Abstract: Functions and mechanisms for the exercise of political power. Types of power. Structure and features of political power

Power in politics is a subject special attention researchers, since its results and consequences influence the life of large groups of people, the development of the basic principles of the organization of society and the choice of paths for its development.

Like most other concepts in political science, the concept of political power remains controversial, and its interpretation largely depends on an understanding of the basic categories of politics and power. Many researchers (G. Lasswell, R. Dahl, T. Parsons, X. Arendt, etc.) determine policy as a sphere of power. In accordance with this, any power is political by definition, and the terms “power” and “political power” turn out to be identical. However, with this understanding of politics, the boundaries between politics and other spheres are actually blurred. public life. Therefore, it seems appropriate to classify as political power only those power relations that take place at the level of society or large social communities , are associated with the functioning public institutions and provide essential impact on the situation large groups of people.

Forms of political power

The main forms of political power are government , political influence And formation of political consciousness.

Political power arises with the emergence of special institutions designed to manage society and coordinate the joint activities of its members. In early (pre-state) societies, a significant part of the functions of social management was performed by the family-tribal collectives themselves. At that time there was still no clear division into those in power and those ruled; elders and leaders did not stand above ordinary community members, but rather were executors public duties. In contrast to pre-state institutions of power, the state is a group of people isolated from society that has received the right to manage society and the corresponding resources. Subjects state power are government bodies (government, parliament, courts, law enforcement agencies of the state, regional and local government bodies) and civil servants representing them, vested with legal powers. The exclusive role of state power in society is due to the fact that it extends to the entire territory of the country, if necessary, it is carried out in the form of force and coercion on legal grounds, and decisions made by state bodies are binding on all citizens and cannot be canceled by non-state organizations. Because of this, state power ensures order and stability in society, determines its integrity, despite significant differences (social, economic, national, religious, regional, etc.) between people.

State power is exercised in the process of making and implementing government decisions in the form of laws, decrees, regulations, directives, etc. According to the functions performed by certain government agencies, they differ legislative , executive And court forms state power; depending on the level of decision-making, government power can be central , regional And local. The nature of the relationship between the branches of government (forms of government) differs monarchy , presidential And parliamentary republic ; by forms of government - unitary states, federations , confederation , empires.

Not all decisions and actions of the state, its structures and representatives are the exercise of political power, but only those that relate to important political issues that affect the interests of large groups of people and cause open or hidden conflicts between various political forces; it does not include the routine administrative activities of the state apparatus, or the social and cultural functions of the state. Political power is not possessed by the executors of state decisions, but by those who initiate them and ensure their passage in state structures, thereby realizing their political will.

For this reason, political power is not limited to the power of the state, and its subjects can be other political organizations and groups (political parties, business organizations, trade unions, churches, civil society organizations, etc.), which, due to the power resources they have, (money, social status, information, expert knowledge, charisma, etc.) can influence state policy, adoption or blocking of the most important government decisions. Currently, supranational, international structures of political power are emerging (the United Nations (UN), the European Parliament, the European Union Commission, the European Court, etc.), whose powers extend to the territory of many countries.

Political influence what form of power is the ability of political actors to exert a targeted influence (direct or indirect) on the activities of civil servants 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 grant the latter the authority to carry out data 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 state power (the legislative foundations of the state, constitutional aspects, the mechanism of separation of powers, administrative structure, etc. were studied), then starting from the 1950s. The study of political influence is gradually coming 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, T. Clark, W. Domhoff (USA)) . 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 to identify which groups of people have a dominant influence on formal government 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 state power, the definition and empirical recording of political influence raises a number of complex conceptual and methodological problems. In Western literature, the main debates are around the so-called “faces” or “dimensions” of political power. Traditionally, power in the form of political influence has been 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 1960s American researchers P. Bachrach and M. Baratz emphasized the need to take into account the “second face of power”, manifested 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 restrictions and procedural barriers (concept "failure to make decisions"). Political influence began to be seen in a broader context; it is no longer limited to situations of open conflict when making decisions, 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. A consequence of the implementation of a strategy of non-decision-making was, for example, the absence of important laws on the protection environment 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 1970s Following S. Luks, many researchers (mainly of Marxist and radical orientation) believed that the “two-dimensional” concept does 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 , beneficial to the subject, but contrary to the “real” interests of the object. In fact we are talking about manipulation , with which ruling classes they impose their ideas about the ideal (optimal) social structure on the rest of society and obtain from it support even for those political decisions that are clearly unfavorable to it. This form of political power, like manipulation in general, is considered the most insidious and at the same time effective way of subjugation, 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 party of power” refers to the following form of political power - formation of political consciousness. The latter includes not only manipulation , but also belief. Unlike manipulation, persuasion is a successful, targeted 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 give them the right to exercise given 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 priorities of large groups of people, if only because otherwise their current position in political system will be under threat. 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.

