of responsiveness. Likewise, if decision-making is not transparent, then inevitably there would be
no participation, accountability, and decisions are not consensus oriented. These indicators should, however, be understood in the
context of good “democratic” governance. Some of the indicators cannot be applied in other forms of government. For example,
good communist governance could never be consensus oriented or genuinely participatory.
2. It must also be emphasized that good governance and development should not be based exclusively on economic growth.
Through global persuasion, good governance and development signify a broader spectrum of things, such as protection of human
rights, equitable distribution of wealth, enhancement of individual capabilities and creation of an enabling environment to foster
participation and growth of human potentials. As it evolved today, sustainable development necessitates “people empowerment”
and “respect for human rights.”[5] After all, economic prosperity or the minimization of poverty and unemployment depends on
how the state unleashes the full potential of its human resource by recognizing their vital roles and according full respect for
human rights.
Participation
1. Good governance essentially requires participation of different sectors of the society. Participation means active involvement of
all affected and interested parties in the decision-making process. It requires an enabling environment wherein pertinent
information is effectively disseminated and people could respond in an unconstrained and truthful manner. It also means gender
equality, recognizing the vital roles of both men and women in decision-making.
2. More fundamentally, the need for participation is a recognition of the limits of a “verticalized system” of governance. A
verticalized system, or the top-down approach, refers to a state or government monopoly both of powers and responsibilities.
While the government is still the most potent actor in the process of governance, the participation of other sectors is already a
necessity because of the always evolving complexity and ever growing needs of the societies, especially in the financial sphere.
What should now be utilized is the so-called “horizontal system” where the government works hand in hand with other sectors of
the society. The different sectors are considered partners of the government in attaining development goals. Governance should
no longer be government monopoly but government management or inter-sectoral participation.
3. Participation in representative democracies may either be direct or indirect, and recommendatory or actual. It could be indirect
and recommendatory because in principle the form of government is based on delegation of powers. In the Philippines, which
possesses features of both direct and indirect democracy, indirect participation is done through public consultations or hearings,
while direct participation is through elections, initiatives and referendums.
4. The management of highly complex societies and of their ever growing needs requires a participatory form of governance by
diffusing power. The move for decentralization is a response to this as it widens the base of participation and allows local
government units to exercise governmental powers directly within their respective districts. Service delivery is enhanced because
of the proximity of local government units to their constituents, and because of the linking which happens between the national
government and regional concerns.
5. Participation is one of the strengths of Philippine governance. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is replete of provisions dealing
with relational and inter-sectoral governance. The Local Government Act of 1989 was borne out of the need for decentralization
in Philippine governance. As such, these and other related legislations may be considered as normative standards for good
governance.
Rule of Law
1. Democracy is essentially the rule of law. It is through the law that people express their will and exercise their sovereignty. That
the government is of law and not of men is an underlying democratic principle which puts no one, however rich and powerful,
above the law. Not even the government can arbitrarily act in contravention of the law. Thus, good democratic governance is
fundamentally adherence to the rule of law.
2. Rule of law demands that the people and the civil society render habitual obedience to the law. It also demands that the
government acts within the limits of the powers and functions prescribed by the law. The absence of rule of law is anarchy.
Anarchy happens when people act in utter disregard of law and when the government act whimsically or arbitrarily beyond their
powers. In more concrete terms, rule of law means “peace and order,” “absence of corruption,” “impartial and effective justice
system,” “observance and protection of human rights,” and “clear, publicized, and stable laws.”
3. What the law seeks to promote is justice. When there is dearth of legislation for curbing social evils, or even if there is, but the
same is ineffectual or unresponsive, and when there is no faithful execution of the law, then justice is not attained. When the
justice system is biased and discriminatory, when it favors the rich and the influential over the poor and lowly, or when the legal
processes are long, arduous, unavailable or full of delays, then justice is not attained. Then when the actors of governance can
minimize, if not eliminate, these injustices, then there is said to be rule of law.
4. Rule of law also requires that laws are responsive to the needs of the society. Archaic or irrelevant laws must be amended or
repealed to cater to modern demands.
5. The Philippines does not fare well in this aspect of good governance. In spite of being one of the oldest democracies in the
region, the Philippines ranked as last among seven indexed Asian countries according to the World Justice Project Rule of Law
Index. Generally, the reasons for ranking last are “lack of respect for law,” “pervasive and systemic corruption in the
government,” and “circumvention of the law.” Lack of respect for law is generally caused by distrust on the integrity of law
enforcement agencies. Order and security are compromised and criminal justice is rendered ineffectual.

