POLITICAL POWER

1. The definition of power and features of political power.

2. The structure of political power.

Z. The problems of the legitimacy of power.

1 Definition of power and features of political power

The concept of “power” in everyday life and in the scientific community is used in different meanings. Philosophers talk about power over the objective laws of society, natural scientists about power over nature, politics about political power, psychologists about human power over oneself, parents about family power, etc. The phenomenon of power was given close attention by all prominent representatives of political science. Already ancient thinkers Plato, Aristotle and others tried to penetrate the essence of the social nature of political power. In the Middle Ages and the New Age, N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, E. Kant and many others showed great interest in the problems of power. Dr. G. Mosca, V. Paretto, R. Michels, M. Weber made a significant contribution to the development of the theory of power.

Issues of power are the focus of modern political science and sociology. But, despite the close attention of scientists to the problems of power, many foreign researchers write about the halo of mysticism and mystery that surround power, that the concept of power is “vague”. The French scientist Chevalier wrote that real power always attracted more to itself than reasoning about it. N. S. Khrushchev in his memoirs spoke of power as follows: “You can get fed up with everything: food, women ... you can’t get fed up with power only, you want it more and more.”

So what is power?

Historical experience shows that where there is a need for coordinated actions of people (whether it is a separate family, group, social layer, nation or society as a whole), their activities are subordinated to the achievement of certain goals. And at the same time, leaders and slaves, ruling and subordinate, dominant and subordinate, are determined. Motives of submission are very diverse. They can be based on an interest in achieving the goal, on the conviction of the need to comply with orders, on the authority of the ruling or simply on a fear of undesirable consequences in case of disobedience.

Thus, power relations are objectively inherent in public life. They are necessary to maintain the integrity and unity of society, for the organization of social production.

In political science, there are several areas or schools of scientific thought that reflect various methodological approaches to the study of power, its essence, nature, etc. The main ones are:

-teleological, characterizing power as a stable ability to achieve goals, obtain intended results with the help of other people;

Behavioral, considers power as a special type of behavior. In which some people command, while others obey (the English word “Behavior” means “behavior”);

- instrumentalist,interprets power as the possibility of using certain methods, including violence ;

- structurally functionalist,considers power as a property of social organization, as a way of self-organization of the human community, based on the appropriateness of separation of management and execution functions;

- relationalconsiders power as a relationship between two partners, in which one of them has a decisive influence on the second.

In addition to these, there are other approaches to penetrate the essence of power.

Given the multidimensional nature of power, only the most general definition of it can be given. Power is the ability and ability to exercise one’s will, to exert a decisive influence on people's activities, behavior, using various means - law, authority, coercion, persuasion, violence .

The following types of power are distinguished: economic, political, social, cultural-informational, coercive, etc.

The object of political science is not all power, but only public, political power, which refers to the ability of a class, group or individual to carry out his will in public life, relying on a system of institutions, organizations, laws, political relations.

Political power- This is the power exercised through the state and in the state system, in the system of political parties, organizations and movements. It is somehow connected with the state and state regulation, but it is not necessarily state power.

It should be noted that political and state power, coinciding in many respects, are not identical at the same time. All state power is political power, but not all political power is state power. The content of political power is much broader, and state power is the central institution.

Political power, unlike other forms of power, has its own specifics. Its distinguishing features are:

supremacy, the binding nature of its decisions for the whole society and, accordingly, for all other types of power. It can limit the influence of other forms of power, putting them within reasonable boundaries, or eliminate them altogether;

universalitythose. publicity. This means that political power acts on the basis of law on behalf of the whole society;

legalityin the use of force and other means of power within the country;

the widest range of tools usedfor the conquest, retention and exercise of power.

2. The structure of political power.

The main components of power are its sources, subjects, objects, resources and the process, which is the result of the interaction of all its components and characterized, first of all, by a mechanism ensuring the stability of the entire process of rule. (See diagram)

Power sources- imperious principle. The sources of power can be authority, power, law, wealth, knowledge, social and political status,

  Sources of power:

Knowledge, law, charisma, etc.

Subjects of power:Objects of power:

state and his POWERindividual, social

institutions, political group, class, general

parties, elites, society, etc.

leaders, people

Power Resources:

Utilitarian, compulsory,

regulatory.