political society ideological power

Expressing and protecting the interests of certain social strata, political power, at the same time, one way or another, is engaged in organizing the political life of society as a whole. It “develops as a system of functions from the modeling of one’s own activities; analysis of the political and social situation and specific situations; defining your strategy and private tactical objectives; supervision and suppression... of behavior deviating from norms; appropriation and disposal of necessary resources (material and spiritual...); distribution of policy resources - confidence measures, agreements, exchange of concessions and advantages, awards and rewards, etc.; transformation of the political and public (social, economic, legal, cultural, moral) environment of power in its interests and in the interests of its policies.”

Political power manifests itself in a variety of forms, the main ones being dominance, leadership, organization, and control.

Dominance presupposes the absolute or relative subordination of some people and their communities to the subjects of power and the social strata that they represent.

Leadership is expressed in the ability of a subject of power to carry out his will by developing programs, concepts, guidelines, determining prospects for the development of the social system as a whole and its various links. Leadership determines current and long-term goals, develops strategic and tactical tasks.

Management is manifested in the conscious, purposeful influence of the subject of power on various parts of the social system, on controlled objects in order to implement management guidelines. Control is carried out using various methods, which can be administrative, authoritarian, democratic, based on coercion, etc.

Political power is manifested in various types. A meaningful typology of political power can be built according to various criteria:

• - according to the degree of institutionalization - government, city, school, etc.
• - by subject of power - class, party, people's, presidential, parliamentary, etc.;
• - on a quantitative basis - individual (monocratic), oligarchic (power of a cohesive group), polyarchic (multiple power of a number of institutions or individuals);
• - according to the social type of government - monarchical, republican;
• - according to the regime of government - democratic, authoritarian, despotic, totalitarian, bureaucratic, etc.;
• - by social type - socialist, bourgeois, capitalist, etc...."

An important type of political power is state power. The concept of state power is much narrower than the concept of “political power”. In this regard, the use of these concepts as identical is incorrect.

State power, like political power in general, can achieve its goals through political education, ideological influence, dissemination of necessary information, etc. However, this does not express its essence. “State power is a form of political power that has a monopoly right to make laws binding on the entire population, and is based on special apparatus coercion, as one of the means to comply with laws and orders. State power equally means both a specific organization and practical activities for the implementation of the goals and objectives of this organization."

When characterizing state power, two extremes cannot be allowed. On the one hand, it is a mistake to consider this power only as a power that is engaged only in oppressing the people, and on the other hand, to characterize it only as a power that is completely absorbed in concerns about the well-being of the people. State power constantly implements both. Moreover, by oppressing the people, the state government realizes not only its own interests, but also the interests of the people, who are interested in the stability of society, in its normal functioning and development; By showing concern for the welfare of the people, it ensures the realization not so much of their interests as of its own, for only by satisfying the needs of the majority of the population, to a certain extent, can it preserve its privileges, ensure the realization of its interests, its well-being.

In reality there may exist various systems state power. All of them, however, come down to two main ones - federal and unitary. The essence of these systems of power is determined by the nature of the existing division of state power between its subjects at different levels. If between the central and local government bodies there are intermediate bodies that, in accordance with the constitution, are endowed with certain power functions, then a federal system of power operates. If there are no such intermediate authorities or they are completely dependent on the central authorities, then a unitary system of state power operates. State power performs legislative, executive and judicial functions. In this regard, it is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers.

In some countries, to the above three powers, a fourth is added - the electoral power, which is represented by electoral courts that decide questions about the correctness of the election of deputies. In the constitutions of individual countries we are talking about five or even six powers. The fifth power is represented by the Comptroller General with the apparatus subordinate to him: the sixth is the constituent power to adopt the constitution.

The expediency of the separation of powers is determined, firstly, by the need to clearly define the functions, competence and responsibilities of each branch of government; secondly, the need to prevent abuse of power, the establishment of dictatorship, totalitarianism, usurpation of power; thirdly, the need to exercise mutual control over the branches of government; fourthly, the need of society to combine such contradictory aspects of life as power and freedom, law and justice, state and society, command and submission; fifthly, the need to create checks and balances in the exercise of power functions.

