ABSTRACT
In view of Debnam's virtual redundancy, why do we respond ? We do so mainly because we are impressed and depressed by the failure of yet another competent scholar to recognize, let alone grasp, the Iheoretical significance of the nondecision-making concept in the larger context of explaining the nature and uses of power. As to this, two features of our concept are central. The first is best expressed by the major assumption upon which the concept is grounded: in a reasonably stable polity, power is mainly exercised not by those who make decisions nor by those who decide agendas, but by persons and groups who direct their energy to shaping or reinforcing pre-
1975 Power and Its Two Faces Revisited 901
dominant norms, precedents, myths, institutions, and procedures that undergird and characterize the politica! process. What this means, among other things, is tha t analysis of nondecisions is predicated on the assumptions that power is a crucial variable and that in studying power, the focus should be upon whether or how it is employed to sustain or modify the most fundamental aspects of political institutions and processes. The decision-making model, in stark contrast, incorporates the basic premise that norms, precedents, and institutions are "givens" within which power relationships among actors (e.g., construction of decisional agendas, participation in issuesresolution) are to be studied.
