Where the power lies: multiple stakeholder politics over natural ...

Within a group, we can think of power as the right to decide, choose, and express
oneself and exercise one’s rights in relation to a host of other stakeholders. Thus for
each stakeholder, power is the ability to articulate personal goals and influence others
to achieve those goals. It is the ability to get what we want; hold on to what we get; and
to shape events the way we want to shape them (Pfeffer 1992). Power is not employed
when there is no difference of perspectives or interests or when there is no conflict.
However, in many cases, stakeholders hold different types of power and relate to each
other in relation to their perception of that power. Powerful people not only have strong
influence when decisions are made, but they can influence the rules about who makes
the decisions and how. Those rules often entrench their positions of influence and protect
their interests (Pfeffer 1992). While politics is defined as the exercise or use of power,
authority is a socially recognized and legitimate right to make decisions (Bratton 1994).
Autonomy is the freedom from control by other stakeholders (Bratton 1994). Power and
political processes should be seen as an important social process that is often required to
get things done within a group. Without inequitable power there are no dynamics within
a group. However, if the inequities are skewed too much in the hands of a few, then
cooperative process and negotiations among the group is compromised.
In many situations, inclusion in a multiple stakeholder group has not come with the
requisite power redistribution promised or intended. Such redistribution would require
that some stakeholders give up some of their power. But some researchers argue that
this objective runs contrary to the bureaucratic tendency to hold on to power by whatever
means (Murphree 1990). In many countries different types of power exist, ranging from
charismatic, to political, or other types of power. Each must, however, be defined for a
specific context and time. Most cultures are rich with idioms of power. Moreover the
meaning of power and the way it is exercised in different situations is differsent between
societies. Attitudes towards power tend to be ambivalent, because often people don’t
approve of the way power is accumulated or exercised (Pfeffer 1992). But power is an
important social means of achieving certain objectives within groups. We generally assume
that power means the same things in different cultures. In Europe and America there is
a tendency to identify power with economic control and coercive force: any status or
prestige not linked to it is regarded as empty prestige (Tsing 1996). In many parts of Asia
and Africa, the view of power is different. Power is linked to spiritualism. For example
Tsing finds that in Javanese society, power is viewed in relation to the puppet figures of
Arjuna and Raksasa (Box 7).
Box 7. Power in Javanese society
Power is represented in the contrast between shadow puppet figures of Arjuna, a Javanese
cultural hero, and the Raksasa (Monster) he fights. Arjuna is small and fragile looking with
downcast eyes and delicate features. The monster is large, bulbous, loud, forceful and
direct – not unlike westerners. Yet in battle, the delicate Arjuna need only flick his wrist
for the gross and forceful monster to fall, defeated. (Tsing 1996).
Power always implies struggle, negotiation and compromise (Villareal 1992). When
stakeholders seek to influence others we talk about engagement (Bratton 1994). When
they make no such claim or actively evade the influence of others we talk of disengagement
(Bratton 1994). Relations resulting from dynamics between the stakeholders create a
rich social drama among stakeholders that constitutes the micro-politics of management.
Relations of power are often interwoven with other kinds of relations (Villareal 1992).
9