Playing a major role in attracting a political leader both internally and internationally, the use of soft power is argued to be essential in certain aspects of political sphere. Its level of influence is argued and contested by different scholars and politicians, with Nye arguing for the relevance of soft power in creating obedience and attraction of international growth, and Machiavelli stressing that it is better to use coercion than assertiveness. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan provide examples of the implications. Similarly to other forms of power, assertive and soft power present effective results in specified political criteria, which will be discussed further in this research paper.
Each individual has a limited and specific power over oneself and others which is reflected in day to day life. Power, as defined by Nye, “means the ability to get the outcomes one wants”(Nye 13), which ranges in meaning anything from having power over oneself and their choices, to having power over someone else’s actions and decisions. Soft power is a term that was coined by politician Joseph Nye in 1990 to describe a form of power that refrains from the use of coercion or enforcing laws and rules on the people of a ruler. By definition, Nye defines soft power as “the ability to get what you want by attraction rather than coercion or payment”(Nye). Ying Fan, referencing Nye, describes this form of power as a “co-optive power in contrast to hard power such as military actions” (Fan). Although Nye bases this term around political context, this form of power could be and is reflected in daily human interactions. This form of power focuses on using persuasion to guide other people’s thinking to complete or perform an act for one person within domestic and government borders. This is done by convincing them that they benefit from whatever action that one requests from them. It is also done by approaching individuals from a “cultural or ideological appeal” to shape what they want (Fan). Fan elaborates on soft power, describing it as “a kind of referent power that is based on identification and attraction,”(Fan). This form of power differs from other forms of power, which include but are not limited to, hard power and smart power. Hard power is the opposite of soft power, as it uses coercion and violence, be it physically or through threat of harm. Rather than appealing to the individuals the power is used against, hard power forces and limits the options one could take, as neither options would benefit them expect one that is less harmful. Using hard power creates destress, fear, and hatred towards the individuals enforcing their power. However, smart power uses both forms of soft and hard power to take advantage of others.
Soft power could be used in multiple contexts, however, this paper focuses on elaborating on how its implied in the political frame. This approach might be used by political parties to create a non-threatening persona and to humanize themselves as leaders and governments. It is debated whether or not this form of power is as influential in terms of creating order and obedience within people of a community, but its main purpose is to appeal to people in a positive and friendly light rather than a forceful hatred approach. However, the level of influence soft power has is calculated on how it reaches and affects other countries. Which Nye elaborates on in his research.
Soft power steams and affects the relationship between one country and the other. Soft power could be used at a maximum influence in only a number of forms and using a number of approaches. This form of power has very little impact if used in contexts where coercion or other manipulative actions work best. Nye discusses that soft power is seen in a countries resources in three forms; “culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)” (Nye 21). In his book, Nye focuses on elaboration on international relationships and how soft power is used to benefit countries by attracting political and economic recognition. Culture, as an example, acts as a major attractor for economic growth as it plays a role in attracting tourists. Japan is an example of a country that predominantly uses soft power with a cultural political approach. Other countries which take a cultural approach to appealing politically within international communities include “universal values” attract international investors and “increases the probability of obtaining its desired outcomes because of the relationships of attraction and duty that it creates” (Nye 17).
Theories and scholars, however, still debate the actual influence using soft power has over the people being governed and between international relations. As it is not coercive, its harder to measure physical changes, since it does not directly force people to behave in a certain way within a certain period of time within a country’s borders, and does not insure that allegiance of another country with them. Nye argued that within certain contexts, being assertive is more effective than coercive. Furthermore, he continues to give an example within the context of military, stating that “the Pentagon reports that american army drillmasters do ‘les shouting at everyone because today’s generation responds better to instructors who play a more ‘counseling role’” (Nye). This stands as an example of domestic use of assertiveness which proves to be effective. While hard power uses fear and threat, soft power disguises as a matter of choice for the governed individuals. Fan argues that to obtain this power, specific attributes must be present for the leader, such as “status, authority, reputation, money, knowledge and beauty” (Fan). It is also argued that not only is this use of power influential, but it is also more sustainable and could cause less chaos. It also unities the governor and their people, creating mutual satisfaction and less traumatic results. Rather than people doing something which is strongly against their will, they obey with the belief that they have a choice over the matter and that it is beneficial to them. In terms of international relations, soft power is influential in creating a positive image of the country. Countries use soft power in forms of taking measures to get rid of poverty, caring for the environment, creating facilities for the homeless and elders, and other humanitarian activities that create a positive image univeraly, as the aspects focused on are valued universally. This is seen in Japan’s international relations, as will be discussed later in this essay. For further reference, Confucius also “believed that the ruler should win the allegiance of people with virtue, not by force” (Fan).
