A. Alaev. Order and Power. Boston, 2004

Started: 2004-11-29

Last Updated: 2023-11-07 Tu

Order and Power.com

A. Alaev

Order and Power

Group, Power, Leader, Concentration of Power, Power Struggle and Resulting Order

Boston -2004

How to Read This Material?

Dynasties and empires are blooming and disappearing, leaving a rich deposit of artifacts and memories. They have kings and presidents. They inherit posts and select delegates. They form kingdoms and republics. But in a small country or on a large island, remote tribe or prosperous city, everywhere we see leaders set to reach their goals with people fighting vigorously alongside.

Questions that fed this investigation started when trying to find a common feature linking together all governments including socialist and capitalist. It seemed back then that just one measure, one rule divides centralized regimes from liberal ones. A tremendous desire sparked years ago to place all types of government on one line, a little to the left, or a little to the right, with a magical "proper" middle that will answer all questions and cure all pains.

1991 brought news of the breakup of USSR. Questions about revolutions and peaceful transitions, questions of measurement of power and power strength started to pop up. Being a witness to a smooth transition from Russian Empire to fifteen new states, comparing people's accounts of the same events from 1917 brought a new array of questions into forefront. What seemed to be so strong and unbreakable was smashed almost overnight and almost without an organized effort.

Historical questions of so-called fair or "natural" tribal existence and unfair tyrannical rule never left my mind. What is fair in power distribution and why for so many centuries the only power model that worked was monarchy? At the same time, what is so durable and unbreakable in USA constitution that keeps working for so long? Did humanity find a magical formula of stability and democracy for all ages?

Literature on power is extremely enlightening, but most of the authors introduce their own terminology, and a lot of questions remain unanswered. "Writing a book about power seems a bit like jumping into a bottomless pit. There are a lot of things around you, but there is also this overwhelming sense of emptiness. There are things to be encountered and grasped at along the way, but for the most part they are so mixed and ungrounded." [Prus R., Beyond the Power Mystique, 1999, p. XIII]. I am looking for some firm ground and clarity. I am trying to answer the question: what the common laws of power in all social structures are. If such laws do exist, I would like to bring answers to all other burning power questions in line with these laws. Among the obvious questions would be:
- Is there a difference between personal and institutional powers?
- What are the best ways to govern at war and in peacetime?
- How to avoid social catastrophes and destructive revolutions?

We will start with definition of some universal social structure that was created by power, governed by power, and potentially holds the secret of power. At this point we do not know what power is. Selecting the initial model as a tool for analysis is a leap of faith. After rejecting several starting points, we finally ended up with an organized group, and it seems to be working for the purposes of this investigation.

The structure of this paper is Introduction, First Round, Second Round and Conclusion. Here are the reasons for such a structure. Introduction gives terms and sets a problem. Note that the starting point of investigation is a GROUP. Introduction is aimed to prove that initial group order should exist before term power can be first used. First and Second Rounds have identical logical structure: Power --> Leader --> Concentration of Power --> Power Struggle --> Order. They are different in level of analysis. Examining the same constructs for a second time allows usage of definitions and discoveries from the First Round. Conclusion further separates order and power and unites the investigation of power problems through the history of mankind.

Three authors influenced this work the most. Jean-Jacques Rousseau conquered me with his idea of universal social compact. Bertrand Russell captivated me with his clarity of definitions and scope of ideas and concepts. And John Kenneth Galbraith gave me new understandings with his ability to simplify matters and categorize seemingly unrelated trends and processes.

Introduction of a Problem

Groups and Group Decision-Making

Definition of a Group

Most collective enterprises are only possible if some governing body directs them. Whenever there is an acute danger, the impulse of most people is to seek authority and submit to it [Russell, Power, 1938, p.17, 19]. Groups can achieve goals that are beyond the scope of any given individual within the group.

Group is a starting point and target of this investigation. Group is a conglomerate of individuals. This is a very wide definition. This definition only tells the fact that some composition of people can form a group, and that group always contains some number of people.

Group can be a conglomerate of sub-groups, but that doesn't contradict the initial definition. All sub-groups consist of people and, thus, the whole group consists of people.

Some examples of groups are countries, corporations, teams, congregations, military units, cabinet of ministers, parliaments, international organizations, political parties, families, children, teenagers, males and females, all humanity. Group is any distinguishable combination of individuals.

Group consists of members. Group members can be individuals or sub- groups. Sub-group is a smaller group within given larger group. Sub- group can be a member of a larger super-group. Super-group is a group that contains a given group and some other groups.

Group membership is a collection of rules on becoming a group member and leaving the group. Membership allows drawing a line between the group and the group environment. Members are forming the group. All non-members can be referred as group environment.

Group Environment

Group operates in an environment filled with other groups, individuals and resources. On the one hand, group environment is an arena for interaction with other groups and individuals. "Whether an organization is geographical or cultural or ideological, it will always have two sorts of relations, those to its own members, and those to the outside world." [Russell, Authority and the Individual, 1949, p.62] On the other, group environment is a pool for new members, new resources and new dangers. Group utilizes its resources to recruit, to gain and to protect. Every group emerges from the environment, grows and lingers in the environment and disappears into environment leaving behind members and resources.

Group environment is a starting point of a group. Either composed from below by a union of members or decreed from above by a super-group, any group must use resources of its members or resources of a super-group to get started. However, once assembled, group gains its own set of interests, its own momentum and urge to survive regardless of the environment.

Organized Groups

Within a vast variety of groups there are groups with regulated membership and contributing members. These criteria constitute an organized group. Organized group is a conglomerate of contributing members with regulated membership and common recourses. Member of an organized group is a contributing person or a contributing sub-group. Member contribution can take a form of property (money) or action (time, participation).

Groups, where membership rules are not defined, or members do not require to contribute are called artificial groups. For example, group of supporters for a certain candidate is an artificial group. It doesn't control membership and have no formal rules for joining and leaving. Although, in everyday language we call it a group, it is not an organized group. Artificial groups are not part of this investigation.

Definition of organized group consists of three elements: regulated membership, contributing members and common recourses. Regulated membership means that group and each member are aware of rules of entering and leaving the group. It means that group controls membership, and each individual member knows one's membership status. One of the interesting examples of regulated membership is citizenship, with complex rules of becoming a citizen, losing one's citizenship and entangling contradictions of multiple citizenships.

Well-established organized groups had time to formalize and even write down their membership rules. Such groups can be investigated as a composition of rules and regulations. Say, United States can be viewed as a conglomerate of people or a conglomerate of states. And membership of both people and states are strictly regulated, providing a good example of an organized group. Actively forming organized groups might not yet have written down membership rules, but it doesn't make them less organized or deduct from their power.

Term contributing members in the definition of organized group refers to a set of mandatory members' obligations before the group. Each member must periodically contribute a predetermined portion, some in form of resources and some in form of participation.

Contributing member must be distinguished from a paying customer and from a hired employee. Paying customer provides membership fees, as a payment for some usage. But this contribution doesn’t buy customer a share in group decision-making. Similar situation can be observed with owner and employees. Any amount of hard work doesn’t qualify as a share in company decision-making. But as soon as we are switching our focus to a group of co-workers within one project or one department, or one board of directors, we see an example of organized group with contributing members. Everyone is obligated to contribute (time and effort), and quantity and quality of efforts can influence member's position in a group.

Prisoners in jail, kids in a kindergarten, as well as paid customers in assisted living centers are not contributing members of an organization that hosts them. At the same time, examined in relation to each other, they can be regarded as an organized group, contributing their time. Membership here is also regulated, but from outside of the group.

Phrase common resources in the definition of organized group refer to a set of group obligations before each member. Organized group can control some external recourses beyond the simple sum of member’s contributions. Country has its territory, its language, its identity. City has its roads, its location and schools. Parliament has its building, its budget and its fame. Department has its project, its status and its payroll. These external resources might be accessible to group members through a set of group rules.

Are all members of organized group are willing participants? Organized groups can be formed as a free union of its members or, by forceful actions of a smaller organized group. Both types of groups have the same nature. Both types of groups are based on an initial agreement and definitions of group membership still works for both. Initial agreement forms a body of a group. A simple sum of group members is a body of newly formed group. In that sense, all members of an organized group are willing participants.

