Political power. Types of power. Structure and features of political power

The concept of “power” is one of the fundamental categories of political science. It provides the key to understanding political institutions, politics itself and the state. The inseparability of power and politics is recognized as a matter of course in all political theories past and present. Politics as a phenomenon is characterized by a direct or indirect connection with power and activities to exercise power. Social communities and individuals enter into various relationships: economic, social, spiritual, political. Politics is a sphere of relationships between social groups, strata, and individuals, which concerns mainly the problems of power and management.

All outstanding representatives of political science paid close attention to the phenomenon of power. Each of them contributed to the development of the theory of power.

Modern concepts of power are very diverse. As part of an educational lecture, it is advisable to formulate generalizing provisions.

In the broadest sense of the word, power is the ability and ability to exercise one’s will, to have a decisive influence on the activities and behavior of people using any means - authority, law, violence. In this aspect, power can be economic, political, state, family, etc. This approach also requires a distinction between class, group and personal power, which are intertwined but not reducible to each other.

The most important type of power is political power. Political power is the real ability of a given class, group, or individual to carry out its will in politics and legal norms. Political power is characterized either by social dominance, or by a leading role, or by the leadership of certain groups, and most often various combinations these qualities.

It should also be noted that the concept of political power is broader than the concept of state power. Political power is exercised not only by state bodies, but also through the activities of parties and public organizations various types. State power is a kind of core of political power. It relies on a special apparatus of coercion and applies to the entire population of a particular country. The state has a monopoly right to develop laws and other regulations that are binding on all citizens. State power means a certain organization and activity in implementing the goals and objectives of this organization.

In political science the concept is used source of power. The sources, or foundations, of power are varied, since the structure of social relations is diverse. The bases (sources) of power are understood as the means that are used to influence objects of power in order to achieve the assigned tasks. Resources powers are potential bases of power, that is, means that can be used, but have not yet been used or are not used enough. The entire set of used and possible bases of power constitutes it potential.

The generally accepted source of power is force. However, power itself also has certain sources. Sources of power can be wealth, position, possession of information, knowledge, experience, special skills, organization. Therefore, in general we can say that the source of power is a set of social factors that create a predominant, dominant, dominant will. In other words, these are the economic, social, psychological foundations of political power.

State power can achieve its goals by various means, including ideological influence, persuasion, economic incentives and other indirect means. But only she has a monopoly on compulsion with the help of a special apparatus in relation to all members of society.

The main forms of manifestation of power include domination, leadership, management, organization, control.

Political power is closely related to political leadership and authority, which in certain meanings act as forms of exercise of power.

The emergence and development of political power is determined by the vital needs of the formation and evolution of society. Therefore, power naturally performs extremely important special functions. It is the central, organizational and regulatory control principle of policy. Power is inherent in the organization of society and is necessary to maintain its integrity and unity. Political power is aimed at regulating social relations. It is a tool, the main means of managing all areas public life.

The main forms of manifestation of political power include domination, leadership and management.

Political power manifests itself most clearly in domination. Domination is a mechanism for the exercise of power, which takes institutional forms and involves the division of society into dominant and subordinate groups, hierarchy and social distance between them, the allocation and isolation of a special management apparatus.

The most developed theory of domination belongs to M. Weber. He gave a typology of forms of legitimate domination, which still remains dominant in modern Western sociology and political science.

According to M. Weber’s definition, domination means the likelihood that orders will be obeyed by a certain group of people; legitimate domination cannot be limited to the fact of the political exercise of power, it requires faith in its legitimacy and is associated with the separation of powers, with the isolation of a special administrative apparatus of management, ensuring the execution of instructions and orders. Otherwise, domination rests mainly on violence, which is what happens in despotism.

M. Weber distinguishes three types of legitimate domination (according to their source).

Firstly, it is traditional, based on the habitual, most often unreflected conviction in the sanctity of long-accepted traditions and the legitimacy of the power rights they provide. These norms of power relations, sanctified by tradition, indicate who has the right to power and who is obliged to obey it; they are the basis for the controllability of society and the obedience of its citizens. This type of power relations is most clearly seen in the example of a hereditary monarchy.

Secondly, this is a charismatic type of power relationship, which is rooted in personal devotion to a person, on whose initiative an order is established, based on faith in his special relationship with God and a great historical destiny. This type of power relations is based not on established laws and not on the order sanctified by centuries-old tradition, but on the charisma of the leader, who is considered a prophet, a giant historical figure, a demigod carrying out a “great mission.” “Devotion to the charisma of a prophet or a leader in war, or an outstanding demagogue in a national assembly ... or in parliament,” writes M. Weber, “precisely means that a person of this type is considered to be an internally “called” leader of people, that the latter do not obey him by custom or institution, but because they believe in it."

The charismatic type of power, in contrast to the rational-legal type, is authoritarian. A variation of this type in our country was the system of power during the period of Stalinism. That power was based not only on force, but also on the unquestioned authority of Stalin, the party among the majority of the population of the USSR. While emphasizing the predominantly authoritarian, despotic nature of the power relations of the Stalinist era, one should not deny the presence, even in those conditions, of elements of democracy, but, of course, mostly formal ones.

M. Weber saw images of charismatic leaders in Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, as well as Solomon, Pericles, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon. The 20th century saw the emergence of its own galaxy of charismatic leaders. This type of leader includes Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, Roosevelt, Nehru, and Mao Zedong.

