“A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl 1961 p. 202-203). Dahl chose to analyze decision-making on key issues only, and, furthermore, did not state objective criteria for the selection of such “key issues” (Dahl 1961). He held that he was able to identify subjective interests in the form of dominant policy preferences made visible by patterns of political participation in concrete key issue decision-making. Peter Bachrach & Morton S. Baratz (1962; 1963; 1970) fervently criticized this one-dimensional approach, asking whether a sound concept of power could be predicated on the assumption that it was totally embodied and fully reflected in “concrete decisions”. Power is a term, which is defined in different ways by different theorist because power can be used as a means of influence in different ways. Way back, Max Weber has defined power as “Power is the probability that one actor within the relationship will be in the position to carry out his own will despite resistance (Weber, 1947, P.152). Nord has defined power in the context of mobilization of energy and resources to achieve one set of goals as against other sets of Goals. He defines power as follows. “ Power is the ability to influence flows of the available resources towards certain goals as opposed to other goals. Power is assumed to be exercised only when these goals are at least partially in conflict with each other (Nord, 1978, P.675). Robbins has defined power in the more elaborate way when he says” Power refers to a capacity that A has to influence the behavior of B so that B does something he or she would not otherwise do. This definition implies 1) A potential that need not be actualized to be effective 2) A dependence relationship, and 3) That B has some discretion over his or her behavior”.