Systemic corruption has long been a problem in the Philippines that like a malignant tumor it keeps
on sucking the life out of the country. Allegedly, it is the key officials in the government who direct
the perpetration of this crime. What became clear from a long string of corruption and plunder cases
is the true motive of many aspiring politicians – money. The huge amount of money spent during
election campaigns are but mere investments for a more profitable return during their term in
office.

In addition, the justice system is flooded by legal practitioners who are experts at circumventing the
law. Circumvention happens when there is compliance with the letter of the law but violation of its
spirit and purpose. Due to technicalities, for instance, highly paid lawyers can find ways for their rich
and powerful clients to evade the law. Although apparently there is observance of law, it is only
superficial as the real end of the law is forfeited. As such, there is a concomitant violation of
fundamental rights of the people and ineffective administration of justice.
6. Nevertheless, the Philippines has exerted efforts in promoting the rule of law. The series of cases filed against high ranking
officials, previous Presidents, members of the judiciary, and high profile persons for graft and corrupt practices prove one thing
clearly: the honest drive of the current administration to clean the government from corrupt traditional politicians. In addition,
legislations were made to hasten the legal process. The “Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004” (R.A. 9285), for instance,
seeks to unclog the court dockets by promoting a speedy, efficient, and less expensive resolution of disputes. The “Judicial
Affidavit Rule” issued by the Supreme Court in 2013 also lessened to a great extent the time and expenses of litigation.
Effectiveness and Efficiency
1. Good governance requires that the institutions, processes, and actors could deliver and meet the necessities of the society in a
way that available resources are utilized well. That the different actors meet the needs of the society means that there
is effectivegovernance. That the valuable resources are utilized, without wasting or underutilizing any of them, means that there
is efficient governance. Effectiveness (meeting the needs) and efficiency (proper utilization of resources) must necessarily go
together to ensure the best possible results for the community.
2. Concretely, effectiveness and efficiency demands “enhancement and standardization of the quality of public service delivery
consistent with international standards,” “professionalization of bureaucracy,” “focusing of government efforts on its vital
functions, and elimination of redundancies or overlaps in functions and operations,” “a citizen-centered government,” and “an
improved financial management system of the government.”[6]
3. Public service delivery, especially of front-line agencies, must promptly and adequately cater the needs of the citizens. Doing so
requires simplified government procedures and inexpensive transaction costs. Cumbersome procedures and expensive costs
trigger corruption and red tape. “Red Tape” refers to the disregard for timeframes in procedures by government agencies
through procrastination in public service delivery or under-the-table or unofficial transactions.[7] To further curb such
possibilities, the government agencies must comply with their citizen’s charter and use up-to-date information and
communications technology to reduce processing time. There must also be coordination among various government agencies to
eliminate redundant information requirements.
4. Professionalism in Philippine bureaucracy requires competence and integrity in civil service. Appointments to civil service must
be depoliticized and must be based solely on merits. Effectiveness and efficiency also demands that the programs and objectives
of the various government agencies are aligned with individual performance goals. The increases in compensation are likewise
necessary for the economic well-being, sustained competence and boosted morale of the civil servants.
5. Although still insufficient, efforts were made to attain effectiveness and efficiency in Philippine governance. The Anti-Red Tape
Act of 2007 (ARTA), for instance, was passed to require the setting up of Citizen’s Charter for a simplified procedure and to
facilitate governmental transactions. Also, many government departments and agencies pursued a rationalization program to
check excessive and redundant staffing.
Transparency
1. Transparency, as an indicator of good governance, means that people are open to information regarding decision-making process
and the implementation of the same. In legal terms, it means that information on matters of public concern are made available to
 the citizens or those who will be directly affected. It also means that transactions involving public interests must be fully
disclosed and made accessible to the people. It is anchored on the democratic right to information and right to access of the same.
Transparency is necessary not just from government transactions but also in those transactions of the civil society and private
sector imbued with public interests.
2. The reason why there should be transparency is to promote and protect democratic ideals. When there is transparency, people are
placed in a better position to know and protect their rights as well as denounce corrupt or fraudulent practices in the public sector
and in the private sector.
3. Although again insufficient, efforts were made in pursuit of transparency in Philippine governance. As far as the government
sector is concerned, the current administration, consistent with its drive of curbing corruption, promotes honesty and integrity in
public service. It is currently pursuing the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill and other related legislations, as well as
intensifying people’s engagement in local governance. Transparency in budget and disbursements are, however, still far from
being substantially implemented.
Responsiveness
1. Responsiveness means that institutions and processes serve all stakeholders in a timelyand appropriate manner. It also means that
actors and structures of governance easily give genuine expression to the will or desire of the people. In other words, the interests
of all citizens must be well protected in a prompt and appropriate manner so that each of them can appreciate and take part in the
process of governance. While responsiveness is also a characteristic sought from the private sector and civil society, more is