The charismatic type of power is more characteristic of a society experiencing an era of radical changes and revolutionary upheavals. The name of the leader of the masses is associated with the possibility of making favorable changes in their lives and in the life of society. The leader’s word is surrounded by an aura of infallibility, his works are elevated to the rank of “sacred books”, the truth of which cannot be questioned, but the leader’s charisma, although connected with his ideas, depends primarily on the emotional commitment of the masses. Paying attention to this, it should be borne in mind that the masses are constantly waiting for confirmation from the leader of his special, exceptional leadership qualities. Repeated failures can lead to a leader losing his image as an outstanding personality. Therefore, charismatic power is less stable compared to traditional and rational-legal power. This is evidenced by our modern political life. It is enough to recall the beginning of M. Gorbachev’s political activity as the political leader of the USSR and the last months of his tenure as President of the USSR to see the contrast between his image in 1985-1987 and December 1991. It can be argued that something similar happened with the image of Boris Yeltsin, if we compare his image in August-September 1991 and his perception by the masses in 1999.

Thirdly, a rational-legal type of domination, based on a conscious belief in the legality of the established order and in the competence of certain bodies designed to exercise power. The most developed form of this type of power is constitutional state, in which everyone is subject to a system of laws established and enforced according to certain principles. IN modern state The Constitution is the basic law on which other, less significant laws, decisions, and regulations are based. It is the Constitution that establishes the rules that are binding on both those who govern and the governed. This type of power relations is based on the free expression of the will of the people, the election of all central authorities, the constitutional limitation of the scope of state activity, and the equality of all political forces operating within the framework of the law. The rational-legal type of power is the result of a fairly long evolution of society along the path of civilization.

This is the modern understanding of the main types of legitimate domination, put forward in his time by M. Weber. In order to compare the analysis carried out with the original source, we cite the core position on this problem from the work of M. Weber: “In principle, there are three types of internal justifications, that is, grounds of legitimacy... Firstly, this is the authority of the “eternally yesterday”: the authority of morals, sanctified primordial significance and habitual orientation towards their observance - "traditional" domination, as exercised by the patriarch and patrimonial prince of the old type. Further, authority is beyond the usual personal gift ... (charisma), complete personal devotion and personal trust, caused by the presence of the qualities of a leader in some kind of person: revelations, heroism and others, charismatic domination, as it is exercised by a prophet, or - in the political sphere - by an elected military prince, or a plebiscitary ruler, an outstanding demagogue and political party leader. Finally, domination by virtue of “legality”, due to the belief in the obligatory nature of legal establishment... and business “competence”, justified by rationally created rules, that is, an orientation toward subordination when performing established rules- domination in the form in which it is exercised by the modern “civil servant” and all those bearers of power who are similar to him in this respect." And further M. Weber notes that, of course, pure types of domination are rarely encountered in life.

In fact, M. Weber in his classification gave ideal types of legitimate government, which should not be confused with the specific political reality of a particular society. The types of power considered can manifest themselves only partially and in combination with each other. No system of power relations is only traditional, rational or charismatic. We can only talk about which of the listed types is the main, leading one. M. Weber's classification provides a working tool for understanding the complex and diverse political life of society, and this is its cognitive, heuristic value.

In characterizing dominance, we noted that a sign of dominance is hierarchy and social distance between the dominant and the subordinate. Hierarchy and social distance are expressed in differences in rank, power, prestige, in strict rules of etiquette and treatment of each other. Perhaps the most striking illustration of these features of dominance is the table of ranks that has existed since the time of Peter the Great in Imperial Russia. The table of ranks was a universal system that permeated the entire Russian statehood, covering everyone: from an army officer to a consistory official, from a teacher to a policeman, from a diplomat to a bank employee. It also included a title system, i.e. special appeal to persons with the appropriate rank. The ranks of the 1st and 2nd classes had the title “Excellency”, the 3rd and 4th “Excellency”, the 5th “Highness”, the 6th-8th - “High Nobility”, the 9th-14th - “Highness” nobility."

If we take an example from our recent history, we can cite clearly expressed hierarchical relationships using the example of the Secretariat of the CPSU Central Committee and the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, which former member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee N.I. describes in his memoirs. Ryzhkov: “Persons... who occupied the three highest steps of the hierarchical ladder were the elite... it was their location, that is, the mentioned steps, that made them the elite, and not their personal qualities. Although often it was their personal qualities that brought them to these steps... but not always... Members of the Politburo lived on the top floor. Candidate members lived on the middle floor. And secretaries on the third floor. Everything was laid out for them once and for all: who sits next to whom in different presidiums, who follows whom to the podium of the Mausoleum, who holds what meeting and who has the right to appear in what photograph. Not to mention who has what dacha, how many bodyguards and what brand of car. Who and when established this iron order is unknown, but it is not violated even now after the death of the party: he cleverly crawled from the Central Committee to other “corridors of power”.

The normative, etiquette side of hierarchical relationships should not be seen only as a negative side. In a democratic state, intelligently thought-out rituals, codes of conduct and other etiquette principles introduce hierarchical relationships into a civilized framework, allowing them to better and more effectively solve the problems of power and management. The best minds of humanity understood this long ago. For example, as the Chinese philosopher Confucius taught 2.5 thousand years ago: “Reverence without ritual leads to fussiness; caution without ritual leads to timidity; courage without rituals leads to unrest; straightforwardness without ritual leads to rudeness.”

The form of manifestation of power is leadership and management. Leadership is expressed in the ability of the subject of power to exercise his will through direct and indirect influence on the objects being managed. It can be based solely on authority, on the recognition by those in charge of the corresponding powers of the leaders with minimal exercise of power-coercive functions. Political leadership is manifested in determining the main goals of social systems and institutions, as well as ways to achieve them. Schematically, it can be defined by three main provisions:

1. Political leadership includes setting fundamental objectives, determining long-term as well as immediate goals that must be achieved within a certain period of time.

