Abstract
The US invasion of Iraq was explained in this paper using the theories of power developed by Max Weber and Michel Foucault. Weber’s theory showed that the president had a traditional and charismatic authority to permit the invasion. Foucault’s theory, on the other hand, demonstrated that the invasion was necessary to instill discipline. The sources of legitimate authority were explained in Weber’s theory. However, the theory failed to identify the most important source. Foucault’s theory explained the role of power and its distribution. However, it failed to identify sources of power.
Introduction
In this paper, I will argue that wielding power in a peaceful manner requires public consensus on the legitimacy of authority. The US invasion of Iraq will be used as an example to demonstrate that a community is likely to disapprove actions taken by its leaders without legitimate authority. Weber’s theory of power shows that the invasion was justified based on traditional and charismatic authority. However, it could not be justified based on rational-legal authority. Foucault’s theory of power, on the other hand, shows that the invasion was justified by the fact that it would improve discipline and security by preventing terrorism.
The Example
The US military raided Iraq in 2003 in a bid to eliminate terrorism. The government of the US assumed that Iraq was a threat to its national security since it was supporting terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. Moreover, it accused Iraq of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, which were proscribed by the UN. Some Americans and countries such as the UK supported the attack by arguing that the US had legitimate authority to protect its territories. However, countries such as German and France opposed the invasion by stating that Iraq had made significant progress in complying with the UN regulations. Thus, the US had no legitimate authority to attack Iraq.
Explanation
Weber’s theory states that domination is based on three specific forms of authority. These include traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal authority (Weber 2012: 250-267). The charismatic authority wielded by President Bush was one of the main factors that enabled the US to gain support for the invasion. The president was able to create a sense of urgency among most of the US citizens and members of the international community concerning the importance of attacking Iraq. As a result, the president won the support of Americans who trusted his actions and decisions concerning national security.
The invasion was also supported based on traditional authority. The US has a tradition of invading foreign countries to achieve its goals. This tradition is entrenched in most of the US public institutions that are responsible for national security. For instance, the executive and military are able to influence Congress to authorise an invasion. However, the president did not have rational-legal authority to permit the invasion.
The legal authority would involve initiating the debate concerning the invasion by a deliberative organisation rather than the president. Legally, Congress was expected to authorise the invasion after discussing its merits and demerits. In addition, the US was required to respect international law. Nevertheless, the president ignored Congress and violated international law, thereby causing dissent in the US and several foreign countries.
In Foucault’s theory, power is viewed as a diffuse and pervasive relationship. It flows between people who are engaged in a relationship (Foucault 2012: 299-309). In this respect, power is expected to flow between leaders of various countries in the international community. The flow of power is bidirectional when a set of countries have egalitarian relationships. However, the flow is unidirectional when the international community is characterised by authoritarian relationships.
The relationship between the US and countries that are associated with terrorism such as Iraq and Afghanistan has always been authoritarian. In this respect, the US was expected to invade Iraq to achieve its security goals. The decision by Iraqi leaders to resist the attack is explained by the fact that resistance is always expected even in the most authoritarian relationships.
The concept of bio-power demonstrates that actions such as military invasions are meant to ensure discipline rather than to punish deviance (Foucault 2012: 299-309). This means that the US was justified to attack Iraq to enable it to prevent the production of illegal weapons. The resulting improvement in security was expected to enhance the productivity of Iraqis and Americans.
Critical Assessment
Weber’s Theory
One of the main strengths of the theory is that it clearly articulates the key sources of authority. Power is viewed as a legitimate authority. Thus, individuals need a clear framework to verify the legitimacy of the authority of leaders to accept their power. People are likely to obey leaders who exercise legitimate power (Longhofer and Winchester 2012: 1-7). For instance, citizens in most countries obey and support national governments voluntarily because the power wielded by their leaders is sanctioned by laws and traditions.
Another strength of the theory is that it defines the scope of authority. Individuals and leaders, such as presidents and priests, have limited power over their subjects. The society, on the hand, has sovereign authority. Thus, it can legitimately use force to achieve its objectives. For instance, President Bush could not attack Iraq on his own because he had limited authority. He required the support of the military and the majority of citizens (American society) to invade Iraq.
Despite its strengths, the theory fails to identify the most important source of authority. Undoubtedly, the three sources of authority have varying significance in every society. In democratic countries, rational-legal authority is likely to be more important than charismatic or traditional authority. This perspective is based on the fact that the constitution is superior to traditions and charisma in democratic states. Therefore, a president is not expected to break the law simply because he or she is charismatic or his/ her actions conform to the traditions of the country. This implies that society must establish consensus regarding the most important source of authority to avert rebellion.
The theory also fails to recognise the fact that the three sources of authority do not exist in isolation. Countries and their leaders normally depend on all the sources to justify their power. For instance, the UK uses the traditional authority embodied in the monarchy and the legal authority provided by its constitution.
Foucault’s Theory
The main strength of the theory is its ability to explain the role of power in society. This argument is supported by the fact that the theory states that exercising power can produce both positive and negative results. Leaders are expected to use their power to improve the community by changing the behaviours of individuals. This explains the rationale of using power to ensure law and order in every country.
The theory also provides an adequate explanation of the distribution of power. In particular, it recognises the fact that the nature of relationships between individuals determines the level of power that they wield. Undoubtedly, democracy leads to a fair distribution of power. Dictatorship, on the other hand, is characterised by unequal distribution of power between a leader and his or her followers (DuBois 1944: 450-456).
One of the weaknesses of the theory is that it fails to explain the sources of authority. It simply states that power is everywhere and flows between people. Therefore, it cannot be used to determine the legitimacy of the power exercised by individuals. Although everyone might have some level of power, each person must obtain his or her authority from a particular source. For instance, parental authority is based on the traditions and norms that give parents power over their children.
The theory also ignores other motives for exercising power. It assumes that power is mainly used to prevent deviant behaviour. Power can be exercised for diverse reasons, which include revenge and manipulation. For instance, terrorists often abduct military officers or innocent citizens to force the government to release their colleagues who are in prison. In sum, I prefer Weber’s theory because it explains the main sources of authority. This provides a framework for the distribution of legitimate power.
Conclusion
Power can be exercised peacefully if the society achieves consensus concerning the legitimacy of the authority of their leaders. Weber’s theory articulates the basis of valid authority and scope of power. However, it fails to identify the most important source of authority that leaders should focus on. Foucault’s theory, on the other hand, explains the role of power and its distribution. Nonetheless, it does not explain the sources of power.
References
Dubois, Burghardt. 1944. Prospects of a World without Race Conflict. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 450-456.
Weber, Max. 2012. “The Types of Legitimate Domination.” Pp. 250-267 in Wesley Longhofer and Daniel Winchester, eds., Social Theory Rewired: New Connections to Classical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 2012. “Discipline and Punish.” Pp. 299-309 in Wesley Longhofer and Daniel Winchester, eds., Social Theory Rewired: New Connections to Classical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Longhofer, Wesley and Daniel Winchester, eds. 2012. Social Theory Rewired: New Connections to Classical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.