demanded from the government or the public sector.
2. Gender equality is engrained in the egalitarian principles of democracy. Gender concerns that respond to the women and their
community must always be part of the agenda of public sector and civil society. Thus, emerging as important areas in the study of
democratic governance are “Gender and Development” and “Gender Responsiveness.” The participation of women in
governance within the context of “gendered socialization” rests on how responsive the structures and processes are to their roles
and needs.
3. Some of the important efforts made to attain responsive governance in the Philippines are decentralization, creation of citizen’s
charter in all frontline agencies (as required by ARTA), and gender sensitivity programs. First, through decentralization, local
governments, which are more proximate to their constituents, serve more promptly the people, who in turn become more
involved in decision-making. Second, every government agency now has it Citizen’s Charter, which provides timeframes for
every step in attaining frontline services. Agencies now must also respond to written queries sent by the stakeholders or interested
parties within a period of ten days, otherwise there will be delayed service. However, this aspect of governance still remains to be
one of the causes for the decline of public’s confidence in the public sector. Although the ARTA has been passed, there is still so
much delay in public service delivery. The failure of the government agencies to explain the charters to the stakeholders is one of
the main reasons why there is still delay.
Equity and Inclusiveness
1. Equity and inclusiveness means that all the members of the society, especially the most vulnerable ones or the grassroots level,
must be taken into consideration in policy-making. Everyone has a stake in the society and no one should feel alienated from it.
Particularly, those who belong to the grassroots level must not only be the subject of legislation but they must be given the
opportunity to participate in decision or policy making.
2. Social equity refers to a kind of justice that gives more opportunity to the less fortunate members of the society. It is based on the
principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. Good governance demands that the actors must give
preferential attention to the plight of the poor. Laws must be geared towards this end and the society must actively participate in
the promotion of the same.
3. The Philippine Government has done extensive efforts in promoting equity and inclusiveness. The Constitution makes it as one
of its state policies the promotion of social justice. Pursuant to this, the Congress has enacted social legislations like the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which aims at freeing the farmer tenants from the bondage of the soil. Also, representation
in the Congress, under the party list system, is constitutionally mandated to have sectoral representation of the underprivileged.
Gender and Development programs are in the process of being integrated with the various structures and institutions in the
country. But legislation is one thing; implementation is another. It is in the faithful implementation of these laws that the country
failed. Inequality is especially felt in the justice system, electoral system, and even in the bureaucracy itself.
Consensus Oriented
1. Governance is consensus oriented when decisions are made after taking into consideration the different viewpoints of the actors
of the society. Mechanisms for conflict resolution must be in place because inevitably conflict that will arise from competing
interests of the actors. To meet the consensus, a strong, impartial, and flexible mediation structure must be established. Without
such, compromises and a broad consensus cannot be reached that serves that best interest of the whole community.
2. Fundamentally, democratic governance is based on the partnership of the actors of the society in providing public services.
Decisions-making must therefore entail recognition of their respective interests as well as their respective duties. The essential of
governance could never be expressed in a unilateral act of policy making by the public sector or other dominant sectors. Public
hearings or consultations in arriving at a consensus are therefore inherently necessary in the process of governance.
3. Among the things done by the Philippines in promoting a consensus oriented governance are: (1) creation of a wide-based of
representation in the Congress; (2) a two-tiered legislature or bicameralism which subjects legislation to the evaluation of
 national and district legislators; and (3) necessity of public hearings or consultations of various governmental policies and
actions.
Accountability
1. Accountability means answerability or responsibility for one’s action. It is based on the principle that every person or group is
responsible for their actions most especially when their acts affect public interest. The actors have an obligation to explain and be
answerable for the consequences of decisions and actions they have made on behalf of the community it serves.
2. Accountability comes in various forms: political, hierarchical, and managerial accountability. Political accountability refers to the
accountability of public officials to the people they represent. Hierarchical accountability refers to the ordered accountability of
the various agencies and their respective officers and personnel in relation to their program objectives. Managerial accountability
refers to employee accountability based on organization and individual performance. A system of rewards and punishment must
be in place to strengthen the processes and institutions of governance.
3. The Philippines in the recent years had endeavored to comply with the requirements of accountability. It had put in action the
concept of political accountability as it held answerable erring public officials involved in graft and corruption and for acts
contrary to the mandate of the constitution. It had also strengthened parliamentary scrutiny through legislative investigations and
creation of special committees exercising oversight functions. The Office of the Ombudsman, considered as the public watchdog,
has become ever so active in investigating and prosecuting graft and plunders cases. Citizen’s Charter, as required by ARTA, was
also an important tool in promoting professional public service values. In this area, Philippine governance has done relatively
well.

