With great power comes greater responsibility

With great powers come great responsibility Introduction The relationship of power with responsibility has been debatable issue right from the birth of territorial states. Though power and responsibility are not limited to governance only yet philosophical debates around it have shaped the discourse across other institutions also. This essay will try to analyse different interpretation of power, responsibility and their relationship particularly through philosophical, psychological and historical lens. This debate assumes quiet importance particularly amidst global order where power is shared not only by nations, but by large technology companies also. Concept of environmental stewardship and sustainability of environment will also be analysed to interpret modern concept of enforcing responsible power.

History of power and its philosophical basis often originated with rise of complex social system necessitating a system of governance. Even among primitive tribal society, power was wielded by elderly tribalmen acting as trustee of all those making tribal society. There was no presence of army or administrative apparatus for primitive form of power, so in primitive society it was more of consultative nature. One important point to note here that responsibility can be seen in consultative nature of power, which was very much essential to prevent any revolt, hence maintenance of social order. With emergence of trade and urbanisation, society grew complex in structure hence there was necessity of reform in administrative apparatus, hence power under such circumstances was wielded by supreme ruler known as king / Prajapati / Raja with help of learned people represented via council. One can notice change in power wielded particularly with rise of armed units / administrative status but that doesn't mean responsibility was divulged from power. King was assumed to wield power as per Dharma i.e. supreme order of cosmos. For eg. there were market / merchant committees with near, universal membership of merchants. Here, a significant amount of autonomy was provided to committee particularly in relation to its internal affairs. King was expected to not to interfere with day to day affairs but when Dharma / popular justice is at threat, king can interfere with intention of greater good for people. Thus, via analysing historical administrative institutions one can verify that responsibility was very much integral to wielding of power.

Psychological analysis of human behaviour has shown that power is often linked to super ego structure, but its relationship to amygdala, hippocampus and other limbic structures show that emotions, attributes like empathy, compassion, justice often play a significant role in wielding of power. According to psychologists this is what makes human beings different from animals. Other evidences can be seen in behaviour analysis of schizophrenic, bipolar, mood disorder patients. They often act violently without any consciousness towards society, people, vulnerability at large. Hence according to psychologists, power without responsibility is a pathological state of mind, erasing true human consciousness from the subject. Other evidence towards direct proportionality of power with responsibility can be seen by comparing behaviour analysis of children v/s adults. Often children behaviour is marked by jealousy, competition. For eg. when you devout your play time towards other children, when you bring toys / dress / articles for others, one can notice distress in behaviour of child subject but this lack of responsibility does not cause any social upheaval / social pathology as power is mostly wielded by guardians. However, similar lack of attributes like empathy, compassion, justice, love, tolerance in adult social life could lead to social pathologies.

as communalism, mob lynching, rape, murder etc. There are numerous historical evidence of wielding power without responsibility leading to disastrous results. Foremost among this was wielding of power by France monarch, with little affection towards citizens which ultimately paved way for French revolution. Rise of various national movement across Asia & Africa could also be analysed via same lens of responsible power. Colonial governments were largely acting for greater good of their own country via devastating economic, social, political structure of indigenous population, often with disastrous consequences for local population. Hence power divulged from responsibility is not sustainable at all. This concept of responsible power assumes renewed importance particularly with the rise of technology as major source of power such as control over critical energy mineral supply chain, AI model, data collection centres etc. There are numerous research studies pointing to development of AI model without responsibility could lead to data hallucinations, strengthening of existing biases ingrained via biased data system. Similarly without accessible, affordable AI literacy even positive development could lead to unequal outcomes strengthening the already unequal world. Coming to traditional bureaucracy, civil servants are uniquely positioned at helm of governance with wide discretionary powers which could have devastating outcomes if not used meticulously. Although constitution, statutory law, rules & regulations often provide guiderails for responsible use of power, there are certain situations where rules & regulations are absent which demand application of conscience in public spirit. If this application of power is done without much responsibility, there could be loss of trust and inevitably shattering of social contract between people and government. Now coming to definition of attributes defining responsibility. There is no universal applicable model and values that define responsibility are often decided on case by case basis. For eg. values such as compassion, empathy, consultation, transparency and accountability are some attributes of responsible power. One universal rule that could be applied across every situation is first integration of belief that power arises from trust of people and there are inherent limitation over it, hence people or subjects on whom power would be wielded should always take a central position.

This concept of responsible power assumes renewed importance particularly with the rise of technology as major source of power such as control over critical energy mineral supply chain, AI model, data collection centres etc. There are numerous research studies pointing to development of AI model without responsibility could lead to data hallucinations, strengthening of existing biases ingrained via biased data system. Similarly without accessible, affordable AI literacy even positive development could lead to unequal outcomes strengthening the already unequal world. Coming to traditional bureaucracy, civil servants are uniquely positioned at helm of governance with wide discretionary powers which could have devastating outcomes if not used meticulously. Although constitution, statutory law, rules & regulations often provide guiderails for responsible use of power, there are certain situations where rules & regulations are absent which demand application of conscience in public spirit. If this application of power is done without much responsibility, there could be loss of trust and inevitably shattering of social contract between people and government. Now coming to definition of attributes defining responsibility. There is no universal applicable model and values that define responsibility are often decided on case by case basis. For eg. values such as compassion, empathy, consultation, transparency and accountability are some attributes of responsible power. One universal rule that could be applied across every situation is first integration of belief that power arises from trust of people and there are inherent limitation over it, hence people or subjects on whom power would be wielded should always take a central position. With brief discussion on all arguments lets discuss some critical points over this universal assumption. First according to critics, there could be divergence in responsibility too while dealing with subjects for example administrative measures like AFSPA, UAPA etc are deemed essential for national security & unity / integrity of nation while simultaneously there could be failure of human rights explained as collateral damage by strategist. Critics often argue that power is often yielded in a sense to preserve political establishment but one should also ponder over ramifications of issue like radicalisation, terrorism, drug & human trafficking. They are also failure of human rights at large scale. Hence sometime there are ethical dilemmas associated with yielding of power. Another point critics often argue that there is fragmentation of responsibility and accountability across major cases, which often defeat the purpose of power. Such fragmentation of responsibility does not defeat the ideology of responsible power but a deficiency in administrative accountability apparatus. Power is there to remain and is quiet essential for stability or to prevent anarchy, but that should not facilitate raw power. Responsibility and trust are essence of any power structure, divulging one from another would lead to collapse of whole institutional framework. Hence there is need to strengthen this bond of responsibility with power particularly to other emerging non state power institutions as there are no regular elections for board members of various technological companies. Hence government could act as trustee of people by emulating similar behaviour in one's own power yielding function.

Critics often argue that power is often yielded in a sense to preserve political establishment but one should also ponder over ramifications of issue like radicalisation, terrorism, drug & human trafficking. They are also failure of human rights at large scale. Hence sometime there are ethical dilemmas associated with yielding of power. Another point critics often argue that there is fragmentation of responsibility and accountability across major cases, which often defeat the purpose of power. Such fragmentation of responsibility does not defeat the ideology of responsible power but a deficiency in administrative accountability apparatus. Power is there to remain and is quiet essential for stability or to prevent anarchy, but that should not facilitate raw power.