Economic, social,

cultural and informational

charisma etc. The American futurologist O. Toffler in his book “The Displacement of Power: Knowledge, Wealth and Strength on the Threshold of the 21st Century” analyzes in detail three main sources that feed power. According to Toffler, power, wealth and power are connected in a single system, under certain conditions, are interchangeable and collectively aimed at maintaining power. Each of these sources informs the authorities of a certain quality: the force or threat of its use is capable of only coarse coercion, only authorities of inferior quality are functionally limited and peculiar. Wealth is a source of medium-quality power, which can have both negative and positive means of stimulation at its disposal. Knowledge is at the heart of the highest quality, most effective power. Toffler argues that in the modern world, knowledge (in various forms: information, science, art, ethics), because of its advantages - infinity (inexhaustibility), accessibility, democracy - subordinated power and wealth, becoming a determining factor in the functioning of power.

Subjects of power- carriers of power, the active effective value, in the system of power from which the influence, influence comes, orders, directions follow.

Subjects of power, taken in a different respect, can be and are themselves objects for a higher authority.

Objects of power- phenomena, objects, bodies, institutions, enterprises, people, for the direction (management) of which the activities of the authorities are directed by law or by-laws.

The subjects of political power are complex, multi-level in nature. Its primary actors are individuals and social groups, and secondary are political organizations. The subjects of the highest level, directly representing various groups and organizations in power relations, are political elites and leaders. The connection between these levels may be broken.

Thus, the subject of power can be a single person, organization, community of people, for example people, or even the world community, united in the UN.

The direct subject of power is usually those people who concentrate in their hands a huge influence and trust, financial power, powerful leverage over other people.

The republican form of government, a democratic political regime implies the power of the people, which it exercises directly (direct democracy) and indirectly through its representatives in the highest organs of political power (representative democracy). However, the possibilities of direct democracy are limited by many circumstances. Firstly, there are too few forms that make it possible to involve the whole people at once in solving political issues (the highest of these forms are free elections and referenda). Secondly, the political management of society is a constant, competent work. It is simply impossible to imagine the whole nation as such an organ. That is why the power of the people is, first of all, representative democracy, the people delegate their power rights to the relevant authorities (legislative, electoral, judicial) and specific individuals (president, prime minister).

Power is impossible without subjection to the object. The subject always seeks, not excluding means of coercion, to subordinate the object to his will. The readiness of an object for submission depends on a number of factors: on the inherent qualities of the object of power, on the nature of the requirements imposed on it, on the situation and means of influence available to the subject. Ultimately, the object of power will always have an extreme, but still a choice - to die, but not to submit. Awareness of the dependence of the authorities on the level of submission of the population found its practical political expression in acts of civil disobedience, widely used in the modern world, including in Ukraine, as a means of non-violent struggle.

An important social reason for the subordination of some people to others is the uneven distribution of power resources.

Power resources   - these are all the means, the use of which provides an impact on the object of power in accordance with the goals of the subject.The resources of power are very diverse. They can be used to encourage, punish, or persuade.

The resources of power are as diverse as the means of satisfaction different needs and interests of people. There are several resource classifications. American political scientist A. Enzioni allocates utilitarian, coercive and regulatory resources.

Utilitarian- These are material and other social benefits associated with the daily interests of people. With their help, the government can “buy” not only individual politicians, but also entire sections of the population. These resources are used both for encouragement and for punishment (salary reduction, deprivation of social benefits, etc.)

Forced- These are measures of administrative and public censure or punishment. They are used when utilitarian resources do not work. This, for example, the prosecution of participants in a strike who were not afraid of economic sanctions.

Normative- these are means of influencing the inner world, value orientations and nomes of human behavior. They are designed to convince policy objects of a commonality of interests with their subject, will provide approval for the actions of the subject of power, the adoption of their requirements.

There is a classification of resources in accordance with the most important areas of life: economic, social, cultural and informational, power.

Economic- these are material values \u200b\u200bnecessary for social and personal production and consumption, money as their universal equivalent, equipment, land, minerals, etc.

Political power uses economic resources to solve many problems of a national and international nature. With the help of economic means, political power can stimulate investment in the national economy, stimulate structural restructuring of the economy, prevent monopolization of economic sectors by one or two companies, slow down inflation and significantly reduce unemployment and much more. To achieve these goals, political, state power primarily uses the state budget.

Socialresources - the ability to increase or decrease social status or rank, place in social stratification. They partially coincide with economic resources. For example, income and wealth, being an economic resource, also characterize social status. At the same time, social resources include indicators such as position, prestige, medical care, social security, etc.

In those countries where there is a high level of development of social programs, due to which the population is provided with a wide insurance system, a high level of pensions, a developed system of charitable organizations, etc., most citizens are interested in maintaining the existing political power.

