Comment in 150 words: “Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.” (Hannah Arendt) (2014, 10 Marks)
The sentence comes verbatim from Hannah Arendt‘s On Violence (1970). It follows her definition: power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Written against the 1960s romance of violence and the command-obedience tradition of Max Weber, it recasts power as a collective capacity (power-to) rather than domination (power-over).
Unpacking the Claim
- Relational, not possessed. Power springs up whenever people get together and act in concert and disappears when they disperse; it cannot be stored. A leader “in power” is merely empowered by a group to act in its name, holding power on loan.
- Sharp distinctions. Strength belongs to an individual; force to nature or circumstance; authority is recognition without coercion or persuasion; violence is instrumental and relies on implements.
- Legitimacy. Power needs no justification but does need legitimacy, which flows from the original getting-together. Violence may be justified but is never legitimate.
- Opposites. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it. A regime that must shoot its citizens is displaying lost power, not strength.
The Strongest Case
- It explains why armed regimes fall. Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa out in July 2022. A student uprising ended Sheikh Hasina’s rule on 5 August 2024. In Nepal, K. P. Sharma Oli resigned on 9 September 2025, a day after police firing on Gen Z protesters. The guns remained; the lent power was withdrawn.
- India’s Emergency ended the same way: the 1977 vote withdrew consent from those holding the instruments of coercion.
- It is also a warning: citizens who withdraw from public life leave power unclaimed, and atomised masses are what demagogues recruit.
- Jürgen Habermas (1977) built on it a communicative concept of power: legitimate power is generated in uncoerced agreement.
Critiques
- Domination defined away. For Weber, and for Steven Lukes (Power: A Radical View, 1974), power includes shaping what others want, against their real interests. A consensual definition cannot see this.
- Structural violence. Habermas notes she has no account of coercion built into economic institutions, and she excludes strategic bargaining from politics.
- Manufactured concert. Marxists and Antonio Gramsci show consent can be produced by hegemony. Groups acting in concert can also be mobs or majorities against minorities.
- Myanmar since the 2021 coup shows violence crushing mass civil disobedience: her distinction holds, her optimism does not.
Conclusion
Arendt is right about what power finally rests on: no regime survives the withdrawal of the many. As a complete theory she is too narrow, because domination often works through apparent consent. Her concept of power-to needs a theory of power-over beside it.