Legislative power is based on the principles of constitutionality and the rule of law. It is formed through free elections. This power amends the constitution, determines the fundamentals of the state's domestic and foreign policy, approves the state budget, adopts laws binding on all citizens and authorities, and controls their implementation. The supremacy of the legislative branch is limited by the principles of government, the constitution, and human rights.

Executive-administrative power exercises direct state power. She not only executes the laws, but she herself issues regulations, takes a legislative initiative. This power must be based on the law and act within the framework of the law. The right to control the activities of the executive branch should belong to representative bodies of state power.

The judicial branch represents a relatively independent structure of state power. In its actions, this power must be independent of the legislative and executive powers.

The beginning of the theoretical substantiation of the problem of separation of powers is associated with the name of the French philosopher and historian S. L. Montesquieu, who, as already noted when considering the stages of development of political thought, proposed dividing power into legislative (a representative body elected by the people), executive power (the power of the monarch) and judiciary (independent courts).

Subsequently, Montesquieu's ideas were developed in the works of other thinkers and legislatively enshrined in the constitutions of many countries. The US Constitution, for example, which was adopted in 1787, states that the powers of the legislative branch in the country belong to Congress, the executive branch is exercised by the president, and the judicial branch is vested in Supreme Court and by such inferior courts as are approved by Congress. The principle of separation of powers, according to constitutions, underlies state power in a number of other countries. However, it has not been fully implemented in any country. At the same time, in many countries the basis of state power is the principle of uniqueness.

In our country, for many years it was believed that the idea of ​​separation of powers cannot be implemented in practice due to the fact that power is united and indivisible. IN last years the situation has changed. Now everyone is talking about the need for separation of powers. However, the problem of separation has not yet been resolved in practice due to the fact that the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers is often replaced by opposition between these powers.

The solution to the problem of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers lies in finding the optimal relationship between them as directions of a single state power, clearly defining their functions and powers.

Relatively an independent species political power is party power. As a type of political power, this power is not recognized by all researchers. In domestic scientific, educational, educational literature The point of view continues to prevail, according to which a party can be a link in the system of political power, but not a subject of power. Many foreign researchers do not recognize the party as a subject of power. Reality has long refuted this point of view. It is known, for example, that for many decades in our country the subject of political power was the CPSU. Parties have been the real subjects of political power for many years in the industrialized countries of the West.

Political power performs various functions. It implements general organizational, regulatory, control functions, organizes the political life of society, regulates political relations, structuring political organization society, the formation of public consciousness, etc.

In domestic scientific, educational, educational and methodological literature, the functions of political power are often characterized with a “plus” sign. For example, B.I. Krasnov writes: “The government must: 1) ensure the legal rights of citizens, their constitutional freedoms always and in everything; 2) affirm the law as the core of social relations and be able to obey the law; 3) perform economic and creative functions...".

Power as a phenomenon of social life

The fact that “the government should” ensure “the rights of citizens,” “their constitutional freedoms,” “perform creative functions,” etc. is certainly a good wish. The only bad thing is that it is often not implemented in practice. In reality, the government not only ensures the rights and constitutional freedoms of citizens, but also tramples them; it not only creates, but also destroys, etc. Therefore, it seems that some foreign researchers give more objective characteristics of the functions of political power.

According to foreign political scientists, power “manifests itself” through the following main features and functions:

• - coercion;
• - luring;
• - “blocking consequences” (i.e., hindering a competitor and the struggle for power);
• - “creation of demands” (artificial formation of needs that can only be satisfied by an agent of power, a kind of political marketing);
• - “stretching the network of power” (inclusion of additional sources of dependence on agents);
• - blackmail (threats in the present or promises of troubles from disobedience in the future);
• - tips;
• - informational direct and indirect control (using warnings, recommendations, revenge, etc.)

Political power performs its functions through political institutions, institutions, and organizations that make up political systems.

Power- there is the ability and opportunity of some to model the behavior of others, i.e. force someone to do something against their will through any means ranging from persuasion to violence.

- the ability of a social subject (individual, group, layer) to impose and carry out their will with the help of legal and norms and a special institution -.

Power is a necessary condition for the sustainable development of society in all its spheres.

Power is distinguished: political, economic, spiritual family, etc. Economic power is based on the right and ability of the owner of any resources to influence the production of goods and services, spiritual power is based on the ability of holders of knowledge, ideology, information to influence changes in people’s consciousness.

Political power is power (the power to impose will) transferred by a community to a social institution.

Political power can be divided into state, regional, local, party, corporate, clan, etc. State power is provided by state institutions (parliament, government, court, law enforcement, etc.), as well as a legal framework. Other types of political power are provided by relevant organizations, legislation, charters and instructions, traditions and customs, and public opinion.

