Power and powers vs. powers and power

By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 15/09/2025

In an original context, "power" could be defined as "that on which everything depends." If we were to inquire about where it can be found, we would answer "everywhere." That is, with the adverb "everywhere." In simpler language, we would answer that it is observed, noticed, exercised, and even feared, without exception, in the disparate sectors of society and, essentially, in the daily relationships between the individuals who comprise it. It is also identified, with sound logic, as a "superstructure."

In the opinion of Jorge Carrizo, who served as Mexico's ambassador to France, "power" is a person's ability to influence their coexistence with others. It is an open but never-ending process, whether in democracy, socialism, or any other system from any perspective. It usually goes hand in hand with the State, each serving as a source of the other, on a long path toward "a majority agreement," which is usually reflected in a constitution and the laws derived from it. Consequently, we read that "power" is a general phenomenon manifested in all sectors of society. And according to "Christian ethics," it has been granted to man to exercise it in subservience to the love of God and neighbor. But with the appropriate warning that it must be prevented from becoming a "demon of destruction." Its wisdom, we should be clear, is conditional on its continued service to the growth of the individual and the society that derives from its efforts.

The ideas presented regarding power lead us to "the powers," which is why we must clarify in what sense one causes the other, a hypothesis that is not entirely straightforward if we were to determine which of the two comes first, that is, whether "power generates power or vice versa." We understand that in political language, regarding the latter, three words define, in the context of this essay, the most respected and even feared, that is, "the world powers," with the understanding that this refers to the countries described as "world powers" and, consequently, those whose provisions, given their military, economic, and social welfare might, are decisive for the peace of humanity, but also, on occasions that have not been lacking. Fortunately, in linguistics we apparently find a kind of relief, since we read that "the world powers" linguistically constitute "a substantive phrase, not a complete sentence." God grant that the first one concerns something of the slightest kind, in the actions of the countries that dominate the world.

The world power or “great power,” as it is also called, is called, in principle, to become instances of international organizations or of countries considered singularly, to enable a change: 1. A mutation in another or in itself, 2. A change for the better, rather than for the worse and 3. In the literature, the “world power or great power” is usually defined, therefore, as “the qualifier attributed to a State or political entity that has the capacity to influence on a global scale through its military or economic power. Its influence is exerted on international diplomacy: its opinions must be taken into account by other nations before taking diplomatic or military action. One characteristic of “a great power” is the ability to intervene militarily anywhere. Furthermore, great powers have a cultural influence that manifests itself in the form of investments in less developed parts of the world. One could risk, in search of a definition, that “power and might feed off each other,” so that each depends on the other. Isolated would not generate the same consequences.

In an interesting study, Spanish professor Luis V. Pérez Gil asserts that when we use the term "power," we are trying to determine to what extent, in the context of relations between countries today, their own sovereignty is not sacrificed. Those with greater economic resources and populations have greater influence outside their borders, greater security against pressure, threats, and military attack, and, ultimately, greater prestige and a broader field of choice in the development and execution of their foreign policy. Conversely, a small state is more vulnerable, less resistant to external pressure, and has greater limitations in its political options, and therefore must maintain a more restrictive link between its domestic and foreign policies. The academic distinguishes three types of nations: 1. Those whose main interest lies in themselves, so the force they can develop is limited to a very restricted geographical sphere, 2. States with influence in a particular sector of international relations of a regional nature and which for this reason have been traditionally classified as "middle" or "regional" powers and 3. The third type of States are those whose resources, interests and military capabilities are such that they can make their influence felt in all world affairs and achieve their objectives more fully. For Professor Pérez Gil, the "great powers".

It would not be an exaggeration to say that humanity exhibits fierce competition when it comes to classifying countries as "world powers." The first places were held during the so-called "Cold War," as we read, a prolonged political, ideological, and economic conflict that developed after World War II between the United States (capitalist bloc) and the Soviet Union (communist bloc). It is also written that "in the 20th century," the categorization benefited Germany, the United States, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. The process led, "for now," to the United States and the Soviet Union becoming superpowers, but the disintegration of the latter led to the US taking the lead. The process did not stop there, as the United States, during the first decades of the 21st century, was described as "the world's leading power" in terms of nominal GDP and military and technological strength. But at the beginning of the 21st century, China is seen as having the potential to challenge American power.

The author of these lines believes that humanity would be better off without "world power or powers," but is also convinced that imagining such a thing is utopian, as there is endless evidence that war is in the blood, so it seems prudent to express that battles will continue even after the world has ended. In the book "On War," it is stated that General Karl von Clausewitz, a German, son of a member of Frederick the Great's army, entered the academy as a soldier at a young age. In his exploits, we find it extremely peculiar that in 1812 he decided to join the Russian army, "because the confrontation with his own country" meant, for him, using war to liberate Germany, his homeland, from French rule. To his satisfaction, the Battle of Leipzig meant the extinction of French influence over Germany, and he rejoined the Prussian army in 1814, with which he was able to witness the triumphant Battle of Waterloo.

Also interesting regarding the issue of war is Mario Vargas Llosa's book, "The War at the End of the World," which has been described as "a thrilling fresco of adventure, a superb historical reconstruction, and a skilfully constructed literary piece. It is a historical event, a popular uprising, religious in nature, paradoxically both revolutionary and reactionary, that took place in the northeastern Brazilian region at the end of the 19th century.

Asking about the legitimacy of structuring “power” to become “power” leads us to specify: 1. Why and 2. What for. Answers, the laudable ones: 1. For the sake of peace for humanity, 2. For acceptable social equality, 3. To put an end to the scourge of hunger, 4. For real democracies and 5. A better humanity.

It cannot be overlooked that Latin America, a continent not immune to mistakes, some deliberate but others not, is facing a battered crisis at the very beginning of this century, stemming from previous ones. Today, it is placed by major powers at "the very center of a veritable narco-economy," fueled by "drug trafficking," which, as the prominent Ecuadorian jurist and politician Rodrigo Borja, President of his country from 1988 to 1992, writes, "has penetrated the echelons of the State and public forces. It has shattered the impartiality of justice. It has corrupted politicians. It has terrorized police officers. It has created a new social power built on corruption, crime, and terror."

In the oceans whose waters bathe the continent, the United States, still one of the most solid, if not the leading, powers in the world, has deployed military force to address what it considers a critical situation due to drug trafficking. Who will be held responsible? This is a difficult question to answer, but it's much more complicated to imagine what changes and penalties will arise, not only for government officials, legislators, and judges, but also for individuals with deep pockets and powerful corporations involved in such a harmful activity.

The reader who helps us.

@LuuisBGuerra

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».