I’m writing this in – actually near – Washington DC, arguably the most “powerful” city in our contemporary world.  It is both the seat of government of what is, for now, the lone superpower on earth.  The city and its surrounding communities are therefore inhabited by people who are powerful because their hands are on the levers of government.  And by many more who influence, or at least who are seeking to influence the former group.

Watching this city go through a power-transition, I’ve made several observations:

Power is temporary…

This weekend, as I watch, one of the great dramas of American politics is taking place:  Power is changing hands.  And not just at the top.  While President Bush and Vice-president Cheney prepare to depart, in every Federal office building in the city desks are being cleared as the old guard departs to make way for a new group of power-holders.  Lobbyists are discovering that the relationships they have cultivated so carefully for so long are suddenly useless – their contacts are leaving town.  They will have to start all over again, or in some cases, leave town themselves, to make room for others who already have the requisite relationships in place.

This happens every four to eight years here.  We expect it.  Some people win elections, others lose – and the losers depart, gracefully handing over their power to others with whom they have strong and ongoing disagreements.  Those of us who have grown up within this system sometimes don’t realize how unique this event is in the long history of human government.  “Power corrupts” – no kidding! – and everywhere and in almost every age, the very ida that a powerful person would aside his authority voluntarily would be inconceiveable.   It is only right that we recognize that with all the flaws in our system of government – and there are many – at least this transition of power seems to be something that we do well.  We’ve trained ourselves to let go of power when our time is up, and that is good.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, one time President of Pakistan

But we should recognize that even in countries where this kind of peaceful transition doesn’t happen, power still changes hands.  In a museum garden in at an archeological site in southern Pakistan called Moenjodaro there is a rather symbolic monument.  It was erected in, I think, the late 1960′s, by the then President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in honor of his great friend, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the then Shah of Iran.  Two powerful men honored each other.  The monument still stands.  The men have both disappeared, with their power, the Shah deposed in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the President hanged the same year by his successor in Pakistan.  Power is temporary, no matter who holds it.

Power has its limits…

On the other hand, living for a short time in this city has showed me the limits of power as well.  This most powerful city in the world has one of the worst school systems in our entire country.  It has a poverty and crime rate that is shameful.  It has streets that are in disrepair.  True, it also has a world-class public transport system as well – but there are parts of this powerful capital that seem to have been lifted from another, much less powerful and affluent country.   It is not just the city that shows the limits of power.  Every newspaper that arrives carries the same message about the problems facing those in power.  Whether the challenges are the economic crisis, the war on terror, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the environmental crisis, the conclusion is the same:  Our leaders don’t know what to do. All the power in the world is useless if you don’t know what to do with it.

Power isn’t always where you expect it to be…

I have a good friend who happens to be staying with us for a few weeks.  He works in one of the larger government departments, and has been called in to Washington to assist in the transition.  He isn’t losing power because he isn’t powerful enough to be at the top – he is one of the professionals who keep things running smoothly in the lower levels while the powerful at the top make speeches.

It has been fascinating to me to look over his shoulders this week as he has described what’s happening in his deparment.  The powerful people at the top are leaving, to be replaced by a new powerful elite that has not yet been named.  But the work of the department goes on.  How? By whom?  By the legions of ‘little people’ whose power doesn’t register on the meters of the media.

So let’s look at a question begging to be asked:  Who really has the power?  Is it the high and mighty who are on their way out of town, passing on the road the new high and mighty on their way back into town?  Or maybe the real power is elsewhere – in the small offices and cubicles where the work really gets done.

It reminds me of a verse from the Apostle Paul:

...not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. ²⁷But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; ²⁸God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, ²⁹so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.(I Corinthians 1:26-29)

This is how the Kingdom of God works.  This is really how the world works.  Let’s not be fooled into thinking that because we are little people living our lives in a limited circle of influence that we don’t have power.  We may be holding the keys to the kind of power that really matters.

Do something with it.

No related posts.

• By tcanny, January 15, 2009 @ 10:31 am

  I Corinthians 1:26-29
  Quite possibly my most favorite Bible passage.

  I saw a similar dynamic while in the Army. Commanders changed every 12 – 18 months and could make you feel motivated or de-motivated depending on their “charisma” or “leadership” but you still did your job along with the rest of the grunts in the division, brigade, battalion, company, etc. Which is where things really got done.
• By fgluck, January 15, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

  Do those who are leaving really “loose” power or are they simply “relocated”?

  I offer as evidence past Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. If the definition of power is “the ability to do your will” (and that seems to me to be a good definition), I maintain that these past Presidents still have extraordinary power.

  Power is less of the “position” and more of who you know, how to work the channels and what resources you have.

  We think of it as a “transfer” of power, but perhaps it is better thought of as a “shift of power” — and thank God, in the USA, it is a smooth process, more evidence of God’s blessings.

  It reminds us that are are called to pray for our leaders. I would assume that that would include all leaders — past and present — who still have influence over us. We should pray for the condition of their hearts because what is in one’s heart, truly influences one’s actions… whether you are a “high and mighty” or simply occupy a cubicles.
• By Ed, January 15, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

  Fred, I think the issue is formal vs. informal power. As unpopular as he has been, President Bush has retained all of the formal power vested in the presidency. A former president has no formal power – but may have (or develop) great informal power. Jimmy Carter is probably a unique example of an unpopular president who developed greater power in his post-Presidency than he had during his time in office. We all know people with great formal power – they must be obeyed – but no informal power, and others whom we have no obligation to follow or obey but to whom we give deference and for whom we would do almost anything.

Other Links to this Post