The power of understanding power

29 October 2010

power-cartoon Analysing power relations is important for understanding the contexts in which decisions about capacity development are made. There is a lot more to power than the simple struggle between those who have it and those who don’t . A more comprehensive view of power can ensure that it is used in a more strategic way

Much of capacity development focuses on transformational change, empowering the more marginalised versus the ‘powerful’, and seeks to redress the grave injustices that abound. It involves slum dwellers fighting against developers and municipal governments that demolish their meagre dwellings time and time again. It concerns work on domestic violence, national truth commissions, abolishing rape as an instrument of war and reducing rural suicides due to insurmountable debts. The list seems endless.

Power analysis is essential for understanding the context in which we want to make a difference. However, few organisations working with rights-based approaches, for example, explicitly analyse power as part of strategic planning processes. Even if they do, they often see it in very simplistic terms such as ‘they have more power, so we must have some of it’. It is a notion of power that focuses on having domination or control over the lives of others.

In this vein of thinking, power building then requires knowing your enemy and making sure they have ‘less’ while you get ‘more’. But there is another way to think about power. Power can be seen everywhere. It is relational – unique to each relationship. It is important to remember that we all have power – the ability to act collectively or individually, based on our own inner convictions, with or without external support.

Frameworks for power analysis

A more nuanced and relational power analysis can provide insights into the contexts in which decisions are made. Such decisions can be about with whom to work, on what issues to focus, what to strengthen, what to introduce and what to stop doing.

Moving away from seeing power as a quantifiable ‘thing’, or as merely an expression of who dominates whom, requires finding other ways to understand power. Three different frameworks can work in complementary ways to help us think differently about power. These frameworks are known as alternative faces of power, the faces of power and the power cube. The relevance and ease of use of each of these frameworks will vary depending on the situation.

The alternative faces of power

The alternative faces of power framework offers a view of power as a positive force for change and does not see power as a limited resource. It suggests three alternative ways to consider power as something that people use in relation to each other:

power to: individual ability to act, linked to idea of capability;
power with: collective action, the ability to act together; and
power within: individual or collective self-worth and dignity.

This framework is useful for identifying weak spots in groups, relationships, organisations and individuals – and knowing how to strategise around them. For example, organisations may choose to work on strengthening women’s sense of self-esteem (‘power within’) as part of a larger process of addressing gender inequalities.

The three faces of power

The three faces of power form one dimension of the power cube (see below). The idea of ‘faces’ emerged from debates on how democratic a ‘democracy’ actually is given the behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, and the conscious and unconscious use of barriers and ideology that discourage people from participating in elite-dominated processes. The three faces are:

visible power – formal and observable decision making, pluralist politics with visible ‘power over’;
hidden power – setting the agenda behind the scenes, mobilising biases and interests, excluding people and topics from debates; and
invisible power – social conditioning, ideology and values; shaping public opinion and needs; often internalised (related to ‘power within’).

The ‘faces of power’ help to see what else is happening within a particular relationship or interaction that is determining the outcomes. For example, a formal organisational policy might give power to the board, but then if the board is given too little time to formulate and offer meaningful advice, then ‘hidden power’ is being used to make them unable to influence decisions.

The power cube

The power cube, developed by John Gaventa of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Sussex, UK, has three dimensions: spaces, places and the ‘faces’ of power mentioned above. The power cube framework offers a way to examine participatory action in development and changes in power relations by and/or on behalf of poor and marginalised people. It does this by distinguishing participatory action along three dimensions:

at three levels (or ‘places’): global, national and local (or other levels that may be relevant);
across three types of (political) ‘space’: closed, invited and created (or others that may be relevant); and
among three ‘faces of power’ in place within the levels and spaces: visible power, hidden power and invisible power.

powercube The idea of ‘spaces’ is important. According to Gaventa, these are ‘opportunities, moments and channels where citizens can act to potentially affect policies, discourses, decisions and relationships that affect their lives and interests’. The framework looks at power in relation to how spaces for engagement are created, the levels of power (from local to global), as well as different forms of power across them. Looking at citizen action through this lens, for example, enables strategic assessments of the possibilities for transformative action by citizens, and how to make them more effective.

