1.2 Non-decision-making power

It is therefore important to consider Lukes’ second face of power – that of non-decision-making. This relates to how individuals or groups organise and set the agenda for action through inaction. Being able to keep certain discussions and debates away from consideration is a clear exercise of power. Hence police forces and governments can choose not to take action – or at least to take virtually no action – on corruption, criminality and regressive practices amongst police officers. Political parties can choose not to take seriously complaints of racism within their ranks. Organisations can choose not to address issues of discrimination in recruitment and promotion decisions. Globally, businesses can choose not to address issues of exploitation and slavery in their supply chains.

Very often such non-decision-making is facilitated by a wider array of actors and forces. For example, the media decides what merits attention and wider circulation, and can decide not to cover certain issues. Other stakeholders – such as charities and trade unions – can decide to support certain groups of people but not others.

A significant aspect of non-decision-making power is the tendency of organisations and politicians to focus on symptoms rather than root causes of problems. One example of such a tendency can be found in the issue of knife crime in the UK. While issues such as the supposed effects of hip-hop music, video games and a vague notion of ‘gang culture’ are widely discussed, underlying issues of deprivation, lack of access to voice, autonomy and democracy are ignored. To truly understand why some issues are discussed and others subdued, it is necessary to engage with Lukes’ third face of power.