CURRENT STATE OF GOVERNANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

1. The Philippines is plagued by bad governance. Based on the six dimensions of governance in the Worldwide Governance
Indicators (WGI), it ranks in the lower half of the percentile. In 2010-2011, the Philippines ranked only 85th in the Global
Competitive Index (GCI), lagging behind most of its Southeast Asian neighbors. The decline of trust on the actors of governance
and the consequential poor economic condition were brought about by the systemic corruption among and between public
officials and private organizations. In 2013, it ranked 94th among 177 countries in the Corruption Perception Index. Among the
key institutions in the Philippines perceived to be most corrupt based on the Global Corruption Index are “political parties,”
“judiciary,” “police,” “public officials and civil servants,” and “legislature.” This means all branches of the Philippine
government are now challenged.
2. As perceived and experienced by the common Filipino masses, the foremost indicators of bad governance in the Philippines are
the unending cycle of poverty, the huge gap between the rich and the poor, the deep-seated tradition of corruption, mistrust on
formal government institutions, yawning cynicism on the true motive of political actions, instability of the economic
environment, constant threats to the authority of the established government, and questions on accountability and transparency.
These are the usual content of everyday broadcast media, so common that there perceived to be the normal state of affairs in the
Philippines.
3. Bad governance is the root cause of all evils. It is what prevents the Philippines from achieving its Millennium Development
Goals. Rising above such state of governance is a political imperative and the ideal solution to a wide range of politico-economic
problems. While the Philippines has already created “islands of good governance”[8] in some national agencies and local
government units, its overall state is still miserable.[9]
A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, often
a state.[1] In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists
of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is a means by which state policies are
enforced, as well as a mechanism for determining the policy.
While all types of organizations have governance, the word government is often used more
specifically to refer to the approximately 200 independent national governments on Earth, as well as
subsidiary organizations.[2]
Historically prevalent forms of government
include aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny.
In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or outright control the behaviour of
people. The term "authority" is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure.
Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as
social beings. In business, power is often expressed as being "upward" or "downward". With
downward power, a company's superior influences subordinates. When a company exerts upward
power, it is the subordinates who influence the decisions of their leader or leaders.[1]
The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion). At one extreme, it closely
resembles what an English-speaking person might term "influence", although some authors
distinguish "influence" as a means by which power is used.[2] One such example is soft power, as
compared to hard power.
Much of the recent sociological debate about power revolves around the issue of its means to
enable – in other words, power as a means to make social actions possible as much as it may
constrain or prevent them. The philosopher Michel Foucault saw power as a structural expression of
"a complex strategic situation in a given social setting"[3] that requires both constraint and
enablement.