It is very hard to find examples of groups, formed by free union of equal members (say, formation of the United States). And even when we seem to find such examples, they all can be interpreted as demonstration of some external force or need. At the end, all groups are formed by organizing force of a few prominent members, they all based on some kind of an agreement, and some of them will develop a sense of group identity and will last, the rest will soon disappear.

What Holds a Group Together?

Organized group requires each member to contribute. Why people would contribute anything to a group? What is the basis for group membership? What unites all group members? Very first disagreement should split the group and destroy it from inside. What is holding those groups together? What makes some groups stronger and some weaker?

First extreme answer is a force. Some perpetual force makes all members to contribute against their will. Rousseau in his Social Contract [Rousseau, The Social Contract and The Discourses, 1993, p.185, 189] tried to prove that human group cannot be based on force or on slavery, because it doesn't create a foundation for a legitimate right. Rousseau argumentation was inspired by desire to prove that the ruler and their people are of the same nature.

It is true that groups can be formed by forceful actions (like a conquest), but group existence and operation requires halt of hostilities between its members and some kind of an agreement. So, while fighting is going on, group does not exist. Person, who is resisting his current status of non-freedom, can't be regarded as member of a group. Group can appear and start functioning only after fighting stops and sides enter into an agreement. Person, who is no longer fighting and temporary submitting to a status of perceived non-freedom, enters into an agreement and can be regarded as a member of a group. So, what is important, is the fact of an agreement in place, but not the attitude toward it. Group can be formed by force, but it is always based on an agreement. To illustrate an unpleasant agreement, we can use an example of paying income taxes. One can hate the procedure, call it unfair and ridiculous, but still "willingly" year after year hire accountants and make accurate and timely payments.

Second extreme answer to a question "What holds a group together?" is a voluntary slavery. Group members are voluntarily submitting to rules of a group and contribute due to this sense of submission. If member voluntarily submits to group rules, this member can as freely choose not to submit. In that case we are losing the basis for the answer. If all are free to choose group slavery, they are equally free to choose freedom from the group.

The third preliminary to the question of membership contribution is a bargain. Group member contributes a required share in exchange for group benefits. Word benefits can mean, for example, life. Citizen of a communist country contributes to his country in exchange for a benefit of not being arrested and killed. At the same time, inhabitants of high-tax town are exchanging their contribution for better schools and access to social centers. In both cases members can choose to leave, jeopardizing their group benefits: life in the first case or prestige in the second.

One can talk about some magical mechanism that allows each member to compare group benefits with required contributions and make a qualified decision on staying or leaving the group. And it might be true at the beginning of group existence. But apparently, things get much more complicated as group grows and matures.

Another explanation for a group stable existence over a long period of time could be appearance of group consciousness. All the group benefits, group strength, and group traditions are eventually forming something independent from any individual member but living in members' individual minds. This independent group consciousness starts to accumulate into group behavioral patterns, carry group standatds of good and bad and actively influence minds of new members.

In the Appendix to his Escape from Freedom, called Character and the Social Process, Erich Fromm introduces term social character as a "part of character structure that is common to most members of the group" [Fromm, Escape from Freedom, 1994, p.275].

The most vivid demonstrations of existence of group consciousness are language, religion, sense of group identity, sudden bursts of economic development and sharp cultural growth in various areas of group activity. The longer group exists, the more power it gains over individual mind (in absence of other competing groups). Over a course of his life, a person becomes a member of various organized groups formed by location, faith, ideology, professional and personal interests. All those groups influence this person through a group consciousness. Social identity of a person is growing as a collection of group consciousnesses.

Group consciousness appears as organized group matures and becomes dynamic storage of group identity, group habits, group wisdom, and group behavior. Elimination of a group will destroy a group body, as a sum of its members. But group consciousness can linger for a long time in the minds of former group members and their descendants.

Initial Order as a Collective Decision-Making

All group members are engaged in their customary every-day functions. Environment behaves predictably. There are enough recourses at hand. Some customary traditional order emerges from a day-to-day routine.

But problems and unforeseen circumstances arise. It could be group members that are not functioning the way they ought to, or environment is changing, or resources are thinning out. A need for a group decision appears. A need to solve problems that is not a part of group every-day experience.

It doesn't matter if group has to deal with internal or external decisions, if those decisions are immediate or impending. Group has to make those decisions. Even before any formal organization, group has to create some ways of functioning and solving problems. Mechanism of collective decision-making should be created.

Even if group has an appointed boss, he still has to make decisions in the best interest of the group. He still has to take into account group members, and this can be called if not a collective decision-making, but group decision-making.

How group decision-making is possible? What is a driving force behind group decision-making?

First Round

Power - Leader - Concentration - Struggle - Order

Power as a Decision-Making Authority

Group members participate in decision-making of a group. Members are using their decision-making authority. Individual group member can have various degrees of decision-making authority from none to all. Is there a name for member's decision-making authority? This name is power.

Power is a decision-making authority of an individual member within a group. This is the first definition of power.

What is decision-making authority? Is this definition of power any good if we used in it some term authority that is very vague and hard to define?

Decision-making authority refers to a share of decision-making for a single group member. First definition of power is built on the fact that any organized group has to make decisions and actually does make decisions. It is also built on a reasonable belief, that group members have some participation in group decision-making. Some has more and some has less. Definition unites these two understandings and introduces term power as a reference to various degrees of members' involvement in group decision-making.

Why definition of power as a decision-making authority doesn't include any referenced to ability to implement made decisions? Definition of power is based on definition of organized group. Group members are willing participants. Word "willing" means that they have chosen to obey group rules either voluntarily, or by tradition, or by initial force. Members of a group are not in fight with a group. If they are, they are not members of a group, and they are outside of group decision-making. So, definition of power, as a decision-making authority is based on universal acceptance of group decisions by group members.

Group decisions are compulsory for group members and group has right to enforce group decisions on group members. If group is unable to enforce its decisions on all group members, it means that group effectively lost part of its members.

Why first definition of power does not include any referenced to force, money or information? Raw force, money and information can be exchanged for favorable group decisions. Do they constitute power?

When we define decision-making authority within an organized group, we do not know what the strength behind each individual member is. It could a number of things including supporters, property, force, wisdom or any combination of these. Definition of power does not include the source of authority. Definition of power only refers to a combined result, stressing the fact that decision-making authority can vary among group members.

Group decision-making is a relation. That is why, power is a relation between group members about decision-making. As any relation it has two sides. Member authority in decision-making interacts with all other members' authorities. From a single member standpoint, individual authority is power, and all other authorities are regarded as support & resistance.

The other side of relation of power is support & resistance. Power of one member of a group meets support & resistance from the rest of the group. Term support and resistance does not have any positive or negative connotation in it. Group members very often do not even realize that their actions represent support & resistance as a response to someone's power.

Group members have an innumerable variety of responses to power. Any group member, who is trying to apply power upon other group members, will receive a variety of responses that can be interpreted in terms of support & resistance. Term support & resistance covers the entire spectrum of responses to power and includes support, agreement, neutrality, disagreement and resistance.

How resistance to a group decision-making gets reconciled with a notion of group members as willing participants? Resistance to a decision-making authority is perfectly compatible with being a member of an organized group. Resistance to group decisions is not. Individual members, resisting group decisions, will be excluded through some form of punishment. Resistance to group decisions by organized sub-groups puts these sub-groups outside the group decision-making procedure and outside the group. This type of resistance turns into an open conflict and gets resolved by some combination of 2 possible alternatives.

One alternative leads to elimination of disagreeing sub-groups. Sometimes sub-groups can simply leave the group. This is possible if members of sub-groups can leave the group without leaving behind their property. This is the case with defecting geographical regions or defecting party factions. On the other hand, some sub-groups can only be excluded by elimination. This is the case when separation of sub-groups is impossible and it is true in most Civil wars.

Other alternative is to modify the original group decision that caused initial resistance and split. When group is unwilling to lose its members due to disagreement, decisions are corrected, and power gets somewhat redistributed from majority to other sub-groups. Once again, ability to implement group decisions is not spelled out in a definition of power, but decisions beyond one's decision-making authority will result in either reduction of a group decision-making scope, or internal redistribution of power, or both.

