With great power comes greater responsibility and even greater scepticism

'Power', in simple terms, refers to the ability to influence decision making. Nehru and Mandela are two individuals who have set examples on how to wield and relinquish power responsibly.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” - John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, also known as Lord Acton, English historian and moralist of the 19th century

“All power corrupts, but some must govern.” -John le Carre, British ex-intelligence officer and novelist of the 20th century

The first is among the most quoted maxims in the zeitgeist of twentieth century geopolitics. The second makes a sober counterpoint to the first.

What exactly does ‘power’ mean? What kind of power is really necessary for an individual — and by extension a nation — to create a healthy self-image? And at what point does it cease to be a stimulant and metamorphose into an intoxicant?

With the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in the early 90s, ideology ceased to define the way countries spelt out different power equations. There was only one mantra, analysts said: free market capitalism, which they prescribed as the panacea for all difficulties. With the creation of a unipolar world order, the world, fed in no small amount by self-congratulatory pundits, came to believe that self-regulation, both in political and economic spheres, would create the ultimate check on power. The Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher school of thoughts — favouring small state and big business — came to gain worldwide acceptance in the last decade of the century.

However, its limits were visible sooner than later. Imbroglios like the Asian currency crisis and then seemingly disparate events like the war on terror of the last decade; the ongoing great recession; and the endless winter in the aftermath of Arab Spring have all brought us to the realisation that unfettered power — be it political or economic — is as detrimental to a the well being of a nation as overregulation.

So is ‘power’ per se an anathema? How to define it in the first place? And how do stakeholders create a template for utilising it?

‘Power’, in simple terms, is the ability to influence other’s decisions. This applies not just in terms of ends, actual results, but also means, the thought processes that go into producing those ends.

In that sense, this piece, based on this research article published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, surely informs, educates and enlightens a keen layperson.

Andy J. Yap, Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management, conducted experiments at Columbia University to study some attributes associated with power equations in an organisational setup. He and his colleagues found that ‘feeling powerful’ or ‘powerless’ influenced not just our ability but also our perception of others. So, we have a tendency to evaluate the power of others relative to that of our own.

That sounds trite. But the next part of it is likely to raise a few eyebrows: feeling powerful makes us see others as less powerful. An individual’s sense of being powerful not just equates to others being powerless but also feeds on it.

Can this hypothesis find wider application? Can we apply it to the leaders we admire? To. democrats like Jawaharlal Nehru, who had power but chose to exercise very wisely? Or to Nelson Mandela who made good use of his power and relinquished it when he felt the time was ripe?

To take the point further, what stopped Jawaharlal Nehru from becoming a Lee Kuan Yew? Or, to make it more recent, what could have stopped Mandela from becoming a Robert Mugabe?

The piece quoted provides some answers. Joe Magee, a power researcher and professor of management at New York University, finds power more “freeing” rather than “corrupting”. He says power always helps one’s true self to emerge.

His stand is that handling power is more about the values cultivated before coming to power.

But what about checks and balances?

The research article was published in May. Six months later, Mugabe, at the age of 89, has won another round of elections in Zimbabwe. Mandela is no longer with us. And in June next year, it would be 50 years since India lost its first Prime Minister.