Power analysis is not just a simple checklist. The concepts can help practitioners to understand the diverse ways in which power exists and works. It requires fostering a mindset that leads one to ask new questions, to listen to people and to analyse situations in different ways.

The case study below describes an example of a power analysis of the palm oil sector in Colombia. This analysis was one outcome of several workshops conducted with Oxfam-Novib which sought to explore and develop methods and approaches to help staff become more strategic and coherent in their efforts to empower marginalised groups.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case of Colombian palm oil

Colombia’s devastating internal conflicts often concern land ownership. There are numerous cases where palm oil producers have appropriated land illegally. Independent smallholders with land often have no choice other than to become part of so-called ‘productive alliances’, in which they become dependent on a palm oil company and, in most cases, highly indebted. The pressure on small producers has increased since the Colombian government and bilateral donors such as USAID began promoting the production of export crops, especially biofuel crops such as palm oil and sugarcane.

The Colombian palm oil sector is the scene of severe violations of human, land and labour rights and environmental destruction. Thousands of union leaders have been killed in the last decade, and now only 1.8% of all palm oil workers dare to be organised. Landless labourers who seek better working or living conditions by speaking out for their rights or organising themselves in a different way risk being kidnapped or killed, or having the same happen to their family members.

Within this volatile sector, the Federation of Colombian Palm Oil Producers wants to produce sustainable palm oil certified by the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), a multi-stakeholder initiative. Oxfam International sits on its board. As a campaign officer working with Oxfam-Novib, I was looking for ways to tackle the palm oil issue in order to improve the situation for smallholders and labourers, as well as ways to relate to RSPO. During a three-week visit to Colombia I used the power cube as the analytical framework to help me understand the context of the issue of palm oil.

I spoke with many civil society organisations with different backgrounds, and with the Federation of Palm Oil Producers. I travelled with union leaders and their armed bodyguards in cars with tinted windows, and visited palm oil-producing communities participating in the peace laboratories of the EU. I spoke with nuns who work with palm oil workers, the workers themselves and smallholder farmers. I visited various government officials and spoke at length with Oxfam staff. In short, I undertook a full context analysis in order to figure out how Oxfam Novib could best contribute, and how its funds could be spent most effectively in the complicated and often dangerous context of the palm oil sector.

Without the power cube as an analytical framework I still would have talked to these different stakeholders, but I would have asked different questions. The power cube made my analysis more profound and comprehensive. The questions I asked and the discussions I provoked using the power cube concepts made me realise that the power of the palm oil elite consists of more than the visible economic and political power derived from their control over land.

By asking people questions about where certain powerful actors would meet, and who could meet them, I gained insight into the spaces where hidden power was used. This helped me see who had access to the critical forums and debates dominated by the palm oil elite. It was there that representatives of the private sector and, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture and the President’s Office would meet and set out policies. I also realised that none of the organisations we could work with were able to enter these tightly closed, yet very powerful spaces.

I also discovered an important aspect of invisible power: the deeply felt belief shared by those in government – many of them large landowners – and the palm oil elite that the future of Colombia is best served through rural development based on export-oriented monocultures. They also share the entrenched belief that indigenous groups who oppose such agriculture fail to understand real development. If you want to transform power relationships it is important to take these ideological beliefs into consideration.

Analysing the situation from the perspective of the various places of power (local, national and global), I realised that operating at the national level to change national policy would be almost impossible at this time, and could even be dangerous. There had been cases where the palm oil elite had wielded physical power, and had mounted paramilitary actions to suppress any resistance. Opportunities for change would be best supported at the local and international levels. At the local level, the focus could be on raising the awareness of palm oil workers about their rights and potential to organise (strengthen ‘power with’). Internationally, via donor countries and links between Northern and local organisations, pressure could be put on the Colombian government to create some opening. For example, the recent visits of Colombian civil society representatives to the US Congress led to many questions about USAID policy with regard to palm oil, with some results under the new Obama administration.

I shared this analysis of the sector with those I spoke with in Colombia. Many said that even though they were familiar with the problem, the power perspective had helped them understand it better.

Based on my analysis I recommended that Oxfam-Novib consider options for working in the agricultural sector, particularly palm oil, where for now there is no national lobby as this space is too closed. This work should include local components of strengthening ‘power within’ and the ‘ power with’ of communities and international lobby groups in Washington and Brussels.