In most cases support and resistance display themselves in a mixture of those two alternatives. In a fight between Protestants and Catholics in XVI century France, we see both a tendency to purge (St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572) and a tendency to compromise (Edict of Nantes of 1598). Eventually majority prevailed and Louis XIV expelled the Protestants out of France in XVII century, but this is an example when majority have to decide between extermination and tolerance.

In a group with a few strong players every member carries a significant portion of decision-making authority. In that case difference between power and support & resistance becomes blurry. When all players are of a comparable size, every member considers his power potential against power potentials of other members. One strong member evaluates his power potentials compared with powers of other individual members, or with support & resistance potential of a group as a whole.

Our definition of power necessarily brings us to a first law of power. Power only exists within an organized group. All other peaceful or force interactions outside an organized group like wars, competition, trade and so on, are not decision-making relations, and they are not relations of power.

One individual can exercise the force of power over other individual only if both of those individuals are members of the same organized group. So master has power over slave, officer has power over solder, boss has power over employee. And all this is only possible through belonging to the same organized group. Hostilities within a group break up the group and stop the relations of power and support & resistance.

If relation of power only exists within an organized group, how power displays itself outside an organized group? The answer is through a struggle and power struggle. Power within the group enables group to fight the natural environment and fight the surrounding groups. But this matter is for later discussion.

Can one group have power over other groups? Or is it just an influence, but not power? And what is influence, then? Where in this model there is a possibility to extend group power to a larger scope of people? Can power be given by members, but taken by a foreign invader? Can we answer all these questions within our original definition of power?

Let's examine if our definition of power is sufficient and does not contain logical contradictions. Do we need to supplement term power with additional definition of some influences and zones of interest?

Consider example, when large country L does not have a direct decision-making authority over other country X. But somehow, we observe a great deal of dependence in decisions of surrounding countries X, Y and Z from decisions in this large country L. If people of countries X, Y and Z are not members of country L, then country L cannot have power over people from countries X, Y and Z. Correct?

Before answering, let's look at the same situation from a different angle. What if countries U, X, Y and Z are all members of the same organization? It could be a trade organization, or military organization, or any other international union with regulated membership. In that case, we are dealing with an organized group and every member country has some degree of a decision-making authority within group. When group is examined from country L point of view, all other countries are just members. Countries interact as members in this group, and we do not need any supplemental terminology in that case.

But how do we differentiate between decision-making and just plain threatening? If one country makes a significant war preparations and surrounding countries have to change their budgets and their diplomacy as a response, is this also qualifies as an authority in decision-making? No. In that case, changes in decision-making of surrounding countries can be attributed to changes in the environment. If countries are in a conflict or at war with each other, they are struggling, but their struggle is not a relation of power. Hence, decision-making influence of country L over belligerent countries X, Y and Z is explained as changes in the environment of those countries. Environment changes, and so, group has to change.

We do not need a strict definition for term "influence" as some side effect of relation of power. Word "influence" used here in a normal linguistic sense, as traceable dependence of one thing from another.

Extending group power over larger amount of people would mean including more members in the realm of the group. Conquest and recruitment are the most direct ways of extending group membership. Entering into existing and forming new super-groups are less direct, but mote settled way of extending scope of group decision-making.

Informal Leaders

Group consists of members, and members have different degrees of decision-making authority. "Relationships based on differential power exist actually or potentially in all human groups." [Service, Origins of the State and Civilization, 1975, p.71] Who gets the bigger share of power? Who gets all the power?

The short answer is the members with ready solutions. A longer answer is people who are good as leaders and who like to lead. "Those who most desire power are those most likely to acquire it" [Russell, Power, 1938, p.14]. Similar examples we can draw from any other sphere of human activity. The best players, for example, are those who play well and who like to play a certain game.

A lot of books are written about what leaders actually do. I like approach given by Frederick Bailey. He stated that real situations are messy and complicated and people's will is paralyzed with uncertainty. Leader must simplify situation to a few short sentences and then make people act as if the simplified picture were the reality [Bailey, Humbuggery and Manipulation, 1988, p.2].

Any group of people has some dominant personalities. Even group of two people usually has a dominant figure. Initially, faster and louder members get the power. Some group members with ready solutions almost magically meet a group need for an urgent solution. Some people are good at sports, some at science, some at art. So it is not a big surprise, that some people are good at making quick decisions even under pressure.

Existence of leadership skills, as a special set of human skills, is widely recognized in literature. Some call it impulse to power, love for power [Russell, Power, 1938], an art of leadership [Kotter, What Leaders Really Do, 1999], an art of decision-making [Berle, Power, 1969, p.429].

Group members with large share of power are called informal leaders. They gain their initial authority through an ability to talk, inspire, organize and accomplish. Informal leaders gain their strength from their supporters. It is tempting to divide into separate categories ability to deliver a program of actions, ability to implant this program into minds of multitude, ability to organize the effort and accomplish the tasks. But in reality, leader has to have all of these abilities in one through recognizing people's talents in writing, in speaking, in organizing, in administering and in actually doing things.

Word "informal" in term informal leader refers to an absence of formal rules of obedience. Informal leaders acquire power personally. It means that informal leader is always a person.

Informal leaders can expand their power by widening their decision-making scope. Power expansion is done (1) by extending ranks of supporters and (2) by entering larger super-groups or forming new super-groups.

In the context of this investigation it is not very important who gets the power. But it is important to understand that appearance of informal leaders in any group both possible and necessary. It is possible because love for power is very unevenly distributed [Russell, Power, 1938, p.14]. It is necessary, because any group needs quick and decisive actions, and collective decision-making is too slow, noisy and paralyzing. Some of the ablest leaders known to history has arisen in revolutionary situations [ibid., p.21], as if answering the urgent call for leadership.

Informal leaders are born without knowledge about their special skills in leadership, like programmers or artists or anyone else. They are unaware of a skill what will be recognized as useful in groups they will be associated with. Informal leaders create nucleus for a potential crystallization. Informal leaders become centers for future concentration of power.

Concentration of Power through Supporters

If power remains in more than one pair of hands, a decision-making mechanism is needed. The answer to collective decision-making is concentration of power.

Any argument produces supporters and opposition. Any suggestion almost immediately brings an attitude: positive, negative or neutral. Based on those attitudes sub-groups might appear, that will unite members, sharing the same opinion.

Informal leader needs to concentrate all the power of his supporters to push his solution through. Correct term should be delegation and concentration of power. Leaders gravitate power. They concentrate power in their hands.

In the context of informal leader and his supporters, we can speak of such forms of delegation and concentration of power as elections and vote in general, donations, membership fees, obedience and self-discipline. There are no formal rules of conduct and obedience yet. Concentration of power occurs based on leader's ability to demonstrate advantageous and practical solutions, and on supporters' desire to see those solutions implemented.

Delegation of Power

Delegation of power is the other side of concentration of power. Members delegate their power to leaders. Why any one would give up his/her decision-making authority and what they hope to receive in return?

First, can my decision-making authority be temporary delegated to other member of a group? Yes. A soon as I express any support to opinions or proposed solutions of other member of a group, I demonstrate, that my decision-making authority can be transferred to other member of a group.

Second, how my share of group decision-making can be orderly shifted to some other group member? Through group membership. Group membership requires recognition of group rules, and this recognition is the most basic instrument of delegation of power. If group do not recognize you as a group member, you do not have a decision-making authority to delegate. If you do not recognize group rules, you will be expelled or force to leave the group. You will loose your decision-making authority to delegate.

Third, why people choose to delegate their power? People choose to delegate their decision-making authority in exchange for group membership. Some do it out of ignorance, unaware of any rights to participate in group decision-making. Some do it out of conviction of right way, taken by his representatives. Some do it out of necessity to obey majority. And finally, some choose not to delegate, but to concentrate their decision-making authority and become informal leaders.

Decision-making authority of a single member in a large group is very insignificant. One way of delegating decision-making authority is to neglect it. Many organized groups do not even have special mechanisms of delegation of power. In organizations this delegation of power is built into hierarchical structure and supposed understood by all members from the moment of joining in. Let's note here that the ability of group members to subordinate is not a given virtue. It deserves a more detailed look when we examine Delegation of Power in Second Round.