Theories[edit]
Five bases[edit]
Main article: French and Raven's five bases of power

Social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven, in a now-classic study

(1959),[4] developed a schema of sources of power by which to analyse how power plays work (or fail
to work) in a specific relationship.
According to French and Raven, power must be distinguished from influence in the following way:
power is that state of affairs which holds in a given relationship, A-B, such that a given influence
attempt by A over B makes A's desired change in B more likely. Conceived this way, power is
fundamentally relative – it depends on the specific understandings A and B each apply to their
relationship, and, interestingly, requires B's recognition of a quality in A which would motivate B to
change in the way A intends. A must draw on the 'base' or combination of bases of power
appropriate to the relationship, to effect the desired outcome. Drawing on the wrong power base can
have unintended effects, including a reduction in A's own power.
French and Raven argue that there are five significant categories of such qualities, while not
excluding other minor categories. Further bases have since been adduced – in particular by Gareth
Morgan in his 1986 book, Images of Organization.[5]
Legitimate power[edit]
Main article: Legitimate power

Also called "positional power," it is the power of an individual because of the relative position and
duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate power is formal authority
delegated to the holder of the position. It is usually accompanied by various attributes of power such
as a uniform, a title, or an imposing physical office.
Referent power[edit]
Main article: Referent power
Referent power is the power or ability of individuals to attract others and build loyalty. It is based on
the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. A person may be admired because of
specific personal trait, and this admiration creates the opportunity for interpersonal influence. Here
the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from
being an accepted follower. Nationalism and patriotism count towards an intangible sort of referent
power. For example, soldiers fight in wars to defend the honor of the country. This is the second
least obvious power, but the most effective. Advertisers have long used the referent power of sports
figures for products endorsements, for example. The charismatic appeal of the sports star
supposedly leads to an acceptance of the endorsement, although the individual may have little real
credibility outside the sports arena.[6] Abuse is possible when someone that is likable, yet lacks
integrity and honesty, rises to power, placing them in a situation to gain personal advantage at the
cost of the group's position. Referent power is unstable alone, and is not enough for a leader who
wants longevity and respect. When combined with other sources of power, however, it can help a
person achieve great success.
Expert power[edit]
Main article: Expert power

