IDENTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION OF MODES OF ACQUIRING POLITICAL

POWER

BY: ADEDOJA RACHAEL OLUWASEKEMI

MATRIC NUMBER: 22/0932

AN ASSIGNMENT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMIN, IN VERONICA ADELEKE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES, BABCOCK UNIVERSITY ILISHAN REMO, OGUN STATE, NIGERIA.

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE COURSE; NIGERIAN PEOPLE AND

GOVERNMENT, PLSC 200.

SUBMITTED TO;

PROFESSOR ETI CHINEDU

DATE; 21ST FEBRUARY 2024.

WHAT IS POLITICAL POWER....................................................................................................3

Modes of Acquiring Political Power................................................................................................4
1. Through hereditary...................................................................................................................4
Succession by constitutional prescription........................................................................................5

1
 Succession by election.................................................................................................................6
Succession by force......................................................................................................................7
References;.......................................................................................................................................9

2
3
WHAT IS POLITICAL POWER
This is a social causation in which a first actor causes changes in the behaviors of other actors. It
is typically gained and held in an outright conflict between rivals. They can be defeated through
polls, in legislative chambers, in the media and many others.

Political conflict are the disputes and arguments that arise within or between political entities,
often concerning powers, resources, ideologies.

The definition of political power in government is the ability of an individual or a group of

people to influence the thoughts, actions, and mindset of people in a nation. This power can be
legitimate power given to an entity by the people of a nation that holds authority over society.
Political power can also be illegitimate, meaning power has been seized through illegal or unjust
means. Power in government is the authority of an individual's or group's right to use power by
making decisions, giving directives, and demanding compliance. This power can be used for
good purposes, such as to pursue society's collective goals and progress a nation forward.
Political power can be used for evil purposes if authority is placed in the wrong hands.

The focal point of the study of political institutions is power and its uses. Although we think of
the concept of power as being associated particularly with politics or so as to say political
science, it is, in fact, exists in all types of social relationships. For Foucault (1969), ‘power
relationships are present in all aspects of society.

They go right down into the depths of society…. They are not localized in the relations between
the state, and its citizens, or on the frontiers between classes. All social actions involve power
relationships whether it may be between employer and employee or between husband and wife
(in patriarchal society). Thus, it is of fundamental importance for sociology to study in its
manifold ramifications.

Sociologists are concerned with social interactions among individuals and groups and more
specifically, how individuals and groups achieve their ends as against those of others. In their

4
study they take note of power as an important element that influences social behaviors.
Sociologists are today concerned to Analyse the diverse nature of power and that complexities it
creates in human relationships, especially between state and society.

In the very simple language, power is the ability to get one’s way—even if it is based on bluff. It
is the ability to exercise one’s will over others or, in other words, power is the ability of
individuals or groups to make their own interests or concerns count, even when others resist.

Types of Power:

Max Weber (1958) believed that there are three (not one) independent and equally important
orders of power as under.

Economic power: For Marx, economic power is the basis of all power, including political power.
It is based upon an objective relationship to the modes of production, a group’s condition in the
labour market, and its chances. Economic power refers to the measurement of the ability to
control events by virtue of material advantage.

Social power: It is based upon informal community opinion, family position, honour, prestige
and patterns of consumption and lifestyles. Weber placed special emphasis on the importance of
social power, which often takes priority over economic interests. Contemporary sociologists
have also given importance to social status so much so that they sometimes seem to have
underestimated the importance of political power.

Political power: It is based upon the relationships to the legal structure, party affiliation and
extensive bureaucracy. Political power is institutionalized in the form of large-scale government
bureaucracies. One of the persistent ideas has been that they are controlled by elites, that is,
small, select, privileged groups.

Modes of Acquiring Political Power

There ways of acquiring political power are characterized int two they are;

5
 1. Through hereditary; Although dictators still occasionally seek to establish their sons as

their heirs, they usually rely on force rather than the claims of heredity to achieve their

object. Apart from a few states where the dynastic ruler is the effective head of the

government, the hereditary principle of succession is now almost exclusively confined to

the constitutional monarchies of western Europe. There is some irony in the fact that the

line of succession is more securely established in these monarchies now than at any point

in their earlier history: intradynastic struggle, it appears, is much less likely when

monarchy is mainly ceremonial. Heredity may be reinforced or modified by

constitutional prescription: this was the case, for example, of the famous Act of

Settlement that secured the Hanoverian succession in Britain.

2. Through succession which can be through different ways;

Succession by constitutional prescription; A leading example of succession by constitutional

prescription is the United States. Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the U.S. provides:

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or
inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve
on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal,
death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring
what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the
disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Twenty-fifth Amendment

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1967, elaborated these procedures

to include further arrangements for dealing with the problem of presidential disability, as well as

for filling a vacant vice presidency. The original language of the Constitution has been the basis

for the peaceful succession of Vice Presidents John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson,

6
Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon B.