Structural elements of power

Considering power as the ability and ability of some to model the behavior of others, we should find out where this ability comes from? Why, in the course of social interaction, are people divided into those who dominate and those who are dominated? In order to answer these questions, you need to know what power is based on, i.e. what are its grounds (sources). There are countless of them. And, nevertheless, among them there are those that are classified as universal, present in one or another proportion (or form) in any power relationship.

In this regard, it is necessary to turn to the accepted principles in political science classifications of bases (sources) of power, and understand what type of power is generated by such of them as force or the threat of force, wealth, knowledge, law, charisma, prestige, authority, etc.

Particular attention should be paid to the argumentation (evidence) of the position that power relations are not only relations of dependence, but also interdependence. That, with the exception of forms of direct violence, there is no absolute power in nature. All power is relative. And it is built not only on the dependence of the ruled on the rulers, but also on the rulers on the ruled. Although the extent of this dependence is different for them.

The closest attention is also required to clarify the essence of the differences in approaches to the interpretation of power and power relations among political scientists representing different political science schools (functionalists, taxonomists, behaviorists). And also what lies behind the definitions of power as a characteristic of an individual, as a resource, as a construct (interpersonal, causal, philosophical), etc.

The main features of political (state) power

Political power is a kind of power complex, including both state power, which plays the role of “first violin” in it, and the power of all other institutional subjects of politics in the person of political parties, mass socio-political organizations and movements, independent media, etc.

It is also necessary to take into account that state power, as the most socialized form and core of political power, differs from all other authorities (including political ones) in a number of ways: significant features giving it a universal character. In this regard, one must be prepared to reveal the content of such concepts-signs of this power as universality, publicity, supremacy, monocentrism, diversity of resources, monopoly on the legitimate (i.e., provided for and stipulated by law) use of force, etc.

Such concepts as "political dominance", "legality" and "legitimacy". The first of these concepts is used to denote the process of institutionalization of power, i.e. its consolidation in society as an organized force (in the form of a hierarchical system of power institutions and institutions), functionally intended to implement general leadership and management of the social organism.

The institutionalization of power in the form of political domination means the structuring in society of relations of command and subordination, order and execution, the organizational division of managerial labor and the privileges usually associated with it, on the one hand, and executive activity, on the other.

As for the concepts of “legality” and “legitimacy”, although the etymology of these concepts is similar (in French the words “legal” and “legitime” are translated as legal), in terms of content they are not synonymous concepts. First concept (legality) emphasizes the legal aspects of power and acts as an integral component of political domination, i.e. consolidation (institutionalization) of power regulated by law and its functioning in the form of a hierarchical system of state bodies and institutions. With clearly defined steps of order and execution.

Legitimacy of political power

- a political property of a public authority, meaning recognition by the majority of citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any power that is based on popular consensus is legitimate.

Power and power relations

Many people, including some political scientists, believe that the struggle to acquire, distribute, retain, and use power constitutes essence of politics. This point of view was held, for example, by the German sociologist M. Weber. One way or another, the doctrine of power has become one of the most important in political science.

Power in general is the ability of one subject to impose its will on other subjects.

Power is not just the relationship of someone to someone, it is always asymmetrical relationship, i.e. unequal, dependent, allowing one individual to influence and change the behavior of another.

Foundations of power in the very general view perform unmet needs some and the possibility of their satisfaction by others on certain conditions.

Power is a necessary attribute of any organization, any human group. Without power there is no organization and no order. In every joint activity of people there are those who command and those who obey them; those who make decisions and those who carry them out. Power is characterized by the activities of those who control.

Sources of power:

• authority- power as the force of habit, tradition, internalized cultural values;
• force- “naked power”, in the arsenal of which there is nothing but violence and suppression;
• wealth- stimulating, rewarding power, which includes negative sanctions for uncomfortable behavior;
• knowledge— the power of competence, professionalism, the so-called “expert power”;
• charisma— leader’s power, built on the deification of the leader, endowing him with supernatural abilities;
• prestige- identifying (identifying) power, etc.

The need for power

The social nature of people's lives turns power into a social phenomenon. Power is expressed in the ability of united people to achieve their agreed goals, affirm generally accepted values ​​and interact. In undeveloped communities, power is dissolved; it belongs to everyone together and to no one individually. But already here public power takes on the character of the right of the community to influence the behavior of individuals. However, the inevitable difference of interests in any society disrupts political communication, cooperation, and coherence. This leads to the disintegration of this form of power due to its low efficiency, and ultimately to the loss of the ability to achieve agreed goals. In this case, the real prospect is the collapse of this community.