2. It involves the development of methods and means of achieving the goals.

3. Political leadership also consists of selecting and placing personnel capable of understanding and fulfilling the assigned tasks. For example, Barack Obama, who came in January 2009. to the White House, made about three thousand appointments to posts of various ranks in various administrative departments, from which the “appointees” of D. Bush (junior) were forced to leave.

The concept of “political leadership” is usually distinguished from the concept of “political management”. The latter is expressed in the functions of direct influence, which are performed by the administrative apparatus, by certain officials who are not at the top of the pyramid of power. It is precisely because of the significant difference between the leadership and management of V.I. Lenin considered it possible to attract bourgeois specialists to carry out management functions in the first years after the October Revolution. “We,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “must ensure the Constitution won by the revolution, but for governance, for the state structure, we must have people who possess management techniques, who have government and economic experience, and we have nowhere to get such people from.” only from the previous class."

In a word, management activities are subordinated to the goals put forward by the political leadership; they are aimed at choosing ways and mechanisms to achieve their goals.

It is possible to show what lies behind the distinction between the concepts of leadership and management, relying on memoirs former president USA R. Reagan. Thus, he writes: “The president is not able to exercise daily control over the activities of all his subordinates. His task is to set the tone, indicate the main directions, outline the general contours of policy and select capable people to implement this policy." And further, concretizing his understanding of his role as a political leader, a leader elected for a second presidential term, he says the following: "... in the field of domestic policy, I will direct my efforts to reduce federal spending and overcome the budget deficit, I will try to implement tax reform and continue to modernize our armed forces; in the international arena my main tasks are to conclude an agreement with Soviet Union on a significant reduction in armaments, improve relations with our Latin American neighbors, while continuing the fight against the penetration of communism into Central America, and try to unravel the tangle of contradictions in the Middle East." And one more important remark from R. Reagan: "I exercised general leadership in policy, but specific left everyday work to specialists."

These are the main forms of manifestation of political power

The concept of power and types of power

Depending on the resources on which subordination is based, the main types of power are distinguished. Thus, H. Heckhausen identifies six types of power.

1. Rewarding power. Its strength is determined by B's expectation of the extent to which A will be able to satisfy one of his (B's) motives and the extent to which A will make this satisfaction dependent on B's desired behavior.

2. Coercive power. Its strength is determined by B's expectation, firstly, of the extent to which A is able to punish him for actions undesirable for A, and, secondly, the extent to which A will make the dissatisfaction of B's motive dependent on his undesirable behavior. The constraint here is that space possible actions As a result, the threat of punishment is narrowed. In the extreme case, coercive power can be exercised directly physically.

3. Normative power. We are talking about internalized B norms, according to which A has the right to control compliance certain rules behavior and, if necessary, insist on them.

4. Referent power. It is based on B's identification with A and B's desire to be like A.

5. Expert power. It depends on the amount of special knowledge, intuition or skills attributed to A by B that relate to the sphere of the behavior in question.

6. Information power. This power occurs when A has information that can cause B to see the consequences of his behavior in a new light.

Spanish political scientist F. Lorda y Alais in his work analyzes economic, military, informational power and the power of fear (phobocracy). When characterizing economic power (plutocracy), he notes that it represents wealth transformed into an instrument of domination in society. Economic power is power based on wealth. Her main means is money. At present, the author notes, economic power has achieved exceptional consolidation power. Economic power as such does not resort to violence in itself, but it is capable of shamelessly trampling all divine and human norms. She seems to remain behind the curtain, but to a large extent dictates behavior characters on the public stage.

Political science primarily studies political power.

“Power” and “political power” are not synonymous. Political power is a type of power. It covers all types of power relations in the political sphere. It expresses the ability of the subject to ensure the subordination of the object in the sphere of politics. Political power is a specialized, organizational-legal, institutionalized type of power. As the French political scientist J.M. Denken writes, this power carries out specialized functions that are political in nature: it makes political choices and reveals a collective will, which is opposed to individual wills. Political power is the real ability of some social groups to carry out their will in politics and legal norms.

The specificity of political power is expressed in the following:

it is formed by delegating part of the rights and powers both “up” and “down”;
always mobilizes to achieve some goals;
solves the problem of consent, taking into account the fact that society is divided by different interests;
based on maneuver, the range of which is determined by agreement or struggle;
requires the concentration of the rights and wills of people in government bodies, political parties, etc., i.e., in the subjects of political power, through which it is implemented.

In modern political science one can find another list of features of political power: the ability and willingness of the subject of political life to express political will; coverage of the entire field of political spaces; the presence of organizational structures through which the subject of political will carries out political activities; the influence of subjects of political activity on the formation of law, the implementation of the rule of law; ensuring social dominance in society of the subject of political power.

The question of the relationship between political and state power is quite acute in science.

We do not agree with K. S. Gadzhiev that “the state is the main and only bearer of political power.” Firstly, because the subjects (actors) of political power can be: the state; political parties and organizations; ruling elites, bureaucracy, lobbies (pressure groups); group and individual leadership; personal power; individuals (citizens) in the context of elections, referendums and even the crowd (ohlos). The multitude of subjects of power allows us to talk about at least two types of political power: state and public.

Secondly, in the conditions of the primitive communal system, political power (prince, elders) already existed, but there was no state power, the implementation of which presupposes a special apparatus, isolated from society.

Polish political scientist E. Wiatr highlights the characteristic features of state power: “This power is exercised with the help of a separate apparatus in a certain territory over which state sovereignty extends, and has the ability to resort to the means of organized legislative institutional violence. State power represents the highest, most complete expression of political power - it is political power in its most developed form.”