In most organized groups members delegate their power to the strongest force. Even groups with periodical elections make all members to delegate their power to holder of a majority. Individual members can choose to vote for any candidate, or they can even choose to ignore the vote. In any case, their individual power will be delegated to the strongest leader.

Several types of delegation of power can be distinguished. (1) Hierarchical groups make members delegate power by an initial agreement. Every member understands that one level of decision-making is under another level of decision-making. (2) Delegation of power by tradition can be observed, when group does not have any procedures to discover members' preferences in selection of its decision-makers. (3) Delegation of power to strongest occurs when individual members and sub-groups are unable to request a change. (4) Election of a single candidate delegates power to a majority leader. (5) Vote for political platforms and composing decision-making body in proportion to election results delegates power to supporters of majority platform. This form still delegates power to majority, but without killing the efforts of minority voters and non-voters. If power is delegated on proportional principal, non-voters actually influence the results and modify final composition of decision-makers.

All those types of delegation of power require consent of all group members. Any form of group internal fight (like civil war) is an indicator, that delegation of power does not work for all members of a group. It means that group is broken apart and two or more belligerent groups are now appeared.

Power Struggle of Opinions

Informal leaders enter into a power struggle with each other. Each of them (leaders) has strength of his supporters behind him. Each demonstrates advantages of proposed solution and disadvantages of others. Now group decision-making has to advance one step further and select one group solution out of range of proposed solutions. This stage called power struggle of opinions.

Power struggle of opinions is the last stage of group decision-making, and it is the least organized form of a group decision-making. Power struggle takes forms of confrontation and cooperation, adjustment and compromise. Power struggle further reduces the number of participants by delegation and concentration of power, merging and elimination.

Informal leaders reduce complexity of problems to a simple Yes/No form and offer it for a vote. Vote concentrates power by temporary negating all lesser powers. Vote is a form of power struggle, which results in concentration of power in the hands of majority.

Group decision-making went through several stages before reaching a solution. First, several informal leaders appeared with proposed solutions. Second, each viable leader concentrated his strength through supporters and proposed plan of action. Third, leaders entered into power struggle of opinions. And, finally, a solution was reached. This cycle will be repeated over and over again to generate traditions of group decision-making. Even when a single group representative has to make an important group decision, he might need to reproduce this very procedure with assistance of his advisers and staff members.

These stages of group decision-making demonstrate that group can make decisions, and the result of a power struggle of opinions is a solution that represents a temporary compromise of remaining informal leaders.

Order and Power

This section concludes the first round of investigation. So far we traveled along the logical chain from need for a group decision to definition of power, to informal leaders with their abilities to concentrate power, to power struggles between those informal leaders. Looks like, we have concluded the cycle from an urgent need for a group decision to an actual decision. The only thing left to do is to define this very cycle.

From the dawn of times social animals and man himself had to make various urgent decisions, affecting the entire group. It doesn't matter if some of these groups are not human and some of those decisions are not made by human brains. What important is the fact, that some positive manner of solving problems has to be established and does actually get established with time.

Group order is this constructive manner of solving group problems. Initial group order might have originated from traditions, from survival instincts to obey the strongest or from any previous instances of dangers and survivals. Even without language and without human cognitive abilities, colonies of ants manage to build their cone-like homes, and birds are following the lead, when migrating, decide where to stop and when to continue.

Order is a formed tradition of dealing with group problems. This definition doesn't refer to any particular right or natural law. This definition is based on a simple fact, that in order to exist human group has to find a way to solve problems and make decisions. Any form of decision-making cycle that doesn't lead to destruction of a group is called order.

Problems require decisions. Informal leaders emerge with solutions. Group somehow makes its choice, and first procedures are born and recorded if only in collective memory. Group decision-making then hardened in traditions and laws. Order is formed either by one-time forceful action, like conquest, or by consent of the entire group. Order represents some form of an agreement, requires halt of hostilities between group members, and is a will of the entire group.

According to definition of order as a positive cycle of group decision-making, order includes and defines procedures of concentration and delegation of power, tells how to deal with disagreements and, in that sense, order includes and controls power as a decision-making authority. At the same time, order itself is created and changed by power. Power has an ability to change existing order.

Power relies on order. Order regulates power. Order includes rules of changing order. Order replaces power: power is not needed in orderly, regulated situations. Group members enter into relations with each other and most of these relations are regulated. Many aspects of human interaction within a group are regulated by laws or maintained by traditions. Power is not needed when people engaged in regulated interactions. Money are changing hands, contracts get signed and fulfilled, violators and criminals get their punishments and the whole group seems working just fine without any need for power.

When order fails on one of the levels of group interaction, request goes to a higher level to restore order. From failed level this request looks like a request for power, but for the whole system it is just a familiar procedure of handling problems. When all lower levels have failed to resolve the problem, request reaches the top, and leader action looks like power action for all lower levels, where the problem was generated and not handled. If leader is unable to resolve the problem, or do not have enough time to implement a solution, the problem can resolve itself outside the group, by harming the group or group members, or by strengthening surrounding groups.

As we can see, orderly procedures are created to solve group problems in some predetermined and uniform way. Order within a group provides a mechanism to cope with complexities and unpredictability of real life. In that sense, order replaces power. Group order matures with a proven history of solved problems. Order gains a resistance to change. Order resistance to change is based on the fact, that order not only solves problems, but it also regulates decision-making. Order regulates power, order regulates distribution of decision-making authority, and that is why, changing order requires more and more power as group matures.

Second Round

Power - Leader - Concentration - Struggle - Order

Power as an Ability to Change Order

We are done with preliminaries. Now we have a definition of power as a decision-making authority of a single group member. And we have a definition of order as a positive manner of resolving group problems. Using this definitions, established in the First Round, we are ready to proceed. We still have to limit this analysis by isolating a single group and regarding influences of surrounding groups as changes in the environment.

How power and order relate to each other within one group? Power is both within and outside of the order. Power is partially within the order, as various decision-making procedures are regulated by order. It means that part of decision-making rights are written, canonized or otherwise regulated by laws and traditions. Power is partially outside the order, as real-live presents ever-changing situations. Real-life problems are not exactly the repetition of problems previously solved. And individual actions are not exactly the repetitions of previous actions. Some actions are not regulated, and some actions violate prescribed order.

Order is both within and outside power. Order is partially within one's power, as regulated portion of member's decision-making authority is included in group order. Order is mostly outside one's power, as a regulated decision-making authorities of other members compose most of its body.

Power changes order, by changing regulated uniform procedures to solve group problems. Order controls power, by regulating rules of group decision-making. As a result, power is needed to change order.

Second definition of power: power is an ability to change order. Why this definition is very important and why the same term - power - is now getting a second definition? Power, as a decision-making authority, is a procedural definition. This definition explains origin of power. This definition allows introduction of term "order" and provides foundation for understanding of order. Power, as an ability to change order, is a functional definition. This definition is based on procedural definition of power, and can be introduced only after group order has been defined and understood.

Two definitions of term power do not contradict each other. Functional definition of power is a logical construction, based on previous definitions. Functional definition of power is the definition of the same relation, but with reference to a different terminology. Functional definition of power provides a logical shortcut to inter-relation between order and power and saving us all the logical work that was done between introduction of two definitions.

Order provides rules and regulations on changing existing order. Based on this understanding we can distinguish legitimate and force power. Legitimate power is an ability to change order within order. Force power is an ability to change power outside of order.

Our second definition of power, as an ability to change the order, brings us to a second law of power. The only product of power is order. Can power be wasteful, and do not produce any order? Yes. Power can be wasteful and do not produce any results. But the normal output of power is order, and this output can be measured in strength and stability of group order that is emerging.

Power Conversion

Can group order be changed by outside powers? Can power in one area of group activity be exchanged for influence in the other areas of group activity? Does power has some degrees and measures? To answer these questions even preliminary we need to introduce new terminology.

Long-term relations between members are established through interactions. Interactions are one-time events. Interactions always take form of a request and reply. Null-reply means no reply and constitutes a reply. Request can be for action, document, signature or information. Request has urgency and merit. Based on these, a customary reply price is established.

Interactions can be divided into regulated by order and unregulated interactions. Regulated by order interactions has an obligatory rules, attached to them.

There are two types or interactions: request-plea and request-command. Request-command is always a regulated request. Request-command requires order of an organized group. Request-command is only possible in relation to punishment for non-compliance. Any power has to create rules of obedience (a line between allowed and a violation) to establish proper environment for request-commands.