To prevent this from happening, public power is transferred to elected or appointed people - rulers. Rulers receive from the community powers (full power, public authority) to manage social relations, that is, to change the activity of subjects in accordance with the law. The need for management is explained by the fact that people in relationships with each other are very often guided not by reason, but by passions, which leads to the loss of the goal of the community. Therefore, the ruler must have the power that would keep people within the framework of an organized community, exclude extreme manifestations of selfishness and aggression in social relations, ensuring everyone's survival.

Introduction

The problem of power and power relations is central to political science. This is due to the interconnection and inseparability of politics and power.

Power is the most important means of implementing politics. Carrying out one's own political line, realizing one's fundamental interests, and managing society are impossible without possessing power. At the same time, the struggle for power, its possession and use is an essential component of political activity.

In modern political science, there are a number of approaches to the problem of power that focus attention on certain aspects of it.

Most Western authors, following M. Weber, consider the category of legitimacy as dependent on more general categories. This leads to a simplification of this concept, and even reduction by some researchers to a procedural democratic form.

The development of problems of legitimacy and legitimation of political power in Russian science began relatively recently and includes both the development of the achievements of Western political thought and its own developments.

1. The concept of power.

Power in its most general form is the ability (property) of a certain subject (individual, collective, organization) to subjugate the will and behavior of another subject (individual, collective, organization) in its own interests or in the interests of other persons.

As a phenomenon, power is characterized by the following features:

1. Power is a social phenomenon, that is, public.

2. Power is an integral component of society at all stages of its development. The fact that power is a constant companion of society is explained by the fact that society is a complexly organized system (social organism), which constantly needs management, that is, a process of ordering aimed at maintaining the system in a normal, efficient state - a state of functioning.

3. Power can exist and function only within the framework of a social relationship, that is, a relationship that exists between people (individuals, their groups, other social formations). There cannot be a relationship of power between a person and a thing or between a person and an animal.

4. The exercise of power is always an intellectual-volitional process.

5. Social relations within the framework of which power exists and is exercised are a type of social relations and are called power relations. A power relationship is always a two-way relationship, one of the subjects of which is the powerful (dominant) subject, and the other is the subject.

6. The most important feature of power is that it is always based on strength. It is the presence of power that determines the position of a particular subject as a ruler.

7. Due to the fact that power can only take place in a conscious-volitional relationship and always presupposes the subordination of the will of the subject subject to the will of the ruling subject, the absence of such subordination in a specific relationship means the absence of power in this respect. In other words, conscious submission is a condition for having power in a given specific relationship over a given specific subject.

Of the many definitions of power, one of the most frequently used is the definition of power as the ability and opportunity to exercise one’s will, to have a decisive influence on the activities and behavior of people with the help of authority, law, and violence.

Thus, power is a special kind of influence - coercive influence. This is the right and opportunity to command, dispose and manage.

Power arises due to the need of people to coordinate the activities of a huge number of different entities; it is necessary to maintain the integrity of society.

Max Weber interpreted political power as a relationship of domination over people based on legitimate violence. Henry Kissinger considered power to be the most powerful stimulant. Otto von Bismarck, in his time, described power as the art of the possible.

Political power harmonizes and coordinates public interests and behavior of people, social communities and organizations, subordinating them to political will through coercion and persuasion.

2. Types of power. Features of political power.

One of the most meaningful classifications of power is its division, in accordance with the resources on which it is based, into economic, social, spiritual-informational and coercive power.

Economic power- this is control over economic resources, ownership of various types material values. In ordinary, relatively calm periods of social development, economic power dominates over other types of power, since “economic control is not just control of one area of ​​​​human life, in no way connected with the rest, it is control over the means of achieving all our goals.”

Closely related to economic power social power. If economic power involves the distribution of material wealth, then social power involves the distribution of position in the social structure, statuses, positions, benefits and privileges. Many modern states are characterized by a desire to democratize social power. In relation to government in enterprises, this manifests itself, for example, in depriving the owner of the right to hire and fire an employee, to individually determine his salary. wages, promote or demote, change working conditions, etc. All these social issues are regulated by law and collective labor agreements and are decided with the participation of trade unions, works councils, state and public labor hiring bureaus, courts, etc.