Traditionally, the following distinctive features of state power are distinguished:

legality in the use of force and other means of power within the country;
supremacy, binding decisions for the whole society and, accordingly, for other types of power;
publicity, i.e. universality and impersonality, which means an appeal to all citizens on behalf of the entire society with the help of law (law);
monocentricity, i.e. the presence of one decision-making center;
possession of all resources of power at the same time and the ability to use them to varying degrees, depending on the current situation in power relations.

A special form of power is public power. It is formed by party structures, public organizations, independent media, and public opinion.

M. Duverger identifies three stages in the evolution of forms of power:

Stage 1: Power is anonymous, that is, distributed among members of the clan and tribe; manifests itself in a set of beliefs and customs that strictly regulate individual behavior; has no political character.

Stage 2: Power is individualized, i.e. power is concentrated in the hands of leaders, groups (the power of leaders, elders, emperors).

Stage 3: Power is institutionalized, that is, it relies on special institutions that perform a number of functions: expression of common interests; control; ensuring social peace and order, etc.

Complementing the typology of M. Duverger, we can talk about the fourth stage, which is taking place in our time - “supranational” power, represented by legislative (European Parliament) and executive (Commission of the European Communities) institutions, whose powers extend to the territory and population of a dozen European countries.

Power as a social phenomenon performs a number of functions. The main functions of political power in a social system arise and are formed in the process of realizing the need for management and regulation of social relations.

One of the most important functions of political power is to maintain social integrity through setting priorities consistent with the values of a given culture and strictly following them; through the implementation of the needs and interests of social groups exercising power functions.

Another function is to regulate social relations and maintain the stability of the functioning of the social organism.

The first two functions are closely interrelated, which allowed the French political scientist F. Brau to argue that any political power has as its task “to ensure order... to maintain the status quo of society, to reform it or revolutionize it.”

French political scientist A. Touraine noted that the accumulation and concentration of national resources is also a function of power. He noted that: “Political power is a means from the “spontaneity” of consumption to the “artificiality” of accumulation.”

One of the parameters for assessing power is its effectiveness. The effectiveness of government is judged by the extent to which it carries out its functions. The following definition of government efficiency can be formulated: this is the ability to perform its tasks and functions with the least cost and expense in the shortest possible time.

In modern political science literature, the following criteria for the effectiveness of government are distinguished:

sufficiency of the bases of power and optimal use of its resources;
the presence of national agreement on the goals and ways of development of a given society;
cohesion and stability of the ruling elite;
the rationality of “vertical” and “horizontal” power structures;
effectiveness and timeliness of control over the implementation of its orders;
organizational, technical and personnel support for accounting and analysis of government orders;
the presence of an effective system of sanctions in case of failure to comply with the orders of the authorities;
the effectiveness of the system of self-control of power, one of the indicators of which is its authority;
adequate reflection of the interests of those social groups on which the government relies, together with linking them with the interests of society as a whole.

The strength of political power and its authority depends on how successfully it copes with the task of regulating social relations in society. Political power is built into the system of government. Social management is targeted influence political system for the development of society. It consists of two parts: self-government, when the regulation of the system is carried out without outside interference, and imperious management, when the regulation of the system is carried out through coercion and subordination. We see the differences between management and power in the fact that management, using the power mechanism, is process-oriented, and power is result-oriented.

The most frequently used is the division of forms of exercise of power: legislative, executive and judicial.

Depending on the breadth of power relations, we can distinguish:

mega level - international organizations endowed with authority (UN, NATO, etc.);
macro level – central bodies of the state;
meso level – lower government bodies;
micro level – power in primary bodies of self-government, etc.

Another basis for typologizing political power is M. Weber’s position on three types of domination: traditional, legitimate, charismatic.

Traditional power is based on the belief in the sacred, indisputable nature of traditions, the violation of which leads to severe magical-religious consequences. All human activity is aimed at the reproduction of community, at ensuring a stable order that eliminates chaos and instability. Power is personalized and implies personal devotion of subjects and servants to the ruler.

Charismatic power is based on belief in the “supernatural”, “extra-behavioural” abilities of the leader. His authority is based on faith in the ability of this person to take responsibility and solve all issues in a miraculous way.

Legal authority is based on laws, rules and norms; management here is conditioned by knowledge and strict adherence to the rules governing government activities, their active use to achieve set goals.

Zh. T. Toshchenko offers his approach to the classification of forms of political power. The specificity of his approach lies in the fact that an analysis is carried out of real specific characteristics that quite clearly express the features of this form of power; the subject of power is clearly identified; the basic ideological attitudes, goals and intentions of representatives of one or another form of power are characterized, which allows, through the prism of ideology, to identify political orientation, the possibility of maintaining the relevant power structures, their viability and resistance to any shocks and trends of disorganization; the political structure of state and other bodies is revealed; describes the features of the relationship between rulers and ruled; allows us to determine the state, trends and problems of political consciousness and behavior, to understand their essential and specific forms of expression.

He identifies “eternal” and specific forms of power. He classifies democracy and oligarchy as the former, and ochlocracy, militocracy, ideocracy, aristocracy, monarchy, ethnocracy, theocracy, and technocracy as the latter. Let us consider in more detail each of these forms.

Democracy is one of the main forms of socio-political governance, state organization and political movements (for more details, see Chapter 9).

Oligarchy. Its main characteristics: the exercise by a small group (social stratum) of political and economic dominance in society, the manifestation of corporatism to the highest degree, direct or indirect obstruction of the elections of government bodies and their replacement with appointments, the formation of monopoly rights and powers belonging only to this social group, sponsorship , privatization, purchase of the state apparatus. Oligarchic tendencies are characteristic of almost all modern states.

