1

Societies Are Always Governed by Some Hidden Structures of Power

IRD 202 Introduction to Political Philosophy

Dr. Ignas Kalpokas

Suliko Arjevanidze

April 29, 2022




Societies Are Always Governed by Some Hidden Structures of Power

At a glance, the political power, especially in democracies, is transparently distributed

among specific structures of a state: the president, prime minister, parliament, ministries, and so

on. However, when we are to think of actors and agents having major and considerable influence

in shaping the political behaviors and environment, we are less likely to think about and/or

consider figures that impact political events by means of making decisions behind the curtains.

These might include major entrepreneurs, lobbyists, and, in some cases including the one of

Georgia, religious institutions and communities. In this essay, I will try to explore the notion of

political power, including hidden power, as well as discuss specific examples of figures that

might be a notable part of hidden political structures in a state.

One of the basic notions in the great Western heritage of political thinking is power. It is

also a notion on which, despite its lengthy history, there is a considerable lack of consensus on

analytical levels, both concerning its particular definition and many aspects of the conceptual

environment in which it should be put. However, there is a fundamental aspect of its meaning,

which has to do with people's or collectivities' ability to "get things done," especially when their

aims are blocked by human resistance or opposition. The issue of dealing with resistance then

leads to the use of coercive means, such as the use of physical force, as well as the relationship

between coercion and the voluntary and consensual parts of power structures.

Vested interests utilize hidden forms of power to protect their wealth and power by

erecting hurdles to participation, omitting critical subjects from the public debate, or

manipulating politics 'behind the scenes.' They can happen not just in political processes, but also

in organizational as well as other group settings, such as corporations, non-governmental

institutions, and community-based groups.

Alternate options are restricted, less powerful individuals and their problems are ignored,

and the guidelines of the game are slanted against particular people and topics due to hidden

forms of authority. This sort of power has been dubbed the mobilization of prejudice, in which

some concerns are organized within politics whereas others are organized out,' according to

academics (Schattschneider, 1960). This is accomplished by the application of dominant rules

and processes, the framing of problems in a devalued manner, the use or threat of punishments,

and the delegitimization of individuals who challenge the status quo.

Providing empowerment to people's voices and abilities to speak up, organizing and

coordinating to overcome obstacles to participation, and utilizing research and media to question

how problems are portrayed are all strategies that target this type of power. When we talk in

regard with hidden power, we frequently discuss how those who have been harmed by it might

fight it and make their voices heard. Changing the rules concerning who is allowed to express

and voice their opinions at a public meeting, for example, might bring fresh perspectives or

topics to the table.

Activists that are looking for social and political change frequently target persons in

positions of visible power, such as presidents, national leaders like ministers, and chief executive

officers, since they appear to have influence over the issue at hand. However, nuanced

connections among a far more diversified collection of participants frequently underlying the

visible power structure. The term 'hidden power' refers to what happens behind the scenes:

lobbyists, corporate chequebooks, and the old boys network. The common vision of what

individuals in power think sensible or reasonable in public discourse is also known as hidden

power. Any person who has had conversations by the table with government leaders, major

economists and ventured to challenge the wisdom of unrestricted economic expansion in a planet

where resources are over-controlled has encountered the blank stares that greet anyone who

crosses those lines.

The ability of change movements to impact apparent and hidden power is frequently

determined by invisible power. It changes people's perceptions of what is 'normal' or 'natural,'

resulting to exclusion for some groups, such as when women take the blame themselves for their

mistreatment or people living in poverty for their financial hardships.

The establishment of a certain political position by the clergy in the pre-election period

was particularly noticeable in 2012. There were several incidents in 2013 and 2014 as well,

though not with previous intensity. The patriarchate almost always distances itself from political

statements, and research has shown that any individual, including church priests, has the right to

express his or her views on a particular topic. The Holy Synod Decree of June 6, 2012 states:

"The Holy Synod noted that the Church has always been the unifying force of the country, and

that Georgia's need for this function today, in the run-up to the elections. The universal and its

member is a person of any political views "(Orthodox Forum, 2012).

The use of the Orthodox Church as a lever of influence on the electorate is a practice for

most of the existing political parties in Georgia. In this respect, no government has been

outstanding. All equally sought to influence the electoral sympathies of the population at the

expense of affiliation with the Church through the resources at their disposal. Since the church is

a traditional institution, parties with similar values find it easier to interact with the church than

​​

political associations with declared liberal values. The trend is still the same: most of the pre-

election campaigns in Georgia are religious and were composed.

The relationship of a secular state with the dominant religion is always special, although

the example of Georgia may not be prominent across the region, as the same characteristics of

the relationship are observed in Russia, Armenia and Ukraine. It is necessary to revise the

legislation, the constitutional agreement and reconcile them with the requirements of modernity.

It is also necessary to maintain constructive rhetoric in dialogue with church representatives by

non-governmental organizations and the state. For its part, the Patriarchate's need for more

transparency to dispel the information vacuum created and to restore trust with civil society. The

newly established Religion Agency is not an effective medium for agreeing on these changes

between the state and the church.

It was revealed that the Church is trying to influence the political processes in Georgia

not only through formal but also through informal channels. Clearly, the relationship between the

state and the church is harmonious. Although the role of the church in politics is a taboo subject

in Georgia, we still see religious figures and church representatives on television, in the ranks of

politicians. They engage in open political discussions and openly state their political views and

positions. This, naturally, directly or indirectly affects public opinion. This is why the religious

institutions often represent the hidden element of some politics, whether domestic or even

transnational, affecting and shaping political behavior of the important political actors and

agents.

All in all, in order to conclude all the above-mentioned information, analysis, main points

and arguments, I would like to restate that it is important to consider some possible hidden

figures in charge, who have hidden political power to influence political events and environment

by means of making significant decisions beyond the public eye. These figures are most likely to

be major businessmen, lobbyists or even religious powers, as discussed in the case of Georgia.



 7

References

Green, D. (2016). Power Lies at the Heart of Change. Oxford Scholarship. Retrieved from

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/

9780198785392.001.0001/acprof-9780198785392-chapter-3#.

Orthodox Forum. (2012). წმინდა სინოდის განჩინებანი. [Decisions of the Holy

Synod]. http://church.ge/index.php?showtopic=9762.

Schattschneider, Elmer, E. (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in

America, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.