Spiritual-informational power- this is power over people, exercised with the help of scientific knowledge and information. Knowledge is used both to prepare government decisions and to directly influence the minds of people to ensure their loyalty and support for the government. This influence is carried out through institutions of socialization (school, other educational institutions, educational societies, etc.), as well as with the help of the media. Information power can serve different purposes: not only the dissemination of objective information about the activities of the government and the state of society, but also the manipulation of people’s consciousness and behavior.

Coercive power relies on power resources and means control over people through the use or threat of use physical strength.

There are other approaches to identifying types of power.

So, depending on the subjects, power is divided into:

State;

Party;

Trade union;

Army;

Family, etc.

Based on the breadth of distribution, the following types of power are distinguished:

Mega-level (power at the level of international organizations: UN, NATO, European Union, etc.);

Macro level (power at the level of central bodies of the state);

Meso-level (power at the level of organizations subordinate to the center: regional, district);

Micro level (power in primary organizations and small groups).

Power differs according to the functions of government bodies:

Legislative;

Executive;

Judicial.

According to the methods of interaction between the subject and the object of power, power is distinguished:

Liberal;

Democratic.

Depending on the social base of power, the following types of power are distinguished:

Polyarchy (rule of many);

Oligarchy (the power of financiers and industrialists);

Plutocracy (power of the rich elite);

Theocracy (power of the clergy);

Partocracy (party power);

Ochlocracy (mob rule).

Political power occupies a special place in the structure of power. It is due to a number of significant features that distinguish it from all other types of power. The features of political power include the following:

1) supremacy, i.e. the binding nature of its decisions on any other government. Political power can limit the influence of powerful corporations, media and other institutions or eliminate them altogether;

2) publicity, i.e. universality and impersonality. This means that political power addresses all citizens on behalf of the whole society through the use of law;

3) monocentricity, i.e. presence of a single decision-making center. Unlike political power, economic, social, spiritual and informational power is polycentric, since in a market democratic society there are many independent owners, media, social funds, etc.;

4) diversity of resources. Political power, and especially the state, uses not only coercion, but also economic, social, cultural and information resources;

5) legality in the use of force and coercion against citizens.

The most important element of political power is state power. What is the difference between political and state power?

1. The concept of political power is broader than the concept of state power, since political activity can be carried out not only within the framework of state bodies, but also within the framework of the activities of various political movements, parties, trade unions, pressure groups, etc. In other words, political power is dispersed throughout the entire field of political space formed by the interaction of all political subjects.

2. State power is built on the principle of vertical connections (i.e. hierarchy, subordination of lower levels to higher ones, executive power to the legislative branch). Political power is exercised on the principle of horizontal connections (such as coexistence, rivalry, struggle among various subjects of political power (industrial, financial, military and other elites, pressure groups, individual leaders, etc.).

3. State power, according to the Russian constitution, ends at the level of regions, then power is exercised by bodies local government. The latter are subjects of political, but no longer state power.

Recognition of a given political power - its institutions, decisions and actions - as legitimate is called in political science legitimacy .

The legitimacy of political power is determined by many circumstances, including the compliance of the regime, the goals of the elite, its principles and methods of action with traditions that are or are not reflected in laws, the popularity of leaders, etc.

There are three sources of legitimacy of political power:

Ideological;

Moral;

Legal.

The very concept of legitimacy now allows different interpretations. However, the basic idea that effective and stable government must be legitimate is not in doubt. A number of authors prefer to consider legitimacy from the point of view of characteristics of a political system or regime, while their opponents see it as important element mass consciousness.

Legitimacy studies are conducted within two main research approaches: normative, which involves the development of criteria for the legitimacy of political regimes, and empirical, which aims to identify the cause-and-effect relationship between the values ​​and attitudes emerging in the mass consciousness and its recognition of the legitimacy of state power.

M. Weber based the concept of legitimacy on the idea that if, due to certain traditions, exceptional qualities of a leader, or citizens’ understanding of the advantages of the existing government, they express their readiness to obey the authorities, then in this case the management process can be effectively carried out with minimal use of violence .

Developing Weber's typology of legitimacy in relation to the realities of the second half of the twentieth century, American political scientist David Easton proposed his own three types of legitimacy: ideological, structural and personal. This approach reflected an understanding of the fundamental role of ideology in shaping the legitimacy of institutions of state power.

An attempt to combine normative criteria of legitimacy with the results of empirical studies of the legitimacy of state institutions was the introduction of the term “democratic legitimacy”, which implies the introduction of criteria that make it possible to distinguish democratic legitimacy from authoritarian one.

The study of the phenomenon of legitimacy is based on the concept of legitimacy developed by Max Weber at the beginning of the twentieth century and the classification of models of legitimate domination he proposed. The typology of the legitimacy of state power, developed by the German sociologist Max Weber, became the basis for a number of areas of political research.