Ochlocracy (mob rule). At its core, this form of power means:

1) The power of socio-political groups that use populist sentiments and orientations of the population in extremely primitive forms, which creates conditions for arbitrariness and lawlessness in all spheres of public life.

2) Ochlocracy creates a situation of unrest, riots, pogroms, awakening base aspirations, senseless destruction, reckless murders and tyranny, trampling on all guarantees of human life. Ochlocracy often comes into its own in transition period, during critical periods for society.

Militocracy. One of the modern forms of militocracy is the junta. This is a form of power when power belongs to the military, special paramilitary associations and organizations exercising power in the country. The main features of the junta are: mass political terror, violent methods of governing the country and society.

Ideocracy. A form of power in which theories and concepts play a decisive role, justifying pre-proposed ideas and conclusions. The Soviet Union was an ideocratic state.

Aristocracy. The interpretation of aristocracy has changed as humanity has developed. It was understood as: 1) a form of government, which meant the power of privileged groups of society; 2) part social structure society, which included people occupying an authoritative position in society, possessing power, wealth, influence; 3) people characterized by stable, highly moral attitudes and goals, brought up in a strictly defined algorithm of moral norms and prescribed rules. Currently, aristocracy as a form of power has become identified with conservatism.

Monarchy is one of the oldest forms of government, when absolute power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose power is inherited. The monarchy changed its forms at various stages. In general, all monarchies turned out to be quite unstable formations that disintegrated under the blows of both internal and external forces.

Ethnocracy is a form of political power in which economic, political, social and spiritual processes are managed from the standpoint of the primacy of the interests of the dominant ethnic group to the detriment of the interests of other nations, nationalities, nationalities. Its essence is manifested in ignoring the rights of national (ethnic) groups of people when resolving fundamental issues of public life, when unilateral representation of the interests of the dominant nation is realized, and not the interests of individuals and social groups, regardless of ethnic origin, religion and class affiliation.

Zh. T. Toshchenko identifies the following essential features of ethnocracy:

Ethnocracy emphasizes ethnic interest, exaggerates it, puts it in first place among other possible values;
the confrontation between the interests of the nation and the interests of the individual is supported by ethnocracy not spontaneously, but consciously, with exaggeration of existing contradictions, with the glorification of ethnic confrontation, its elevation and even attempts at deification;
Ethnocracy always uses the image of the messiah, leader, Fuhrer, who is endowed with superhuman qualities, concentrates in himself an understanding of the essence and secret thoughts of his people;
one of the main goals of ethnocracy is to show the surrounding states the greatness of a given people, to show its role and significance;
economic, social, cultural spheres are placed under subordination main goal– dominion over other nations;
ethnocratic regimes are interested in conflicts, in hatred, in maintaining social tension;
ethnocracy preaches intransigence.

You can select following types ethnocracy.

1. Racism, which at its core is based on the idea of dividing peoples into higher and lower. The racist government strives for the purity of the race, resists attempts to achieve equality between peoples, and establishes restrictions and prohibitions for “inferior” peoples at the legislative level.

2. Fascism, which openly proclaimed ethnic criteria in determining politics and organizing public life.

3. Chauvinism, which is characterized by excessive patriotism to the point of misunderstanding with a focus on military force, ultranationalism with elements of authoritarianism.

4. Nationalism, which acts as a policy, social practice, ideology and psychology of the process of subjugation of some nations to others, as a preaching of national exclusivity and superiority.

5. Separatism (political), which is understood as:

movement and actions for the territorial separation of one or another part of the state in order to create an independent state;
broad, practically uncontrolled autonomy of part of the state based on national-linguistic or religious characteristics.

6. Fundamentalism. This type of ethnocracy acts as an extremely conservative movement, in which nationalist and confessional claims are closely intertwined, the expression of which are socio-political and religious movements and organizations that demonstrate their commitment to right-wing conservative ideological and political views. (Currently, the attention of scientists and politicians is focused on Islamic (Muslim) fundamentalism).

7. At the present stage of historical development, there is a tendency to involve representatives of various religious faiths in power relations and to use religious ideology in the struggle to achieve, maintain and maintain power. This allowed Zh. T. Toshchenko to identify such a form of power as theocracy.

The main features of the theocratic form of political governance are: religious and legal regulation of all aspects of public and state life, judicial proceedings according to the norms of religious law, political leadership of religious figures, proclamation of religious holidays as state holidays, oppression or prohibition of other religions, persecution of people for religious reasons, active intervention religion in the sphere of education and culture. In theocratic societies, totalitarian control over the behavior and lifestyle of the individual is established, because the status of the individual is determined by the person’s affiliation with religion and its institutions.

In the XX - XXI centuries. There is an increasing influence of science and technology on political relations. The consequence of this is the hope of many ordinary people that with the help of new scientific disciplines, new technology, new people (technocrats) problems and contradictions will be resolved human life. Technocratic social and political concepts, claiming a fundamentally new construction of society based on maximally mechanized technology and efficient organization of industry, appeared in late XIX V. One of the sources of their formation was the real achievements of Great Britain, the USA, and Germany in the economy and in creating a new image of society. Another source for the creation of the theory of technocracy was the movement of progressives (W. Lippmann, G. Crowley, etc.), who advocated the establishment of a new public order in the form of centralized nationwide management under the leadership of experts who know the technology of “social engineering”. The third source is the technical and organizational theory of “scientific management”, the representative of which was F. Taylor. He argued that the main figure in society is a professional who is guided by the scientific method of solving any problem in the field of industry, which, in his opinion, can and should be transferred to the management of the country and the state.