Request-plea can be both regulated and unregulated. Example of regulated request-plea is seeking decision approval from a required list of officials. Request-plea is a trade: requestor brings his social weight, responder brings his ability to reply favorably. Favorable reply of responder can be exchanged for future influence in requestor decision-making in other areas. This is a key point of this logical chain. If consent of certain official is required for one type of action or request, then this consent can be used to influence decision-making in other areas of officials seeking this consent.

Decision-making is local to a given group, but decision-making authority is universal. This exchange is called power conversion. Power conversion is a mechanism of establishing unregulated links and influences inside and outside an organized group. Power is universal though the mechanism of power conversion. This is a third law of power.

Formal Leader

Order holds group rules for collective decision-making. Order defines top decision-making authority. When formal group is proclaimed and organized, only one member or council receives a status of top decision-making authority. All other informal leaders would eventually either loose their significance or become formal leaders of their own sub-groups.

Formal leader is a top decision-making authority in a group. Formal leader can be a person or a sub-group, person or an organized group. Word "formal" in term formal leader refers to formal rules of obedience for group members. Formal leader's authority comes from order and is based on leadership skills.

Formal leader's authority comes from order, i.e. from fixed rules and regulations about group decision-making. Formal leader is a leader with formally delegated authority to make decisions. Formal leader concentrates power as group representative of order. Formal leader concentrates power of the entire group: both supporters and opposition. Formal leader creates a mechanism of utilization of group recourses. Formal leader needs order to control power struggle.

Formal leader's strength is based on leadership skills. A lot of formal leaders have grown out of their successful informal leadership. A lot of formal leaders were not just given power, but gained their formal leadership in a fight with other skillful informal leaders. It is not exactly the case in hereditary monarchy, where formal leader can be simply burdened with his responsibility, but this situation is easily translatable to skillful leadership terms. Inexperienced or unwilling formal leader will be forced to undergo three possible alternatives or some combination of those. First, he can learn and gain precious skills. In that case he can remain a formal leader. Second, he can let or be forced to let the experienced and skillful entourage to take over. In that case formal leader turns into an organized group, each member of which is a willing and contributing participant. Third, he can pretend formal leadership without real skills. In that case solutions of group problems will be either rerouted into different channels or will resolve themselves outside the group. This third alternative offers a wide variety of possible outcomes. But all of them are leading to an eventual replacement. The group can seize to exist as a result of weak leadership, or one power structure can replace existing group power structure, or, of course, weak leader can be simply replaced by a competitor.

Does access to raw force, property, limited recourses, and information change the definition of formal leader? It is true that distribution of wealth could be extremely uneven within a group. Should we introduce some terminology here to distinguish formal top-decision-making authority and strong ability to influence a top decision-maker?

No. Word "formal" in term formal leader of organized group refers to real power. If any member of a group must utilize his money, force or information to influence the formal leader, it only means that leader does have a real decision-making authority. It means that not a single member of a group has enough decision-making authority to act without a formal leader. Otherwise, the leader will be changed to reflect the real distribution of decision-making authority.

All other members of the group have their share of decision-making from various sources including force, money, access to limited recourses, and it is only natural that they will be using them during rounds of group decision-making. But the top decision-making authority belongs to a formal leader.

The position of a formal leader requires both authority and skills. The position of a formal leader cannot be vacant in an organized group, but it can be very vaguely defined. For example, who is the formal leader in the United States? Why do Congress and President not split the country and destroy each other? Apparently, their decision-making authority is split with a powerful third force - Supreme Court, and all three are forming monstrous formal leader.

Many will find this notion of a huge formal leader unsatisfactory for practical reasons of research and investigation. But what looks like a formal leader for the organized group called United States, can be regarded by itself as an organized group and further analyzed based on distribution of internal decision-making authority. It might require an investigation of its own to uncover a formal leader in a maze of complicated power structure.

What is formal leader position in relation to all other members of a group? All other members and informal leaders are free to use their strength in advancing their power. Definition of formal leader as top decision-making authority leaves a space for the remaining decision-making authority to be spread among the members of the group. This definition allows presence of multiple informal leaders along with one formal leader.

The formal leader represents his group in relations with other groups. This understanding is very important when we examine inter-group relations. There are three possible views on inter-group relations. First, from a single member point-of-view, group relations might look like an interaction of one group with the other groups. Second, from a formal leader point-of-view, group relations look like formal leader interactions with formal leaders of other groups. Third, in devising external policy towards surrounding groups, inter-group relations might look like formal leader interactions with groups. In that case, the formal leader acts as a representative of the entire group in relation with all external groups. To summarize, group relations can be represented and studied in three different aspects: a group interaction with other groups; formal leader interaction with other formal leaders; and formal leader interaction with other groups. We will use these different aspects of the same relations while studying group merging, conflict and cooperation, and group unions.

Formal leader can lead multiple groups (sub-group, group, super-group). This notion refers to hierarchical structure of groups. As a leader grows in his skills and as he extends his decision-making scope, he is heading larger and larger groups. In that context, parliamentary leader can be informal leader for some group of voters on certain issues; at the same time he can be a formal leader of his organized political party; and at the same time he can lead some close circle of professional politicians within his own party.

There are groups and situations when it is extremely difficult to pinpoint a formal leader. Who is a formal leaders in a tight split between civil and religious authorities, between local and central powers, between legislative and executive branches. All the complexities of legal code and interference of personal strengths and weaknesses will not help us to discover a real formal leader. But what is important is that group problems have to find their way through complexities of group decision-making structure, and these problems are either solved, or they destroy the group. Whenever we confronted with a situation of uncertain formal leadership, we should look for some kind of an agreement between "would be" candidates for a highest decision-making position. Strongest players have only two alternatives. First, is to agree to coexist and play by the rules of this agreement even if unwritten. Presence of an agreement would indicate an organized group, and this group can be named a formal leader. Second, is to confront each other and explode this group from inside. In that case we do not have to look for a formal leader of such a group, because the group doesn't exist.

From a historic point of view, it is both important and interesting to discover a true distribution of power between major players. But term "Formal Leader", introduced here, logically unites all highest contenders, emphasizing a state of an agreement between all of them. A few informal leaders can precede an organized group. But only one formal leader (not necessarily a single person) emerges within an organized group. Group has no more than one formal leader. Two leaders will immediately enter into a conflict and either (1) split the group and form two separate groups or (2) one of the leaders prevails and group remains with one formal leader.

Leader Elected and Appointed

Groups can be instituted from above or formed from smaller units from bellow. The same applies to leaders. Leaders can be appointed from above or elected from bellow. Do we have to distinguish somehow elected and appointed formal leaders? Does the elected leader differ from the appointed leader?

Here are the differences between the two. Appointed leader does not need to seek an immediate approval among group members; elected leader might need to work on members' approval to get reelected. Appointed leader usually does not have a term; elected leader usually is elected for a certain term. Appointed leader performance is evaluated from above; elected leader performance is evaluated from below during next elections.

Now, let us list similarities. Both leaders represent a top decision- making authority within a group. Both leaders are judged by group results. Understanding between leader and members is necessary in both cases. Both leaders are relatively independent from group opinion after election or appointment. Both leaders must cultivate supporters, deal with opposing members and overcome resistance. Both leaders can be removed by coordinated members' actions.

From these lists of differences and similarities between appointed and elected leaders I do not see a need to distinguish two different types of groups for the purposes of this investigation. The slight difference in leader motivation can be attributed to the environment. Both elected leader of a country and appointed leader of a company would have to wisely utilize their members' recourses to fight a hostile environment.

More than that - similarities in functioning of all organized groups allowed me so far to apply all definitions of power and order to all organized groups. Now, with introduction of formal leader, we continue this path. Laws of power and rules of leadership remain the same for all formal leaders in all organized groups.

Concentration of Power within a Group

An order is an expensive thing. Tendency toward order appears only when all other alternatives are exhausted. All lands are distributed, all hours in a day are taken, and all the energy is spent. When normalcy turns into disorder our first inclination is to get by and ignore the facts. Returning to order in a disorderly situation is even more expensive. It means curbing violators, harsh punishments, and loss of freedom, paying for future order maintenance and necessity of obedience. Rousseau stated that people will submit to a social order only when power of resistance, required to stay free exceeds "recourses at the disposal of each individual" [Rousseau, The Social Contract and The Discourses, 1993, p.190].