American political scientist David Easton identified 3 types of legitimacy of political power: ideological, structural and personal.

Max Weber believed that power can be based on a) personal qualities, b) tradition and customs, c) formal law. In all three cases, power is socially approved, i.e. legitimate. According to these three sources of power, a distinction is made between charismatic, traditional and legal power.

Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. Legitimacy is associated with the authority of the government, its support for the ideals and values ​​shared by the majority of citizens, the agreement of the authorities and citizens on fundamental political principles, for example, freedom of speech, the protection of civil rights or social assistance to the poor.

Table 1. Types of power according to M. Weber.

Charismatic power. Ruling a country or group of people based on outstanding personal qualities is called charismatic. Charisma (Greek - mercy, divine gift) exceptional talent; charismatic leader - a person endowed with authority in the eyes of his followers; charisma is based on the exceptional qualities of his personality - wisdom, heroism, “holiness”. Charisma represents the highest degree of informal authority. We need not just outstanding, outstanding qualities, we need such exceptional properties that allow this person to be considered great or brilliant. Charismatic power is based on faith and on the emotional, personal relationship of the leader and the masses. Especially often, a charismatic leader appears during periods of revolutionary change, when the new government cannot rely on the authority of tradition or the authority of the law. After all, he himself or under his leadership the people overthrew the legitimate government, but new traditions have not yet appeared. Therefore, we have to resort to exalting the personality of the leader, whose authority sanctifies new institutions of power. This phenomenon is called the cult of personality. Cult of personality (from Latin - veneration) is an excessive exaltation of the personality of a ruler, leader, based almost on religious worship. Often the cult of personality received formal expression in the sacralization of power.

Traditional authority. It is achieved through customs, the habit of obeying authority, and belief in the steadfastness and sacredness of ancient orders. Traditional dominance is characteristic of monarchies. In its motivation, it is in many ways similar to relationships in a patriarchal family, based on unquestioning obedience to elders and on the personal, unofficial nature of the relationship between the head of the family and its members. Traditional power is durable due to the institution of inheritance of power by the monarch, which reinforces the authority of the state with centuries-old traditions of honoring power.

Subjects show loyalty to rulers vested with power according to custom. Loyalty to the leader and support from his followers are passed on from one generation to the next. An example is the relationship between master and servant. In the family estates of the European aristocracy, it happened that dynasties of masters and dynasties of servants walked through time in parallel rows. The children of masters became new masters, and the children of servants became new servants of the same master's family. The tradition entered into blood and flesh so deeply that parting with one’s master was tantamount to death.

Legal power. It is also called rationally legalized, since domination is associated with faith in the correctness of legal norms and the need for their implementation. Subordinates follow impersonal norms, principles and rules, so they obey only those who are endowed with appropriate authority. One leader can manifest himself as an outstanding personality, even be charismatic, but they will obey another - a gray one, not outstanding, but placed at the top. It often happens that subordinates immediately change their minds when a new manager is appointed head of a department, although they have worked with the old one for 20 years and he seems to be a traditional leader for them. They will express sympathy and warm support to their fired and beloved boss, but no one will go against the order. This is a sign that in this society it is not tradition or charisma that rules everything, but the law, the order, the decree.

In a democratic state, people are not subject to the personality of the leader, but to the laws within which government representatives are elected and act. Legitimacy here is based on citizens' trust in the structure of the state, and not in individuals. With a legal type of government, each employee receives a fixed salary.

In their pure form, these types of power are rare. It is much more common to see a combination of the two. The heads of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well as the clergy standing lower on the hierarchical ladder, act for parishioners at the same time as: a) charismatic leaders; b) traditional leaders; c) legal rulers. However, the church is perhaps the only institution of society where the three types of power are represented almost in full. More often it happens that legal rule acts as the basis of the managerial hierarchy, and traditionalism and charisma are added in varying proportions. To a charismatic leader, people obey voluntarily, with enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. This is exactly what all rulers strive for. But very few achieve it. In every century, when it comes to heads of state, there are no more than five truly charismatic leaders. Although some periods of history, such as the 20th century, may be more productive. Most monarchs were content to rule based on law and tradition. The power of Stalin and Hitler cannot be called traditional, but it can be called charismatic and legal. In young democracies, the legitimacy of power may be based not so much on respect for elected institutions, but on the authority of a specific person at the head of the state.

The political system of modern states includes elements of all three types of power.