Expert power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the
organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually
highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. When
they have knowledge and skills that enable them to understand a situation, suggest solutions, use
solid judgment, and generally out perform others, then people tend to listen to them. When
individuals demonstrate expertise, people tend to trust them and respect what they say. As subject
matter experts, their ideas will have more value, and others will look to them for leadership in that
area.
Reward power[edit]
Main article: Reward power
Reward power depends on the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards, it
refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits,
time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility. This power is obvious but
also ineffective if abused. People who abuse reward power can become pushy or be reprimanded
for being too forthcoming or 'moving things too quickly'. If others expect to be rewarded for doing
what someone wants, there's a high probability that they'll do it. The problem with this basis of power
is that the rewarder may not have as much control over rewards as may be required. Supervisors
rarely have complete control over salary increases, and managers often can't control promotions all
by themselves. And even a CEO needs permission from the board of directors for some actions. So
when somebody uses up available rewards, or the rewards don't have enough perceived value to
others, their power weakens. (One of the frustrations of using rewards is that they often need to be
bigger each time if they're to have the same motivational impact. Even then, if rewards are given
frequently, people can become satiated by the reward, such that it loses its effectiveness).
Coercive power[edit]
Main article: Coercive power
See also: Coercive control
Coercive power is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to demote or to
withhold other rewards. The desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that
ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive power tends to be the most obvious but least
effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance from the people who experience it.
Threats and punishment are common tools of coercion. Implying or threatening that someone will be
fired, demoted, denied privileges, or given undesirable assignments – these are examples of using
coercive power. Extensive use of coercive power is rarely appropriate in an organizational setting,
and relying on these forms of power alone will result in a very cold, impoverished style of leadership.
Principles in interpersonal relationships[edit]
According to Guerrero, Laura K., and Peter A. Andersen in "Close encounters: Communication in
Relationships":[7]

1. Power as a Perception: Power is a perception in a sense that some people can have
objective power, but still have trouble influencing others. People who use power cues and
act powerfully and proactively tend to be perceived as powerful by others. Some people
become influential even though they don't overtly use powerful behavior.
2. Power as a Relational Concept: Power exists in relationships. The issue here is often how
much relative power a person has in comparison to one's partner. Partners in close and
satisfying relationships often influence each other at different times in various arenas.
3. Power as Resource Based: Power usually represents a struggle over resources. The more
scarce and valued resources are, the more intense and protracted are power struggles. The
scarcity hypothesis indicates that people have the most power when the resources they
possess are hard to come by or are in high demand. However, scarce resource leads to
power only if it's valued within a relationship.
4. The Principle of Least Interest and Dependence Power: The person with less to lose has
greater power in the relationship. Dependence power indicates that those who are
dependent on their relationship or partner are less powerful, especially if they know their
partner is uncommitted and might leave them. According to interdependence theory, quality
of alternatives refers to the types of relationships and opportunities people could have if they
were not in their current relationship. The principle of least interestsuggests that if a
difference exists in the intensity of positive feelings between partners, the partner who feels
the most positive is at a power disadvantage. There's an inverse relationship between
interest in relationship and the degree of relational power.
5. Power as Enabling or Disabling: Power can be enabling or disabling. Research has been
shown that people are more likely to have an enduring influence on others when they
engage in dominant behavior that reflects social skill rather than intimidation. Personal
power is protective against pressure and excessive influence by others and/or situational
stress. People who communicate through self-confidence and expressive, composed
behavior tend to be successful in achieving their goals and maintaining good relationships.
Power can be disabling when it leads to destructive patterns of communication. This can
lead to the chilling effect where the less powerful person often hesitates to communicate
dissatisfaction, and the demand withdrawal pattern which is when one person makes
demands and the other becomes defensive and withdraws(mawasha, 2006).Both effects
have negative consequences for relational satisfaction.
6. Power as a Prerogative: The prerogative principle states that the partner with more power
can make and break the rules. Powerful people can violate norms, break relational rules,
and manage interactions without as much penalty as powerless people. These actions may
reinforce the powerful person's dependence power. In addition, the more powerful person
has the prerogative to manage both verbal and nonverbal interactions. They can initiate
conversations, change topics, interrupt others, initiate touch, and end discussions more
easily than less powerful people. (See expressions of dominance.)
Effects[edit]
Power changes those in the position of power and those who are targets of that power.[49]

Approach/inhibition theory[edit]
Developed by D. Keltner and colleagues,[50] approach/inhibition theory assumes that having power
and using power alters psychological states of individuals. The theory is based on the notion that
most organisms react to environmental events in two common ways. The reaction of approach is
associated with action, self-promotion, seeking rewards, increased energy and movement. Inhibition,
on the contrary, is associated with self-protection, avoiding threats or danger, vigilance, loss of
motivation and an overall reduction in activity.
Overall, approach/inhibition theory holds that power promotes approach tendencies, while reduction
in power promotes inhibition tendencies.