Price of order is money, time, and freedom. One must pay, wait, or obey to return to an orderly situation. The higher the discipline, the more income, time and freedom one has to give up to maintain it. Price of order tends to go up due to a simple fact that more and more complex infrastructure grows less tolerant to interruptions and acts of violence. "Today's society, dependent upon complex technology, is highly vulnerable to sabotage, hijacking, kidnapping, and disruption" [Bogart, Silent Politics, 1972, p.183].

Concentration of power is a concentration of relevant sources of power in leader's hands. Concentration of power requires an organized group with internal order, regulated membership, formal leader and contributing members.

Formal leader aims to strengthen internal order and change external order. Term "change order" could mean preserve order against forceful changes. Concentration of power depends on leader's ability to concentrate power and on group members' ability to delegate power.

Strong order requires strong power to preserve the order, or to change the order. Are there any measurements of order strength? Order strength depends on support (votes, solders), property (money, taxes) and obedience (discipline).

Galbraith in his "The Anatomy of Power" specifies 3 sources of power as personality, property and organization [Galbraith, The Anatomy of Power, 1983]. Personality refers to charismatic abilities of leader. And leader with all his strength is a requirement to be a nucleus of group power. As far as organization is concerned, it is also a true source of power, but we included this source in a form of obedience. Galbraith writes that the stronger the submission inside the organization, the stronger its ability to exercise power [ibid. p.57].

Why official post is not included in the list of sources of power? Official post is a part of the orderly structure and as it includes legitimate power to change order. It is not in the list because power is not a source of power, like butter is not a source of butter.

Organization is just a hierarchical group, and it would not be logical to include it in the list of power sources. Leader is responsible to organize his supporters into a strong organization, but still primary source of power would be members' support, but not organization itself. Proper organization in that context would be an instrument of power, but not a source of it.

Leader and Concentration of Power

Order is the only product of power, and leader is the authorized agent within a group, who has skills to consume members' money, time, and freedom and to generate an order. Formal leader organizes, commands, and legislates. For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to look at all the agents of legislative, executive, and judicial power as one formal group leader that represents a cornerstone of a group order. Under further magnification, one will discover that formal leader often is an extensive group of people with its own subgroups and formal leaders.

Formal leader organizes concentration and delegation of power within the group. As an organizer leader is responsible for spreading the sense of identity among the group members and creating an urge to unite. Many leaders are finding their groups already united and functional, and do not need to do a lot of work in this area. Others grow to a leadership within a group at some stage of disintegration, or within a group represented as conglomerate of various small subgroups. In that case, leader's organizer skills will flourish.

As an organizer, leader acts within some organized super-group, where he draws members. At the same time leader most likely heads his own smaller sub-group, where he draws strengths and ability to fight competing leaders. In that context, leader needs character (persuasion, influence), ideology (sense of identity, stated goals, system of beliefs), organization (his sub-group or party), resources (property, money, allies) and order (rules regulating emergence of a new groups) as factors, facilitating organizational efforts.

Formal leader commands concentration and delegation of power. As a commander leader must represent the group in relations with surrounding groups. Wars and negotiations, conquests and defense, extinguishing internal unrest and anti-order plots are areas for leader commander skills. Depending on leader's position in relation to current order, he must use his commander skills either to preserve created internal order or to destroy existing external order.

As a commander leader needs resources (money, supplies, and allies), raw force (trained professional), armaments (weapons and tools), discipline and order (obedience, rules regulating punishments, rules to start a confrontation and stop confrontation) as factors, facilitating his commanding efforts.

War stops decision-making and breaks organized groups. There are no relations of power between groups in fight. Power does not exist without an organized group. Treaty, on the other hand, creates a group with participating members. Treaty represents an initial order for a new super-group.

Formal leader legislates, that is uses his concentrated power to change internal or external order. As a legislator leader needs to institutionalize the power or create (strengthen) the order. All the power that leader delegates to his administrators should belong to the official posts, but not to the individuals. Rousseau quotes Montesquieu saying that "rulers of Republics establish institutions, and afterward the institutions mould the rulers" [Rousseau, The Social Contract and The Discourses, 1993, p.213]. Any leader should create an order that only can be changed in an orderly fashion.

As a legislator leader needs authority (previous achievements that brought leader to a leadership position), sense of fairness (current understanding of right and wrong, ability to express interest and desires of a group) and existing order (rules to change existing order) as factors facilitating his legislative efforts.

Let us look at one more thought from Rousseau about all the magical qualities of leader as a legislator. "In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature, while knowing it through and through; its happiness would have to be independent of us, and yet ready to occupy itself with ours; and lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory, and working in one century, to be able to enjoy in the next. It would takes gods to give men laws." [ibid., p. 212]

Members and Delegation of Power

Concentration of power based on members' ability to provide needed recourses. Members give up time, property, and liberty to gain internal order and external power as an organized group.

Concentration of power in hands of a leader occurs by delegation of time (voting, organizing, participating, serving in army); by delegation of property (taxes, dues, donations); and by giving up on liberties (obedience to decisions, discipline).

Ability of group members to delegate power is not a trivial matter. Ability to recognize authority and follow the instructions is something that is accepted as given in civilized society. But even this simple skill must be nourished by the group. Elman Service in his Origins of the State and Civilization shows, through reference to multiple sources, examples of tribes which did not developed virtues of obedience, remained essentially egalitarian and thus retard their civilization for a long time. Leader can only concentrate power when there is recognition of subordination. [See Service, Origins of the State and Civilization, 1975, pp.50-53].

Darwin linked the development and cultivation of obedience with very survival. "A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection." [Darwin, Origin of Species; Descent of Man, 1952, p.322].

Notion of members' obedience as a virtue could run counterintuitive to Western philosophical tradition. But as taxes are the price for the civilized society, recognition of authority is a price for a rule of traditions, rule of law and progress. It is true, that in recent history humanity suffered major setbacks because of over-submissiveness and blind faith in leaders and authority. But this is just another argument that obedience and delegation of power, sometimes, blind delegation of power is possible. What is important to understand here, is that obedience should grow out of group collective consciousness and be taught to every group member. Depending on the nature of the group and group structure, teachings of obedience could could take their roots in trust to elder patriarchal authority, trust to heavenly priestly or kingly authority, or trust and submission to a simple group majority. If we consider modern state of civilization as a progress in comparison to primitive societies, then emergence of mental ability to obey and follow the rule is a progress in comparison to just simple cooperation and division of labor by sex and age.

Each member of a group has a certain decision-making authority. This individual portion of group decision-making authority called power. This power is partially legitimate power, that is, regulated by current laws and traditions, and partially force power, that is, outside of regulated order. How the delegation of power is occurring? Should we encounter a separate mechanisms to delegate legitimate power as oppose to force power? And why this question is of any significance?

Say, a leader concentrates all the legitimate power of supporters. He can reroute this concentrated power into any desired channel. But as far as force power is concerned, leader cannot concentrate it. As a last resort any person has an option to take it to the streets, even if that person previously gave support to a certain leader. Members delegate only traditional or legitimate power to a group leader. Leader, in his turn, can use this delegated power both as a legitimate and as a force power. Any delegation of power can only concentrate legitimate or regulated power.

Does delegation of power in any way diminish one's abilities to obstruct order? Can we see any correlation between a high degree of power concentration and striped individual abilities to act independently? The only real limitation can be in resources (wealth and time). But we established earlier that resources (wealth, access to information) are not power. They are sources of power. One can notice various degrees of resource limitations caused by the concentration of power. Even to go on strike or to protest on the streets, members need time and resources to support themselves. And concentration of power in forms of taxation, conscription and incarceration can limit people's ability or desire to utilize their individual power.

Conservatives and Missioners

From leader's point of view entire group can be divided into two distinct categories: conservatives and missioners. Conservatives produce only votes and funds. Missionaries in addition provide organizers and solders. This division is based on two major functions that are needed by every leader: recourses (votes and money) and actions (getting things organized and done).