It is on the basis of the ideas of progressivism, social engineering and scientific management that the founder of technocracy as a political movement, T. B. Veblen, draws the following conclusions:

the anarchy and instability of modern society are the result of government control by politicians;
stabilizing society and giving it positive dynamics is possible only by transferring the leadership of all economic life and government management to technicians;
it is necessary to contrast the power of technocracy with the power of the “money bag”.

Zh. T. Toshchenko concludes that technocracy means:

1) management (in the broad sense of the word) of all social processes by professional specialists on the basis of those laws and principles that guide the world of engineering, technology, and science;
2) a specific form of political power, in which methods of managing equipment and technology are used and which are transferred to power relations, to state power;
3) possession of political power by technical specialists and their leadership of the life of any industrial society.

The main forms of political power are state power, political influence and the formation of political consciousness.

Government. Although there is relative unity among political scientists in understanding the distinctive features of the state, the concept of “state power” requires clarification. Following M. Weber, who defined the state as a social institution that successfully exercises a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a certain territory, several main features of the state are usually identified, which in fact have already been listed earlier as the main parameters of political (state) power. The state is a unique set of institutions that have legal means of violence and coercion and create the sphere of “public” politics. These institutions operate in a certain territory, the population of which forms the society; they have a monopoly on making decisions on his behalf that are binding on citizens. The state has supremacy over any other social institutions; its laws and power cannot be limited by them, which is reflected in the concept of “state sovereignty.”

In accordance with this, state power is distinguished by two mandatory features: (1) the subjects of state power are only civil servants and state bodies and (2) they exercise their power on the basis of resources that they legally possess as representatives of the state. The need to highlight the second feature is due to the fact that in certain situations people performing government functions can resort to realizing their political goals with the help of power resources that they were not allocated (for example, a bribe, illegal use public funds or abuse of power). In this case, power is not state in its source (basis); it can be considered state only by subject.

If we consider as state power only those forms of power where the subject uses the resources with which he was legally endowed, then there are only two “pure” types of state power: (1) power in the form of force and coercion, which is exercised by government officials or structural divisions in case of disobedience of the object, and (2) power in the form of legal authority, where the source of the voluntary obedience of the object is the belief that the subject has the legal right to command, and the object is obliged to obey him.

Forms of government power can be classified on other grounds. For example, in accordance with the specific functions of individual government structures, legislative, executive and judicial forms of government are distinguished; Depending on the level of government decision-making, government power can be central, regional and local. According to the nature of the relationship between the branches of government (forms of government), monarchies, presidential and parliamentary republics differ; by forms of government - unitary state, federation, confederation, empire.

Political influence is the ability of political actors to exert a targeted influence (direct or indirect) on the behavior of government officials and the government decisions they make. Subjects of political influence can be both ordinary citizens, organizations and institutions (including foreign and international), as well as government agencies and employees with certain legal powers. But the state does not necessarily empower the latter to exercise these forms of power (an influential government official can lobby the interests of some group in a completely different departmental structure).

If until the middle of the 20th century. The greatest attention of political scientists was attracted by legal authority (the legislative foundations of the state, constitutional aspects, the mechanism of separation of powers, administrative structure, etc. were studied), then starting from the 50s, the study of political influence gradually came to the fore. This was reflected in discussions regarding the nature of the distribution of political influence in society, which received empirical verification in numerous studies of power both at the societal level and in territorial communities (F. Hunter, R. Dahl, R. Prestus, C.R. Mills , K. Clark, W. Domhoff, etc.). Interest in the study of this form of political power is due to the fact that it is associated with the central question of political science: “Who rules?” To answer it, it is not enough to analyze the distribution of key positions in the state; It is necessary, first of all, to identify exactly which groups of people have a dominant influence on formal state structures, on whom these structures are most dependent. The degree of influence on the choice of political course and the solution of major social problems is not always proportional to the rank of the public office held; At the same time, many key political actors (for example, business leaders, military officers, clan leaders, religious leaders, etc.) may be “in the shadows” and do not have significant legal resources.

Unlike previous forms of political power, defining and empirically recording political influence raises a number of complex conceptual and methodological issues. In Western literature, the main debate is around the so-called “faces” or “dimensions” of political power. Traditionally, power in the form of political influence was assessed by the ability of certain groups of people to achieve success in decision-making: those who manage to initiate and successfully “push through” political decisions that are beneficial to them are in power. This approach was most consistently implemented by R. Dahl in his study of the distribution of political influence in New Haven, USA. In the 60s, American researchers P. Bachrach and M. Baratz emphasized the need to take into account the “second face of power,” which manifests itself in the subject’s ability to prevent unfavorable political decisions from being made by not including “dangerous” problems on the agenda and/or forming or strengthening structural constraints and procedural barriers (the concept of “non-decision making”). Political influence began to be seen in a broader context; it is no longer limited to situations of open conflict when making a decision, but also takes place in the absence of externally observable actions on the part of the subject.

Political influence in the form of non-decision making is widespread in political practice. The consequence of the implementation of the strategy of non-decision-making was, for example, the absence of important laws on environmental protection in those cities where large and influential economic concerns (the main culprits of environmental pollution) prevented any attempts to pass these laws, since it was economically unprofitable for them. In totalitarian regimes, entire blocks of problems were considered undiscussable on ideological grounds (the leading role of the Communist Party, the right of citizens to dissent, the possibility of organizing alternative political structures, etc.), which allowed the ruling elite to maintain the foundations of their dominance.