Johnson. Gerald R. Ford succeeded to the presidency on the basis of the provisions of the

Twenty-fifth Amendment. Constitutionally prescribed arrangements for ensuring the succession

are not always so successful, and many countries whose constitutions contain very similar

provisions have experienced succession crises that were resolved only by violence.

Succession by election
Election is a principle of succession also frequently combined with force. In cases of closely
contested elections or where there is doubt as to the validity or proper form of the election, the
result is often a disputed succession. The Great Schism in the papacy in the 14th century and the
disputed succession to the elective monarchy of Hungary in the 16th century are examples of the
failure of elective systems to assure an orderly succession. Force is the effective basis of
succession in several contemporary states in which pro forma electoral confirmation is given to a
ruler who seizes power.
The problem of succession imposes great strains on any political order: the continuity of rule is
broken, established patterns of action are interrupted, and the future suddenly becomes uncertain.
This political crisis tests the character of regimes in ways that are of some importance for
comparative political analysis. A number of interesting comparisons may be drawn from the
study of succession practices, but perhaps the most important is the distinction between those
systems in which the problem is resolved primarily by force and those systems in which heredity,
constitutional prescription, or election assure a peaceful and orderly succession.
Political orders are subjected to another kind of strain when the rule of their present power
holders is challenged and the question arises of depriving them of authority. This is the problem
of the transfer of power: whether, in what way, and by whom a present ruler may be displaced.
Like succession, it is a recurrent problem in all political systems, and, as in the case of
succession practices, the ways in which political systems respond to the strains involved offer
important clues to their character. It is, in a sense, the fundamental political crisis, for all systems
are in some way shaken, often violently, sometimes to the point of destruction, by the struggles
between established rulers and their rivals.

7
Succession by force

Revolutions, which are the result of the crisis in its most extreme form, involve the overthrow
not merely of the government but of the political order itself. Typically, a revolution is preceded
by a series of strains within the system: challenges to the authority of the government mount, and
its legitimacy is increasingly questioned; the exercise of power becomes coercive, and the
challenge to rule assumes ever more violent forms; eventually, the struggle comes to a dramatic
climax in the destruction of the old order. The coup d’etat is another form of violent response to
the crisis of rule, but it is distinguished from the revolution in that it involves the overthrow only
of the government: the political order is not immediately affected, for the coup is managed by an
individual or group within the government or within the ruling class. In some cases, however, the
coup d’etat is merely a preliminary stage to revolution. Sometimes this happens when the new
ruler leads a governmentally imposed revolution: this was the role played by Napoleon I,
Napoleon III, Mussolini, and Hitler. At other times, coups are actually prompted by fear of
revolution but succeed only in further weakening the claims to legitimacy of the existing order.
In addition to revolutions and coups d’etat, the crisis of rule may prompt other forms of violent
political reaction, including civil war and secession, resistance movements and rebellions,
guerrilla warfare and terrorism, class warfare, and peasant revolts.
The causes of internal conflict leading to the forcible overthrow of governments are extremely
varied. They include tensions created by rapid social and economic development; the rise of new
social classes and the refusal of established elites to share their power; problems of the
distribution of wealth and the grievances of different economic groups and interests; the rise of
corrosive social and political philosophies and the estrangement of intellectuals; conflict of
opinions over the ends of government; factional struggles among power holders or within the
ruling class; the rise of a charismatic leader; oppressive rule that alienates powerful groups; weak
rule that tolerates antigovernmental or revolutionary movements; and many different
combinations of these and other social, economic, and political factors. All political systems
experience some of these conditions with some frequency. Yet there are a number of modern
countries that have avoided internal wars and the forcible overthrow of their governments for
considerable periods.
It appears that rulers in the contemporary world are generally safe from violent challenges if they
possess an effective monopoly of military, economic, and political power, linked with certain

8
important social controls; or, alternatively, if they are obliged to exercise limited powers for
specified periods and are required to yield office to rivals who meet certain qualifications. The
first is the definition of a modern totalitarian regime, fully and efficiently organized; the second
describes the governments of several contemporary constitutional democracies. In the first case,
the government secures itself by force combined with social and psychological means of
preventing the formation of opposition. In the second case, alternatives to internal war are
provided by the opportunities for oppositions to influence the exercise of power and ultimately to
replace the government. The great achievement of constitutional democracy has been to give
reasonable security to governments from forcible overthrow by compelling them to accept
limitations on their power, by requiring them to forgo the use of force against rivals who agree to
accept the same limitations, and by establishing well-known legal procedures through which
these rivals may themselves constitute the government.

9
References;
Political system - Hereditary, Succession, Monarchy | Britannica

Power of Politics: Meaning, Types and Sources of Power (yourarticlelibrary.com)

10