Although soft power has it advantages, used alone in certain situations has its limitations compared to how effective hard power may be. Machiavelli quotes in his famous The Prince writings that it is better to be feared than loved by the people a leader governs. This insures order and limits people’s ability to overturn and disobey the ruler, since they would fear them and feel too weak to get rid of them (Machiavelli). As Fan explains, soft power tends to be unpredictable and uncontrollable, unlike more coercive types of power. It is based on the appeal towards people or foreign countries, which could easily change due to certain changes in the government or due to no change at all. “It would be impossible to wield soft power in any organised and coordinated fashion” (Fan). This difficulty makes soft power vulnerable and uncertain. There is also a lot of pressure on the governor towards their people and or foreign governments. Controversial scandals could be very detrimental to governments that rely mostly on soft power and characteristic appeal. To insure security, some form of hard power is to be disguised as soft power, as it creates stability and there is something to fall back to and remain order and a positive image.
Despite the mentioned limitations, the use of appeal and allegiance is still very influential and strong in its own form. When a governing individual uses soft power to discipline and keep order within their people, they influence them as humans that are also people of the country just like them. Nye gives an example within the army, where “they suggest images of leaders in the center of a circle rather than atop a hierarchy”, which tricks individuals into believing that they are cared for and that they are no different than their leader (Nye).
On the other hand, the use of soft power within international policies differed from internal use. Worldwide, it is popular information that both Japan and the United Kingdom use soft power in international relations. Firstly, Japan is famous for its unique culture that standout from the west, and also presents itself as a distinct Asian empire. In his analytical article, Alexander Bukh elaborates on Nyes term and the different branches in politics that use soft power. To analyze Japan’s specific use, he uses an “agency-focused approach”, which “construes power as relational, meaning that power should be understood as the capability of one agent to act over other agents” (Bukh). He argues that “attractiveness is an act of intentional manipulation by the wielder of soft power that communicates a certain interpretation of reality” (Bukh). In Japan’s case, its identity was to be its attractive aspect in the international structure, as they “racialized conceptions of the Japanese nation as a distinct community” and superior within the Asian race. This was done by reintroducing a foreign policy to fix its relations with the United States, which reinforced the notion of Japan and Japanese culture to be distinct but with Western values. “This conception of Japan’s culture was utilized in Japan’s cultural diplomacy aimed at convincing people in the West to accept Japan’s exclusive right to represent Asia in International political affairs” (Bukh). This is done by highlighting the indigenously of Japanese people whilst applying what would be considered civilized western values to appeal as significant within international politics. For example, traditional items that are indigeouns to Japanese people, such as food and clothing, are idealized and highlighted when presenting Japan’s culture. However, the influence of the popular values within the Western regions and political styles affected the definition of Japanese culture. This appealed to international society because Japan was recognized as a positive contributor to humanitarian values, mainly being peaceful.
Within the western world, the United Kingdom is also another nation that is popular for using the soft appeal in international relations. Commercial diplomacy acts as a cultural institution that is promoted by the British government to appeal attractive to international regions. In her article, Emma Bell explains that “soft power relies above all on the propagation of influence via cultural and political institutions which serve to render the country more attractive in the eyes of the world” (Bell). Referring back to Nyes in depth explanation, soft power is used within the three aspect of politics, culture, political values domestically used, and foreign policies. The British government uses soft power in manipulating the foreign public’s view on its imperialistic “informal control over various territories outside the empire proper thanks to commercial links”, which was justified for through the government’s involvement in humanitarian aid projects (Bell).
In conclusion, soft power has a strong influence on domestic and international politics, despite its many limitations. The United Kingdom and Japan both show examples of how this form of power is more effective in certain aspects over coercive power. Despite the fact that it is difficult and sometimes impossible to predict and control the outcomes of this lenient form of power, when used within certain and correct circumstances, it has shown to be highly effective.
2020-1-5-1578257960