Positive[edit]
 Power prompts people to take action
 Makes individuals more responsive to changes within a group and its environment[51]
 Powerful people are more proactive, more likely to speak up, make the first move, and lead
negotiation[52]
 Powerful people are more focused on the goals appropriate in a given situation and tend to plan
more task-related activities in a work setting[53]
 Powerful people tend to experience more positive emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction,
and they smile more than low-power individuals[54]
 Power is associated with optimism about the future because more powerful individuals focus
their attention on more positive aspects of the environment[55]
 People with more power tend to carry out executive cognitive functions more rapidly and
successfully, including internal control mechanisms that coordinate attention, decision-making,
planning, and goal-selection[56]
Negative[edit]
 Powerful people are prone to take risky, inappropriate, or unethical decisions and often overstep
their boundaries[57][58]
 They tend to generate negative emotional reactions in their subordinates, particularly when there
is a conflict in the group[59]
 When individuals gain power, their self-evaluation become more positive, while their evaluations
of others become more negative[60]
 Power tends to weaken one’s social attentiveness, which leads to difficulty understanding other
people’s point of view[61]
 Powerful people also spend less time collecting and processing information about their
subordinates and often perceive them in a stereotypical fashion[62]
 People with power tend to use more coercive tactics, increase social distance between
themselves and subordinates, believe that non-powerful individuals are untrustworthy, and
devalue work and ability of less powerful individuals[63]
 The Nature of Power

Power can be defined in many ways. Most simply, it is the ability to get what you
want, or as scholar Kenneth Boulding said, power is "the ability to change the future."
Some scholars make a distinction between three kinds of power-- "power over,"
"power to" and "power with." "Power over" is the ability to dominate another person
or group--as in "I have power over him. This means, "I have the ability to make him
do what I want him to do." Power-over usually comes from force and threat. If the
subordinate fails to do what he or she is asked to do, the dominant person will use
force to make the subordinate person comply.

"Power to" is the ability to do something on one’s own--it refers to one’s abilities.
Sources of this kind of power are intellect, resources, knowledge, stamina, etc. These
resources give some people the power to accomplish things that others cannot.

"Power with" is similar to "power to" in that it reflects ability, but "power with" is the
ability to work with others to get something done by cooperation. This is the power of
consensus--the power of people working together to solve a common problem.

These distinctions are similar to the ones made by Kenneth Boulding in his theory of
power. Boulding said power has three forms--threat, exchange, and love. Threat
power is equivalent to "power over." Exchange power is the power of negotiation--it
is a form of "power with," as it requires another party to negotiate with. Love,
Boulding argued, is also a form of power. Although not often recognized as power,
when people love each other, they do things to help the other person, just because they
love them, not for any particular reward or hope of exchange. This gives rise to what
Boulding calls "the integrative system"--the structure of bonds, of respect, of
legitimacy that holds social groups and whole societies together. This is the form of
power that underlies persuasion--people can be persuaded to change their behavior if a
convincing argument can be made that corresponds with an opponent’s belief system
(or changes that belief system through love or respect).

Although most people tend to think of power only in terms of "power over," often the
most effective conflict strategy is a mix of all three types of power--what we have
called the "power strategy mix." This involves the use of some force, some exchange
(or negotiation) and some persuasion. How much of each is best varies from one
situation to the next, depending on the people to be influenced and the nature of the
problem itself.
Three dimensions of power
The most sought and valued end of politics is power. This is true from a realist perspective, which is the one used to
explain this fascinating capability. There are two ideas that should be stated before continuing and that will be
explained throughout this article. First, power varies depending on the level of analysis; it is different at the individual
level, national and international level. And second, power is exercised rather than held. The simplest and most effective
way to understand power is explained by Dahl as the ability of A to make B do something that otherwise would not
do. In this definition it is implied the fact that A does not hold power as a material possession but instead preforms an
action over B.

