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

Quite often in the scientific literature, “political power” is identified with “power” in general. This is due to the fact that the sphere of influence of political power is vast. Political power be in close relationship with other types of social power. It is being introduced into the economic, spiritual, and even family spheres. Therefore, all types of social power can be exercised by political power. But at the same time, all types of social power cannot be identified with political power. Thus, for example, the power relationship between teacher and student should not be considered political. The peculiarity of political power is that, unlike interpersonal relations, it arises in relations between large social groups, states, etc.

In the prevailing works on political science and social philosophy political power is recognized as that which is a means of solving political problems, i.e. a means of protecting the interests of significant social groups. Based on this, the following types of political power are distinguished: the power of one social group over another, state power, the power of parties and other political organizations and movements, the power of political leaders.

Based on the nature of interaction between government and society, I. Kravchenko identifies four levels of political power with their corresponding scales and volumes of prerogatives, means, nature and properties of subjects of power, as well as objects and relationships between them, and these levels are not located in political space in isolation from each other . At the micro level - small groups, their political influence and relationships between them. At the mega level, centers of micropower and microprocessual relations extend outward.

Often political power is identified with the state, or rather with relations in state institutions. In this case, a whole series of social relations go beyond the boundaries of political power. For example, the power of a charismatic leader, relationships in party organizations, etc.

The peculiarity of political power lies in the ability of individuals, groups and their organizations to realize their interests and their will through the means of political government controlled and control. On this basis, political power can be divided into state and public. The carriers of the latter are party organizations, social movements and media.

Political power implies a mandatory organizational procedure for expressing the interests of communities, i.e. institutional design. This can be achieved through political parties, the state, etc. An important component is ideology.

Political power is universal and can use a wide variety of resources. It combines open and shadow centers that operate secretly outside the sphere of public control.

An important feature of political power is the hierarchy of relations and monocentricity, which means the presence of a single decision-making center. In addition, government entities can delegate their powers to each other. For example, the central government delegates some powers to local authorities.

There are two types of exercise of political power: open, latent and potential. In the first case, the subject of power influences the object and achieves submission. In the latent form of the exercise of power, the object acts in accordance with the desires of the subject, anticipating his reaction, although the subject himself does not perform any actions in relation to the object. In the potential form, the subject, having the rights to exercise power, does not exercise his powers. In this case, we can talk about inefficiency and a crisis of power.

Based on the way power is organized, democratic and non-democratic power can be distinguished. According to the source of origin of power, sociologist M. Weber distinguishes three types of power: 1) traditional, based on established rituals and traditions that change little in a given society, 2) legal - based on law and other legal norms that clearly regulate the exercise of power and 3) charismatic, realized due to the special authority of the leader and the faith of his followers in the special abilities of the leader.

Quite often they talk about legal and legitimate power. Legal power is the one that arose and functions on legally. The powers of this power are clearly limited by law, and the power itself strictly operates within the framework of the law. In contrast, legitimate power is that power that has been recognized by the population of the country, i.e. it is based on the trust of the population. Thus, power can be legal, but not legitimate. The legality of power is a legal characteristic, and legitimacy is a moral assessment.

In general, the specificity of political power is associated with the ability of individuals, their groups or organizations to realize their interests and their will through the means of political and state management and control. Political power is divided into state and public.

1. Concept, structure, types of power. Features of political power.

2. The role and functions of power in the system of social relations.

3. Power resources and motives of submission.

4. Legitimacy of political power.

1. Concept, structure, types of power. Features of political power.

Among the many scientific definitions The central concept of “politics” is the following definition: Policy –This is an activity aimed at state power for the purpose of its acquisition, distribution, retention and use for certain interests and purposes. In other words, the category of “power” in political science has the same fundamental meaning as the concept of “energy” in physics or “money” in economics. Therefore, clarity and certainty in understanding the semantic meaning of the terms “power” in general and “political power” in particular is a necessary prerequisite and condition for successfully studying the “Political Science” course. The phenomena of power are well known to everyone. In our lives we constantly encounter it, observe it and talk: about the power of parents over children or vice versa; about the dean's power over students; about the power of an officer over soldiers; about the power of nature, fear, love, traditions, habits, public opinion, religion, political party, people, mafia, state, etc. Observing and analyzing these phenomena, it is easy to notice and draw the following conclusions:

1. Power - this is always and first of all a relationship between people, characterized by domination and subordination, an order and its execution. It arises as a relation and does not exist outside of relations. Power is impossible without submission;

2. Fundamental Feature of all human communities is that power is always present here and everywhere. It cannot be eliminated from social reality.

3. Power and power relations – This is an objectively necessary factor, without which the existence of society is impossible.