Initial analytical split of a group into a leader and members predetermines this further slit of members into missionaries and conservatives. This split introduces two new elements into group structure, and they are mutually exclusive. In its simplest form, difference between missionaries and conservatives boils down to this simple formula. Missionaries will willingly and enthusiastically fight for an idea, and conservatives could talk about the idea, but will fight for it only under a conscription.

Conservatives are interest-driven people. Conservatives are providers of votes and funds. They want stability, income, and predictability. One can turn them into supporters by economic interest or elaborate explanation of a cause. Theory, describing current happenings in the light of overall historical situation is for conservatives. They need to understand the "state of affairs" or see ways to benefit from it.

Missioners are conviction people. Missioners are providers of organizers and fighters for the leader. They are ready to act and fight if an immediate call for action is heard. To turn them into supporters, a leader needs a clear and loud message and sense of urgency in his policy. Mosca quotes Guglielmo Ferrero: "There are always a certain number of individuals who need to become aroused over something that is not immediate and personal to them, something that is afar off. Their own affairs, the problems of science or of art, are not enough to take up all their spiritual activity. What is left for them except the socialist idea?" [Mosca, The Ruling Class, 1939, p.312] It is exactly those people I would like to call missionaries, and they are open to hear a leader's message for change and renewal.

There are three major tools in dealing with missioners.
(1) Leader's policy should be loud and clear. All your action people in the field should be joined by common "direction and justification of collective action" [Lasswell, Power and Personality, 1948].
(2) Leader should be able to hear his missioners or make them extremely busy to prevent "suggestions" and doubts. Make an exemplary case out of every petitioner who was answered. That way there is a perception that 100% of your petitioners are heard.
(3) Stimulate and check true supporters and believers. Every loyal man of action deserves both praise and recognition. Some very active missionaries might even need to be stopped before turning into dangerous competitors.

"One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests." [Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, 1862, p.13] According to Alinsky [Alinsky, Reveille for radicals, c1946], any mass movement is less than 1% of activists and remaining 99% of mass. Here I am calling activists missioners and mass are conservatives. A leader must take this rule into account for most efficient organization of concentration and delegation of power.

A leader can peak public interest for a few hours or a few weeks. In rear moments of extreme collective excitement, a leader can deliver his message to multitude and firmly plant new ideas in the heads of most active members. During this time, he must recruit supporters, renew membership, test and reshuffle administrators and clerks, increase the circle of paying members, tap into neutral or hostile public options. After that the leader should expect a cooling off period, when only administrators are busy pushing clerks into executing and controlling decisions.

There is of course a certain static category of people totally useless for a leader. But there are two reasons not to put them into a separate category. The first reason is precisely the fact that they are not actively participating in a leader-member interaction and in quiet times they are deaf to any kind of leader's message either by nature or by belief. Secondly, some of these people will quickly turn into either conservatives or missionaries when the tough times come. One cannot be entirely neutral and be paying taxes. To be truly neutral one must be outside the group. That will put a person outside the decision-making scope of leader and outside the scope of this investigation.

The leader must have a control over appointing administrators to be able to steer in accordance with selected policy. Outstanding missionaries working for an inspiration are needed as administrators on sharp turns of group development. A controlled body of conservative administrators working for interest is more appropriate for supporting stable growth or maintaining normal level of development.

Every group has its share of disagreements. Every group develops some mechanism to resolve these disagreements. Even if the leader represents a majority, he still has to deal with possible complications from opposing members. The most important consideration in choosing either to respect or to crush opposition, is to prevent opposing members from leaving, to form their own group and to weaken the existing group.

Opposition can gain a new leader, can form an organized sub-group, and decision-making will slow down. Concentration of power will lessen. Our formal leader must decide, what makes the most sense. Excluding the opposition will simplify execution of orders but can significantly narrow the decision-making scope. Fighting the opposition will most likely split the group into two with the same results. Bringing opposition representatives into decision-making process will burden the leader with additional obligations.

Here, while examining members' delegation of power, we encounter some tendencies that run directly against leader's concentration of power. Looks like concentration and delegation of power contains seeds for problems that would need to be resolved by power struggle.

Disagreements and conflicts inside the group are not the reasons to prevent concentration of power. From a formal leader's point of view, members can be divided into supporters and opposition. Both supporters and opposition are required to contribute to support the group. Rules of membership and existing order allow the leader to make all members to participate.

Power Struggle of Organized Groups

The relation of power exists only within organized groups, but power struggle reaches outside organized groups to conquer the environment. Power struggle is a group struggle to change favorably existing order.

Power struggle is social continuation of evolutionary struggle. Power struggle reduces the number of competing leaders and groups. It eliminates weak leaders and dissolves weak groups. Power struggle replaces conflict with order of agreements, treaties and with order of newly established organized groups.

Group aims at changing external order. Power is an ability to change order. Power struggle is a fight to realize leader's ability to change existing order and neutralize those abilities of other leaders.

Power struggle is a relation between leader and groups about changing current order. Group engaged in power struggle with surrounding groups. Leader represents group in relations with other groups. So, leader personally engaged in a power struggle with surrounding groups.

Concentration of power in one pair of hands is constantly gets counter-balanced by power struggle between groups and their leaders. Power struggle prevents unlimited concentration of power. At the same time power struggle enhances concentration of power by eliminating weak leaders.

External and Internal Power Struggle

Each group engaged in power struggle with surrounding groups (environment) to change favorably existing order. Formal leader represents group in relations with other groups and he is engaged in a power struggle with surrounding groups. This type of power struggle is called external power struggle.

At the same time, formal leader fights for power with internal sub-groups within his group. This type of power struggle is call internal power struggle.

Power succession and power shift struggle

Group leaders have to fight with one another for a higher decision-making authority within a super-group. This struggle is called power succession struggle. Power succession struggle is a power struggle between sub-groups leaders within a group for top decision-making authority position. Power struggle for top decision-making authority is power succession struggle. Leaders are fighting power succession struggle for positions within an organized super-group.

Group has to fight with other competing groups to protect their order and destroy (diminish) competing orders. This power struggle is called power shift struggle. Power struggle to protect group and destroy (weaken) surrounding groups is a power shift struggle. Power shift struggle is a power struggle between groups for resources and decision-making scope (members). Power shift struggle can be fought outside the boundaries of any organized group. In that sense, power shift struggle is just a force. It precedes establishing relations of power between fighting sides, as power precedes changing of an order.

Are any wars or conflicts represent examples of power struggle? Yes, as long as two or more organized groups or leaders of these groups conduct them. At the same time, war against hunger, against force of nature or against some inhuman force will not be an example of power struggle.

Quite often, level of power struggle can be distinguished only by intentions of the leader. If leader positions himself to jump to a more advantageous spot within a super-group, then we are dealing with power succession struggle. If leader organizes his group to outsmart and destroy surrounding groups, then we are dealing with power shift struggle.

Power struggle arrows are pointing sharply out of the group in all directions. The status of surrounding groups influence, but doesn't determine level of power struggle group is involved in. Even cooperation with a group is a form of power struggle against some other groups. Opposition party leader can simultaneously plan actions to advance his positions and influence in parliament (power succession struggle) and organize mass movement against parliament power (power shift struggle).

Legitimate power struggle and force power struggle

Power struggle is of two types: legitimate power struggle and force power struggle. Legitimate power struggle is fought using only legitimate ways and means. Force power struggle uses any means of achieving given goals. Current order determines the line between legitimate and force power struggle methods.

Examples of Power Struggle

Election campaign, propaganda, censorship, and purges can be examples of legitimate power succession struggle.
Assassinations and acts of terror can be examples of force power succession or force power shift struggle.
War in all modern orders up to now is an example of legitimate power shift struggle.
Strikes and demonstrations can be examples of legitimate or force power struggle, depending on the existing order. They can be power shift or power succession struggle depending on participant's demands.
Revolution is an example of force power shift struggle.
Coup d'état can be an example of force power succession struggle if top decision-making position changed hands within members of the same organized group.

Table bellow illustrates different types and levels of power struggle.

Power Struggle	Legitimate Power Struggle	Force Power Struggle
Power Shift Struggle	War Strike Demonstration	Revolution Civil War
Power Succession Struggle	Election campaign Propaganda Purge Censorship	Assassination Act of Terror Coup d'état

Depending on current laws and traditions (order) strikes and demonstrations and even propaganda of group ideology can be both examples of legitimate and force power struggle. Depending on participant's demand strike and demonstration can be examples of either power shift or power succession struggle.

