He defines power as a resource that some people have at the expense of other people that do not have. In such a circumstance, people have to take power from others and control other resources. The other people that do not have power have little or no control as they do not have the discrepancy as such. According to Marx Weber, power is defined by a few people that are in control. Steven Lukes steps in to criticize power in a more radical way. He states that power is a continuous exercise which involves two different parties. While some parties will have power, the other parties do not have power to control the people that have power.
According to Lukes, a single party will exercise power and use the power to gain control over some issues. In such a situation, the other party does not have control. There will be a divergence of interests as the party with power will exercise the power contrary to the interests of the other party. At times, the party that does not have power will be aware of this, while at other times, the other party will not have a clue as to the actions of the party that is in power. Steven Lukes criticizes power in stating that it has three faces (Gidden, 2010). In the first face, Lukes states that the parties make a mutual decision as they are participatory. Though they are involved in making the decisions, they are only allowed to participate to a certain extent, as their interests have to be catered for. Since they are both involved in the decision making process, their interests are guaranteed. However, this depends on the bodies that are in power as they have the overall power on the decisions that are made. This creates an all inclusive scenario where all the parties that have interests are engaged in decision making.
The second face as stated by Lukes is that, there are instances on non-decision. In such a scenario, the people in power set up an agenda where they have control of the decisions that will be made. Part of