Power can be classified in two, ‘power over’ and ‘power to’. ‘Power over’ focuses on the exercise of control through
behavior and interactions from one actor to another. On the other hand, ‘power to’ is related to how social relations
define the actions and capabilities of an actor. At the individual level, the most predominant form of power is ‘power
over’. In this sense, if the definition provided by Dahl is considered, according to Barnett and Duvall, the result will
be a type of compulsory power. Where A has the means to exercise power over B, B does not have the same wants as
those of A and that power does not have to be intentionally exercised. One interesting example of ‘power over’ is that
of micro-physics suggested by Foucault, in which he argues that power is exercised by creating micro-physics over
the body (or person). Instead of believing that the other actor is a material property, it can be seen as a body that has
to respond to very small and subtle dispositions. Additionally, the effectiveness of power is negatively correlated to
how evident it is. In other words, the less evident the exercise of power is the more effective it becomes, because this
way it generates a smaller reaction.
At the national level, power occurs and is exercised more evenly between ‘power over’ and ‘power to’. In a democracy,
the power is granted consciously from the people to the government (or institution). Moreover, the institution has the
capabilities and performs the actions based on the nature of the social relations that have established how the power
should be executed. The national government is an institution created by society that exercises power to delimit
another actor’s actions. In this sense, Neale argues that institutions “imply ‘you may’ as well as ‘thou shall not,’ thus
creating as well as limiting choices”. However, in contrast with compulsory power presented at the individual level,
at the national level, power does not require a direct relation among the actors but only the participation of those
specific actors to the capability and action at discussion. For instance, there is not a direct relation between the
legislative power and a random citizen, yet when a law is promulgated both specific actors are subject to the
capabilities one has over the other to legislate. Additionally, one particular case in which an institution can be
categorized as exercising compulsory power would be if it was controlled or possessed by A and shaped the actions
done by B. This could be the case of a totalitarian regime.

The international level represents a particular situation for the exercise of power because of its anarchic
nature and the predominance of states as the main actors. Kenneth Waltz argues that the international
system is organized in a structure that focuses on the arrangement of its units (States) depending on the
different capabilities. In the international system, each unit is equal to others because of sovereignty and
given the anarchy under which it works no “unit is entitled to command; none is required to obey”.
Nevertheless, the moment when equal units begin to interact between each other capabilities arise and
locate them in a specific place. Moreover, in the international level, if A has large military capabilities it
means it is able to exercise power over B that has fewer military capabilities. B’s interests and actions are
shaped by the structure in which more capabilities are allocated to A. Additionally the ultimate objective of
every actor is its survival. Furthermore, compulsory power can be exercised if military capabilities are
regarded as the sole source of power, in spite of the sovereignty that each State has. On the contrary, when
a Permanent Member of the Security Council of the United Nations vetoes a resolution, this practice falls
within institutional power, particularly the ‘power to’ forbid an action.

Regardless of the level of analysis, the quest for power is a never ending game that actors involved in it,
are always looking to play in their favor. States, more often than not, will act as if the only thing that mattered
would be to have the necessary capabilities to “have” power over another State. Sometimes the actions
used to achieve that objective can be cooperation or the formation of alliances and some other times the
use of force will be preferred. Whereas institutions are limited by the ‘power to’ do something that is provided
by its very own constitution, based on its practices and costumes. In addition, individuals can exercise
power through a large array of practices. Finally, irrespective of the level, the techniques, methods, actions
used to exercise power will be relative to the expected outcome, the cost involved, the time available and
most of all the capabilities.