In the 70s, following S. Luks, many researchers (mainly of Marxist and radical orientation) considered that the “two-dimensional” concept did not exhaust the entire spectrum of political influence. From their point of view, political power also has a “third dimension”, manifested in the ability of the subject to form in the object a certain system of political values and beliefs that are beneficial to the subject, but contrary to the “real” interests of the object. In fact, we are talking about manipulation, with the help of which the ruling classes impose their ideas about the ideal (optimal) social structure on the rest of society and obtain their support even for those political decisions that are clearly unfavorable to them. This form of political power, like manipulation in general, is considered the most insidious way of subordination and, at the same time, the most effective, since it prevents potential discontent of people and is carried out in the absence of conflict between subject and object. People either feel that they are acting in their own interests, or they do not see a real alternative to the established order.

It seems to us that Luks’s “third face of power” refers to the next form of political power - the formation of political consciousness. The latter includes not only manipulation, but also persuasion. Unlike manipulation, persuasion is the successful purposeful influence on political views, values and behavior, which is based on rational arguments. Like manipulation, persuasion is an effective tool for the formation of political consciousness: a teacher may not veil his political views and openly express a desire to instill certain values in his students; in achieving his goal, he exercises power. The power to shape political consciousness belongs to public politicians, political scientists, propagandists, religious figures, etc. As in the case of political influence, its subjects can be ordinary citizens, groups, organizations, and government agencies, employees with legal powers. But again, the state does not necessarily grant them the right to exercise this form of power.

Although the connection between the formation of political consciousness and government decisions is only indirect, this does not mean that it plays a secondary role compared to other forms of political power: in strategic terms, instilling stable political values in the population may be more important than the tactical benefits obtained as a result of current decisions questions. The formation of a certain political consciousness actually means the production and reproduction of structural factors favorable for the subject of power (acting independently of the subjects of politics), which at a certain moment will work in his favor relatively independently of specific actions and the specifics of the situation. Moreover, the political effect of this form of power in many cases can be achieved relatively quickly. In particular, under the influence of some special events, during periods of revolutions and a sharp intensification of political struggle, influencing the consciousness of people with the aim of their political mobilization can lead to almost instantaneous involvement in the sphere of politics of significant groups of the population who had not previously realized the need for their political participation. This occurs due to the fact that the turning point nature of the situation significantly increases people's interest in politics and thereby prepares them to accept new political attitudes and orientations.

Currently, there is a tendency for the political effect of this form of power to increase. This is not only about improving technical capabilities impact on people's consciousness (new psychotechnologies, changes in information infrastructure, etc.), but also with the development of democratic institutions. Democracy presupposes the existence of channels for the direct influence of citizens on political decision-making and the dependence of decisions on public opinion: the ruling elites cannot ignore the opinions of large groups of people, if only because otherwise their current position in the political system will be threatened. The dependence of specific political decisions on public opinion can be difficult to establish empirically, but its presence in liberal democratic systems seems quite obvious.

The subject of study of political science is political power.

Political power- a concept denoting the real ability of a certain class, social group or public associations, as well as the individuals representing them, to carry out their will, to achieve common interests and goals by violent and non-violent means.

In other words, political power- this is the real ability of a given class, social stratum, group or elite to carry out its will through the distribution of power relations. Political power has a number of features. Its distinctive features are:

· Supremacy, the binding nature of its decisions for the whole society, and all other types of power;

· Sovereignty, which means independence and indivisibility of power.

· Universality, that is, publicity. This means that political power acts on the basis of law on behalf of the entire society and it functions in all spheres of social relations and political processes.

· Legality in the use of force and other means of power within the country;

· Monocentricity, that is, the existence of a common state center (system of government bodies) for decision-making;

· The widest range of means used to gain, retain and exercise power.

· Strong-willed character power, which presupposes the presence of a conscious political program, goals and readiness to implement it.

· Coercive nature power (subordination, command, domination, violence).

Classification of political power:

1. By subject - presidential, monarchical, state, party, church, army, family.

2. By spheres of functioning – legislative, executive and judicial.

3. According to the methods of interaction between the object and the subject of power, according to the mode of government - authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic.

The main elements of power are its subject, object, means (resources). Subject and object– direct carriers, agents of power. The subject embodies the active, directing principle of power. It can be an individual, an organization, a community of people, such as a nation, or even the world community united in the UN.

Subjects are divided into:

· primary – large social groups with their own interests;

· secondary – government bodies, political parties and organizations, leaders, political elite.

The object of power is individuals, their associations, layers and communities, classes, society. Power is, as a rule, a mutually conditioned two-way relationship: the interaction of subject and object.

Analyzing this issue, it is necessary to highlight the social reason for the subordination of some people to others, which is based on uneven distribution power resources. Resources are either values that are important for an object (money, consumer goods, etc.), or means that can influence inner world, the motivation of a person (television, the press), or tools with which one can deprive a person of certain values, including life (weapons, punitive authorities in general).

The specificity of political power is that it interacts with the economy, social, military and other forms of power. Politics is a regulator of other spheres of public life, and the effectiveness of its implementation is related to the level of development of these spheres of public life.

Political power on a national scale exists and functions not only in different spheres of society, but also at three levels of its social structure: public covering the most complex social and political relations; public or associative, uniting groups and relationships within them (public organizations, unions, production and other groups), and personal(private, private), in small groups. The totality of all these levels and forms of power forms the general structure of political power, which has a pyramidal structure. At its base is society as a whole, closer to the base are the dominant forces (classes, parties or simply groups of like-minded people) that determine politics and the formation of power. At the top is real or formal power: the president, government, parliament (smaller leadership).

