Political Power: Arendt, Habermas, and Deliberation

Understanding Political Power: Arendt and Habermas

Power arises wherever people gather and act together. What matters is the procedure for adopting decisions. Power is an end in itself, the condition that enables a group to act together. It is the formation of a common intention aimed at achieving agreement.

Hannah Arendt's Concept of Normative Power

Hannah Arendt stated that laws are directives; they function as rules of the game. They do not dictate our behavior at all times but provide a framework within which the 'game' can develop and without which it could not take place. Arendt offers a concept of normative power that can be used for a radical democratic approach and against the erosion of the public sphere in contemporary mass democracies.

Habermas: Power vs. Power Generation

Jürgen Habermas proposes a distinction between power and power generation. Only in the latter case—power generation—are Arendt's concept of power and its references to deliberation and consensus relevant. Admittedly, in the maintenance and exercise of power, the Weberian strategic concept explains many things. Conflicting political groups seek power, but they do not 'believe' in it. This, according to Habermas, highlights the powerlessness of the powerful: they must borrow their power from those who produce it.

Habermas's Rules for Deliberative Procedures

For deliberative procedures, Habermas outlines three key rules:

• Freedom of parties to speak, encompassing traditional liberal rights such as freedom of expression and conscience.
• Equality of the parties, ensuring their ideas and arguments have equal weight in the discussion process, including rights like freedom of association, press, and universal suffrage.
• The structure of deliberation in common, emphasizing shared understanding and collective decision-making.

Legitimacy Through Deliberation

This idea of legitimacy, linked to procedures, joint discussions, and agreements, appears to promote rational liberal-democratic values, potentially to the detriment of other value systems. The crucial point is that if someone wished to demonstrate the superiority of traditional, democratic, or authoritarian values, they would be required to do so based on this procedural schema. An action, rule, or institution is considered legitimate if it can be justified within such a deliberative process.