Why strike is an example of power struggle? Where here is the struggle between leader and groups about changing existing order? Even if striker's demands are just wages or any other matter of internal life of a corporation, strike is still a fight between leader and groups about positions in a decision-making procedure and changing the ways those decisions are reached.

Order as a Result of Power Struggle

[Now we ready for a new definition of power. Order is a relation between group members regulated by laws and traditions.]

Power struggle results in reduction of number of fighting groups. As with any fight, there are winners and there are losers. If power struggle goes on for a long time only one participant is destined to remain. Other competitors might appear time to time and replace existing "champion", but this champion has ability to monitor and prevent other contenders from entering the ring.

We can see results of these very long natural fights everywhere. Only one species can be the "winner" on Earth, only one superpower dominates humanity through ages, only one idea gains the status of truth, only one system of measurement prevails. The same fate of oneness is in store for faith, currency, language, and political system.

Power struggle of two super-powers US vs. SU is over. The new one - between China and USA - is unfolding. Power struggle does not always mean eliminating the enemy or competitor. It just creates a new order with a leader and members and new rules and regulations. "Sometimes it is possible to kill the state without killing a single one of its members" [Rousseau, The Social Contract and The Discourses, 1993, p.188]. Even dirty conflict between East and West was played by the rules and controlled by mutual understandings. No one used weapons of last resort. And one side eventually just crumbled under pressure.

Power struggle not only destroys. It also creates. Power struggle creates a new order, if competing sides enter into organized super-group and all-out fight between sides stops. A new super-group is a single "winner" of brutal power struggle, where sides decided to unite instead of fight. This organized single super-group we can observe in United States where two major political parties entered into union with regulated membership. Despite being called a two-party system, it represents just one group that controls access to power. It is so regulated, that other nearest contenders are unable to join the fight due to the size difference. However, 2016 elections showed that an outsider can enter the ranks, gain support, and successfully struggle his way to the very top. Both Republicans and Democrats were devasted by the shock of outsider entering inner most folds of the exclusive organized group.

Both members of a single super-group are playing by the rules of Constitution and if Constitution says that one presidential candidate should step aside and give way to another presidential candidate, both members of the group respect the word of Constitution. Both candidates enjoy the protection of the same secret service and political nominees are recruited from both sides of the aisle.

Order controls and regulates legitimate power. But power remains a force of its own, as long as competing sides are involved in hostile power struggle with each other. Internal order gains an enormous strength, when power struggle eventually eliminates all hostile groups, and power struggle is limited on the surface to a legitimate power succession struggle.

Any struggle requires at least two fighting sides, and logical end of any struggle is some victors and some losers. End of struggle also usually marked with some stoppage of hostilities even if temporary.
This "calm after the storm" can be another definition of order, with understanding that power struggle never actually ends and there are no clear lines between fight and calm.

Logical result of power struggle is eliminating of all but one contender for power. Elimination goes through victories and losses or merges of contenders of comparable size. That result however is never completely achieved. Power struggle creates and eliminates leaders, but never completely removes reasons for disagreements in decision-making.

Power struggle creates more and more controlled and regulated ways to deal with disagreements and problems, but new problems and disagreements continue to surface. Leaders are changing and issues are changing, but problem and conflicts remain, because resources are always limited, and complete isolation is impossible.

Lasting order is a result of power struggle. Lasting order includes rules and regulation to deal with disagreements and is flexible enough to undergo modifications under pressure of new problems. There is absolutely nothing new in notion that there are no rules good for all times, and eternal is only changing itself. But based on this notion, leaders can based their power struggle policies and aim for suitable changes.

There is no such entity as group conscience or group intellectuals, and there is no one with pure and objective judgment of good and evil. Notions of good and evil are formed but leaders, implemented by people, and judged by results from the distance of history. Is there a compass or some other instrument, or just a criterion to judge struggling sides at the time of the struggle?

It is impossible to limit good to legitimate, thus crossing out all revolutionary achievements of humanity. It is impossible to define good through fair, as fair on one side always would have unfair on the other. Even human life can't serve as a criterion for eternal good, as freedom sometimes cannot be obtained without fighting and killing.

As we face with impossibility to define good and fair order, we have to select two of possible ways. Either return to the originally rejected axiom, that stronger is better, and stronger power establishes better order, or conclude that power struggle itself is a good, refreshing and never-ending force, that represents ever-moral direction of human development. Both conclusions are highly unsatisfactory.

As a result of multiple unsuccessful attempts to define direction of power struggle and order, we have to conclude that there is no direction in human development except survival. This conclusion brings to forefront two immediate logical findings. First, it means that all notions of good and bad are strictly group-centered and are only determined by group interests. And secondly, that human organization is developing under the same rules already discovered by Darwin in XIX century. The orders best fit for survival are surviving, conquering and eliminating all other types of human organization.

Not the fight of human orders is moral, but survival of best fit for survival human organizations is moral, and good, and eternal within conquered environment. Thus, survival of best organized constitutes the only direction of human development.

Conclusion

Order as a Form of Redistribution of Power

Orders are as different as organized groups. Orders are formed under different conditions and with respect to primary goals of organized groups. Order reflects hierarchy, and distribution of property rights, and ability to control and enforce commands.

Order freezes and stabilizes process of change as well as members' power roles and functions. Order is endlessly variable, but at the same time order is conservative and reluctant for change. Order's ability for only slow change can be a liability, but also can be a blessing. Order's ability for only slow change provides group with periods of change and periods of relative stability.

Order exists in certain forms that can be categorized. Group order can be apparently categorized by status of formal leader. Formal leader holds the top decision-making authority in a group and that is why ways of selecting formal leader are playing such a crucial role in determining nature of prevailing order.

Status of formal leader determines potential aspirations for power for all other members of a group. It determines what is legitimate and what is force ways of changing order. It determines acceptable levels of concentration of power. It determines possibilities of controlling group decision-making and changing existing order.

Despite wide variety of order systems, laws of power are the same for all human groups and all orders. In any order members are delegating power and leader has to concentrate power in his hands to make group decisions. In all order systems there is a power struggle going on within and outside sub-groups. And everywhere leaders have to use power to change existing order.

Final Summary

We started investigation of power from a definition of an organized group as a conglomerate of contributing members. An urgent need for group decision-making crystalized individual decision-making authorities. That notion became a foundation for the first definition of power.

Informal leaders were defined as group members with ready solutions. Their natural abilities met the group need for quick decisions. Group members without these abilities can and willingly would delegate their power to a leader.

Informal leaders introduce various solutions for group problems and gain supporters and opposition. Processes of concentration of power through supporters and power struggle of opinions run contrary to each other but bringing closer to same result. They reduce number of viable leaders and eliminate complexities of decision-making.

Power struggle of opinions culminates with a simple Yes/No vote and group decision is finally reached. This process repeated over-and-over again and eventually establishes group rules and regulations for group decision-making. An internal group order is born.

Group order, first defined as a temporary compromise between remaining informal leaders, now can be defined as a combination of group laws and traditions and be regarded as a product of power. A complex relation between order and power is noted. Some elemental group order is needed to make group decisions, but power itself shapes and changes group order from now on.

That understanding allows defining power as an ability to change group order. This second definition of power is a functional definition. Power changes order, but order controls and replaces power. Power is not needed in routine relations, regulated by order.

Order as product of group decision-making includes provision for top decision-making authority. A member or a sub-group with top decision-making authority defined as formal leader. Questions that can not be resolved on lower levels of group decision-making are reaching formal leader, and formal leader, as a representative of group order, organizes group, commands group resources and legislates changes in group order.

Concentration and delegation of power under formal leader spreads over entire group. It takes well defined and regulated forms and is compulsory for both supporters and opposition. Order now controls taxes and conscription, elections and conflict resolution.

Group order begins to regulate even power struggle between leaders and groups, making it a legitimate power struggle. However, some methods of power struggle remain outside the rules of group order, making it a force power struggle.

Group order undergoes a constant change by forces within and outside the current rules of order. Order is a product of eternal power struggle between leaders and groups, and power is an engine behind all those changes.