There are four main levels in the functioning of political power on a global scale, characterized by various political institutions and systems of power relations:

1. Megapower– global level of political power, i.e. power that goes beyond the boundaries of one country and seeks to spread its influence and influence on the world community.

2. Macro power– the highest level of functioning of central state institutions and the political relations that develop between them and society.

3. Mesogovernment- an average, intermediate level of political power, connecting two extreme and different levels of political and power relations.

4. Micropower– power relations in interpersonal relationships, within small groups, etc.

Here we should consider the issue of political legitimacy (from the Latin “legitimacy”) of power.

Legitimacy of political power- this is public recognition, trust and support that society and people give her. The concept of “legitimacy of power” was first introduced into science by Max Weber. He identified three main sources (foundations) of legality, legitimacy of political power:

1. traditional type(monarchy);

2. charismatic type (due to the enormous popularity and cult of personality of a politician);

3. rational-legal type - this power is recognized by the people because it is based on rational laws recognized by them.

Legitimacy is based on the recognition of the right of holders of power to prescribe norms of behavior for other individuals, for the entire society, and means support for power by the absolute majority of the people. Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. Legitimacy is associated with the presence of authority in power, the belief of the vast majority of the population that there is an order that is best for a given country, with consensus on fundamental political values. Power gains legitimacy in three ways: a) according to tradition; b) due to the recognition of the legitimacy of the system of laws; c) based on charisma, faith in the leader. Belief in the legitimacy of the regime ensures the stability of the political system.

Further, it should be noted that legitimacy affirms politics and power, explains and justifies political decisions, the creation of political structures, their change, renewal, etc. It is designed to ensure obedience, consent, political participation without coercion, and if this is not achieved, the justification of such coercion, the use of force and other means at the disposal of power. Indicators of the legitimacy of political power are the level of coercion used to implement policies, the presence of attempts to overthrow the government or leader, the strength of civil disobedience, the results of elections, referendums, and the mass of demonstrations in support of the government (opposition). The means and methods of maintaining the legitimacy of power are timely changes in legislation and public administration, the creation of a political system whose legitimacy is based on tradition, the promotion of charismatic leaders, the successful implementation of public policy, and the maintenance of law and order in the country.

Being an instrument of political power, legitimacy also serves as an instrument of its social control and one of the most effective means of political organization of society.

Particular attention should be paid to the principle of separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial). The purpose of the separation of powers is to guarantee the safety of citizens from arbitrariness and abuse of power, to ensure the political freedom of citizens, and to make law the regulator of relations between citizens and the government. The mechanism of separation of powers is associated with the organizational independence of three levels of government, each of which is formed independently, through elections; as well as the delimitation of power functions between them.

With the separation of powers, a system of “checks and balances” is formed, which does not allow the interests of one branch of government, one government body to prevail over others, monopolize power, suppress individual freedom, or deform civil society. At the same time, each of the authorities must skillfully implement the functions clearly defined by law, but at the same time be sovereign, serve as a complementary, restraining factor for the other authorities in the sense of preventing the absolutization of its functions both at the vertical and horizontal levels.

The management function is the essence of politics, in which the conscious implementation of the goals of the state and society is manifested. It is impossible outside the leadership function, which expresses the definition of the main tasks, the most important principles and ways of their implementation. Management determines priority goals for the development of society and selects mechanisms for their implementation. In managing society, administrative, authoritarian and democratic methods of leadership are distinguished. They are interconnected and condition each other. The development and functioning of any state and civil society is impossible without centralization and at the same time widespread democratization of all social relations. Therefore, we should not talk about the denial of administrative methods, but about the extent to which they are combined with democratic ones. In an emerging democratic state and society, the tendency towards the growth of democratic methods of governance will gradually be fundamental. It will displace not administrative methods, but the command-administrative system with its maximum centralization, strict regulation of all public life, nationalization of public property, and alienation of the individual from power.

In a democratic society, adherence to the norms that implement relations of political power is ensured by the process of political socialization: a person becomes familiar with and gets used to following certain norms from childhood, their observance becomes a social tradition, a kind of habit. At the same time, the institution of political power is acquiring an extensive network of organizations that monitor individuals’ compliance with norms, and also have the right to apply various sanctions to violators.

Resources of political power:

Economic resources are needed to gain power, to realize its goals, and to maintain it.

Power resources perform the function of ensuring the defense of the country, protecting internal order, including ensuring the security of political power, and preventing any encroachments on power in order to overthrow it.

Social resources. Social policy in large modern Western countries is built in such a way that the majority of the population is interested in maintaining the existing political power: there is a wide insurance system, high level pension provision, a widely developed system of charitable organizations, etc.

Information resources are the media.

Power resources are anything that an individual or group can use to influence others.

Control questions (Feedback)

1. What is the essence and content of power?

2. How does the concept of “power” differ from the concept of “political power”?

3. How does political power differ from political management?

4. List the main features of political power.

5. What resources of political power exist?

Literature:

1. Balgimbaev A.S. Sayasattana. Political science. – Almaty., 2004.

2. B. Otemisov, K. Karabala. Sayashi bilimder. Oku kuraly. Aktobe: 2010.

3. Kamenskaya E.N. Political science. Tutorial. – M. 2009.

4. Gorelov A.A. Political science. In questions and answers. Tutorial. – M. 2007.

5. Romanov N.V. Fundamentals of ethnopolitical science. Uch. Manual, Almaty, 2001

6. Khan I.G. Political Science: Academic. Benefit. – A., 2000.

7. Panarin A.S. "Political Science" M., 2005

8. Demidov A.I., Fedoseev A.A. “Fundamentals of Political Science” Moscow 2003

9. Pugachev V.P. “Introduction to Political Science” Moscow 2001