There are general, universal definitions of power that apply to any social relationship where some dictate and control the behavior of others. One of these definitions, considered classic in modern political science, was formulated by the German sociologist Max Weber(1864-1920): “Power is any opportunity to carry out (implement) one’s own will within given social relations, even against resistance and regardless of what such an opportunity is based on.”

INstructure power includes the following components: subject, object, resources, process of power, social norms sanctioning power relations.

Subject and object are direct carriers, agents of power. Subject embodies the active, directing principle of power. It can be an individual, a social group, a community of people, for example, a local community or nation, an organization, an international community. The main quality of a subject of power is will to power . However, for most people, power in itself is not a value. They do not experience psychological pleasure from having power. Many of them, who turn out to be political leaders, even feel embarrassed that they are in charge of hundreds of thousands of their own kind. For this type of people, the desire for power is instrumental in nature, that is, it serves as a means of achieving other goals, for example, obtaining high income, prestige, profitable connections, privileges, and self-affirmation.

At the same time, in every society there are people for whom power is not a means to something, but an end in itself, a value in itself. Commanding others, knowing that the fates of many people depend on you, brings them the highest pleasure. In this case, the individual’s desire for power and especially the possession of power often performs for him the function of subjective compensation for his own inferiority. This type of personality is characterized by an excessive, sometimes pathological, will to power “for its own sake,” which poses a serious danger to others. The scale of this danger is directly proportional to the breadth of the power of a given subject. Therefore, political psychologists recommend that It is better to trust power to someone who is at least partially burdened by it.

An object of power embodies a relatively passive principle in power relations. The main quality of an object of power is readiness to submit . Submission is as natural to human society as leadership. The boundaries of the relationship between the object and the subject of power extend from fierce resistance to voluntary submission. Power is impossible without submission. If there is no subordination, there is no power, despite the fact that the subject striving for it has a pronounced will to rule and even powerful coercive resources. Awareness of the dependence of power on the obedience of the population found practical expression in actions of civil disobedience, widely used by the opposition as a means of nonviolent struggle against dictatorial regimes.

The process of domination occurs when all components of growth are set in motion. The process of power is characterized, first of all, by the methods and mechanisms of power. There are two main ways to rule:

political mobilization - inducing the object to take active actions pleasing to the subject of power;

political demobilization - ensuring the inaction of those under power, neutralizing, blocking types of behavior that are undesirable for the authorities.

Various options available classifications of power.

Depending on theresources, on which power is based, it is divided into economic, social, informational, power, etc.

Byspheres of manifestation distinguish between state power, party power, church power, military power, etc. State power, unlike other types of political power, is characterized by supremacy, binding decisions for any other power and the legality of the use of violence within the territory of the state;

Depending on thebreadth of distribution distinguish the power of international organizations, central, regional and local (local) authorities.

Depending on thefunctionsauthorities power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial.

Byways of interactionsubject and object distinguish between democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian authorities.

Various types of public power are in complex interaction. The ruling elite in any large organization (state, party, trade union, corporation, etc.) tends to break away from the inert “masses” and oppose itself to ordinary members. It forms a more or less closed group, pursuing mainly its own interests. The German sociologist Robert Michels formulated this trend as "ironthe law of oligarchization." The hierarchical structure of power, developing according to its internal laws, reproduces oligarchic tendencies on an expanding scale. One of these trends is that the oligarchy wants to perpetuate itself. To do this, she strives to expand her power, concentrating in her hands the weight of more functions and resources of the organization. Such a process can be called the law of accumulation of power, which can most fully manifest itself at the state level in the form of a constant expansion of state control over society up to its absorption. State power always experiences a great temptation to concentrate as much resources as possible in its hands, to absorb other types of power, primarily economic, informational, ideological, which in various ways leads to economic nationalization, the liquidation of independent media, the suppression of dissent, etc. (absolute monarchies, tyrannies, oligarchies, totalitarian states).

The highest, most developed type of political power is state power, which is characterized by the following additional features:

Distance from society, expressed in the existence of a special class of persons and administrative apparatus that exercise the will of power;

Sovereignty, i.e. the status of supreme power in a certain territory;

Centralization and universality;

Monopoly on the legal use of force for coercive purposes;

Maximum amount of resources.

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 distinctive features 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 strength in a certain territory, several main features of the state are usually distinguished, in fact already 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, may resort to achieving their political goals with the help of power resources that were not allocated to them (for example, a bribe, illegal use of 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 form government structure- 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. greatest attention political scientists were attracted by legal authority (they studied the legislative foundations of the state, constitutional aspects, the mechanism of separation of powers, administrative structure, etc.), 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. 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 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 due not only to the improvement of technical capabilities to influence people’s consciousness (new psychotechnologies, changes in information infrastructure, etc.), but also to 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 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 power is a specific form of social relations between social and institutional subjects of politics, as a result of which some of them have the ability and opportunity to carry out their will, expressed in political and legal norms.