An important place in the functioning of power is occupied by the problems of its delegitimation, that is, loss of trust in power, deprivation of public support. The legitimacy of power is weakened due to its ineffectiveness, inability to protect society from crime, corruption, commitment to forceful methods of resolving contradictions, pressure on the media, bureaucratization and other factors.

Every country has a system for ensuring the legitimacy of power. The structural components of this system are the bodies that legitimize political power, directly or indirectly contributing to the preservation of people's trust in the existing political system. These are bodies of state power and administration (legislative, executive and judicial powers); bodies influencing political consciousness (mass media); power structures (bodies of violence).

Methods of legitimation include persuasion (influencing political consciousness); inclusion (participation in power, provision of privileges); traditionalism (appeal to stereotypes of thinking and behavior); The possibility of using force cannot be ruled out either.

To maintain the legitimacy of power, the following are used: changes in legislation and the mechanism of public administration in accordance with new requirements; the desire to use the traditions of the population in lawmaking and in carrying out practical policies; implementation of legal precautions against a possible decline in the legitimacy of the government; maintaining law and order in society. The problem of legitimacy is largely a problem of mass participation in government. The system's failure to ensure participation undermines its legitimacy.

There are many factors that weaken the legitimacy of political power. Great damage to legitimacy is caused by a situation in which political power is powerless to protect society from crime, corruption and other antisocial phenomena.

To solve problems of legitimacy, it is necessary to identify its sources:

· the ability of a person to assimilate habitual patterns of behavior and reproduce them in his actions;

· a person’s sensory and emotional perception of the surrounding world, including the world of political power;

· a person’s value attitude towards the world around him;

· goal-oriented behavior of a person, that is, his ability to recognize his interests and needs, develop his own target programs to achieve them. The attitude towards power structures in this case is based on their assessment as a force capable or unable to create the necessary conditions for an individual to achieve his goals.

Conclusion

Knowledge of the sources of legitimacy allows us to better understand the phenomenon of a crisis of power, the essence of which is the destruction of the institution of political power, expressed in mass non-compliance with the rules and norms prescribed by this institution. All this is a consequence of widespread disappointment in the old system of values ​​and the breaking of established traditions, strong emotional excitement of the masses and increasing unpredictability social life. Overcoming the crisis of power means minimizing political deviation, which can be achieved in two ways:

1) use of force;

2) a precise definition of the source of legitimacy on which to rely when creating a normative basis for the institution of political power.

Each of these methods of achieving legitimacy has its own characteristics and requires unique tactics and knowledge of the dominant trends in mass sentiment.

It should be remembered that the demand for legitimate power arose as a reaction against the violent change of power, the unlawful use of force by power and the forcible redrawing of state borders, but the principle of legitimism is not perfect in the sense that it does not at all guarantee justice that would satisfy everyone. Legitimacy may hide the collusion of the most influential forces to the detriment of the weakest forces or the desire of the weak to equalize themselves with the strong.

List of used literature:

1. Power // Political Science Dictionary: In 2 parts 4.1 - M., 1994;

2. Weber M. Politics as a calling and profession // Weber M. Selected works. M., 1990;

3. Dogan M. Legitimacy of regimes and the crisis of confidence // Socis. 1994, no. 6;

4. Mayer G. Democratic legitimacy in post-communist society: concepts and problems // Legitimacy and legitimation of power in Russia. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 1995;

5. Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I. “Introduction to Political Science”: a textbook for university students - 3rd edition, revised and expanded - M.: Aspect Press, 2001;

6. Hayek. Road to slavery / New world, 1991, № 7.

Dogan M. Legitimacy of regimes and the crisis of confidence // Socis. 1994, no. 6.

Power // Political Science Dictionary: In 2 parts 4.1 - M., 1994. - p.45.

Hayek. Road to slavery / New World, 1991, No. 7, p. 218

Weber M. Politics as a calling and profession // Weber M. Selected works. M., 1990. - p. 644-706.

Mayer G. Democratic legitimacy in post-communist society: concepts and problems // Legitimacy and legitimation of power in Russia. / Rep. ed. Lantsov S.A., Eliseev S.M. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 1995. - p.86-118.

Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I. “Introduction to Political Science”: a textbook for university students - 3rd edition, revised and expanded - M.: Aspect Press, 2001. - P. 79.

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 “ holy 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 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 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 towards submission in the implementation of established rules - domination in the form in which it is exercised by the modern “civil servant” and all those bearers of power who are like 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 treatment to persons having 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 the 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 domestic policy I will focus my efforts on reducing federal spending and closing the budget deficit, working to implement tax reform, and continuing to modernize our military; 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