The varieties of political power are (according to the subjects of power) the power of one social group over another (for example, the dominance of one class over another); government; party power, as well as other political organizations and movements; the power of political leaders. Although there is a point of view that state power and political power are one and the same phenomenon. There is a rational grain in this approach because gender. power really exists primarily in relation to the state, and its other agents (parties, leaders) appear with the emergence of the state as its attributes. In this case, it is advisable to divide political power, according to the functions of the institutions that carry it out, into legislative, executive and judicial. Power within a particular social community, depending on the method of organization and methods of ruling, can be democratic or undemocratic, legal and shadow.

The structure of political power includes

subjects of power (state, parties, leaders),

objects of power (individual, social group, society),

functions of power (management, regulation, control),

power resources.

Power resources are means of imposition, i.e. means by which the power of subjects of power is exerted on the object of power.

There are several classifications of political power resources.

1) utilitarian, forced, normative.

utilitarian - material and other social benefits related to the everyday interests of people (an example of their action is an increase in social benefits from the state),

coercive - punitive measures used when utilitarian resources are powerless (for example, prosecution of strike participants who were not afraid of economic sanctions),

normative resources – influence is exercised by changing the rules of interaction between individuals.

2) economic, social, cultural-informational, coercive and demographic resources.

economic – various material values,

social – social statuses,

cultural and informational – information and means of its dissemination and receipt,

coercive resources - army, police, court,

demographic resources - means that a person becomes a resource of power when it is used as a means of implementing someone else’s will. In general, a person is a subject and an object, and not a resource of power.

12. Legitimacy of political power and its types.

Legitimacy (from French - legality, the translation does not correspond to the content of the concept) is a positive assessment, recognition of the legitimacy of power, the consent of the population to obey it. Legitimacy is the goal of any regime, because it guarantees the stability of this regime. Legitimacy and legality should not be confused. In some political systems, power can be legal and illegitimate, as, for example, under the rule of metropolises in colonial states. In others - legitimate, but illegal, as, say, after a revolutionary coup, supported by the majority of the population. Thirdly, both legal and legitimate, as, for example, after the victory of certain forces in elections.

Max Weber made a great contribution to the theory of the legitimacy of political power. He also belongs to the well-known classification of types of legitimacy of power depending on the motivation of submission:

Traditional legitimacy is characterized by the fact that subordination to power has become part of the customs of the people and has become a tradition. Such legitimacy is characteristic of conservative regimes, as, for example, in states with a monarchical form of government, where supreme power is inherited. Long-term submission to a given power (the power of the monarch), which has become a tradition, creates the effect of justice and legitimacy of this power, which gives it stability and stability.

Rational (democratic) legitimacy based on people's belief in justice formal rules(for example, the rule of law, the election of the legislative body, other general democratic norms) and the need to implement them. In a state characterized by democratic legitimacy of power, citizens are subject to laws, not to individuals.

Charismatic legitimacy is based on belief in exceptional qualities, a special gift, i.e. charisma of a political leader. By unconditionally believing all the actions and plans of a charismatic leader, people lose the ability to critically evaluate. This emotional outburst, which forms the authority of a charismatic leader, most often occurs during a period of revolutionary change.

Weber also noted particularly totalitarian regimes that were outside the scope of legitimacy theory. Totalitarianism is not legitimate. We can talk about legitimacy here only at the level of the ruling elite.

The legitimacy of power is closely related to its effectiveness. Efficiency characterizes the degree to which the government performs its functions and achieves its objectives. The higher the legitimacy, the more effective the political power and vice versa. For example, crisis situations that have arisen in post-socialist countries give rise to a phenomenon where part of the population does not trust either the leaders who came to power or democratic procedures. There is also no traditional legitimation, because The very foundations of the PSO have been destroyed. This largely complicates the activities of governments in solving various kinds of problems of a generally significant nature.

At the same time, totalitarian regimes, while not being by and large, legitimate, have proven to be effective in certain situations.

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.

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.

The power is in itself general view represents 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.

How power is characterized the following signs:

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 power 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, to promote or demote him, to change working conditions, etc. All these social issues 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 of physical force.

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.

According to the breadth of distribution, they are distinguished the following types authorities:

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 legitimacy state institutions, was the introduction of the term “democratic legitimacy”, implying 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 pure form These types of power are rare. It is much more common to see a combination of the two. Head of the Catholic and Orthodox Church, like clergymen lower down 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 old system values ​​and the breaking of established traditions, strong emotional excitement of the masses and the increasing unpredictability of social life. Overcoming the crisis of power means minimizing political deviation, which can be achieved in two ways:

1) use of force;

2) precise definition a source of legitimacy that should be relied upon 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.