Cultural - Informationresources - knowledge and information, as well as the means of obtaining and disseminating them: institutes of science and education, the media, etc. Control over knowledge and information is usually directly related to the possession of economic resources of paramount importance. At the same time, in the modern world, the tendency to increase the role of cultural information resources as a source of power is quite clearly manifested. It is, first and foremost, the media. Information resources can serve different purposes: not only the dissemination of objective information about the activities of the government, the situation in society, but also manipulation - the management of people's consciousness and behavior contrary to their interests, and often the will, based on special methods of deception.

Powerresources are the army, police (militia), various security services, the prosecutor’s office, the court, as well as their equipment, weapons, prisons, etc. This type of resource is traditionally considered the most effective, decisive source of power. Its use is capable of depriving a person of life, freedom and property - the highest values. Especially often, political power resorts to such resources in the event of a weakening of its strength, power and influence on society.

Various resources of power are usually used by its subjects in a complex, especially by the state, to a greater or lesser extent possessing all types of resources.

In modern conditions, political power uses various methods of its functioning:

Establishment of positive incentives, persuasion;

Compulsion;

Attraction (various promises of various kinds, most often unfulfilled, establishment of benefits, etc.);

Blocking undesirable consequences (interference with competitors in the struggle for power, intimidation with negative consequences, etc.);

Direct and indirect information control (imposing recommendations, suggestions, creating a certain image, etc.).

The dominant principle of the mechanism of functioning of political power is the principle of its separation. The founders of the theory of separation of powers consider the English philosopher J. Locke and the French enlightener, legal scholar. Philosopher C. L. Montesquieu. According to this theory, for the correct and effective functioning of the state, legislative, executive and judicial powers independent of each other must exist. This creates a system of “checks and balances” against strengthening one branch of power, concentrating power in one center, and abuse it. Promotes thoughtfulness, accuracy, balance in decision-making, and therefore the effectiveness of political leadership and management. Accordingly, a special mechanism is being formed to ensure the freedom and independence of an individual individual and his protection.

The bearer of legislative power is the highest representative state body - parliament; executive power - the president, government, ministries and departments, state and administrative institutions; Judicial branch - independent courts, subordinate only to the law.

For the first time, the principle of separation of powers found its legal design in the US Constitution (1787), then in the Constitutional Acts of the French Revolution. In the modern world, in the vast majority of countries, the Constitution establishes the separation of powers, including in Ukraine.

3. The problems of the legitimacy of power.

Recognition by the public of the legality, legitimacy of official authoritydesignated in political science by the concept legitimacy. This concept indicates the public recognition of power, the fact that society, the people provide it with trust and support, and not the legal, legal consolidation of political power in relevant state documents. It is not difficult to get legal, legal legitimacy for those who took power into their own hands. Therefore, the price of such a formal recognition of power is not so high in comparison with the recognition of political power by the people, i.e. the legitimacy of political power. Accordingly, one should distinguish between the concepts of “legitimacy of power” (public recognition of its legitimacy) and “legality of power” (legal, formal consolidation thereof).

The formation of people's confidence in the lawfulness and effectiveness of existing political power can be achieved in various ways. The German sociologist M. Weber identified three types of legitimate domination. (See diagram)

The first type is traditional, this is the power of leaders, monarchs. The legitimacy of their power was based on the right of succession, on the recognition of the divine nature of the power of the monarch. The authorities themselves relied on the tradition of the population to obey. The traditional type of legitimacy has been preserved in countries with a monarchical form of government (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, etc.) and primitive societies.

The second type is charismatic.The term "charisma" in Greek means "divine gift." The original meaning of the term was religious. M. Weber attributed the prophet Moses, King David, Mohammed, Buddha to the bearers of true charismatic authority. In modern society, the presence of an individual leader of exceptional qualities is not directly associated with God. However, in the public mind there is a perception that this person is not like everyone else, that he has something, unusual, supernatural, that he enjoys the patronage of some higher powers. Among famous historical figures, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao-Dze-Dong and others were endowed with charismatic qualities. The charismatic type of power is characterized by the absolute confidence of the population in the leader due to its outstanding qualities. Consequently, the legitimacy in the charismatic type of power is based on the faith of the population in the leader's exceptional abilities. Typically, the charismatic type of power arises in transitional and unstable societies. This type of power remains valid in developing countries.

The third type is rationally legal.It is based on the belief in the correctness of the formal rules by which power is formed: free elections, the rule of law, equal responsibility of authorities and citizens before the law, etc. This type of legitimacy is characteristic of democratic countries.

However, in practice, these ideal types of M. Weber are intricately mixed. So, even in industrially developed and democratically stable countries, for example, in Great Britain, the legitimacy of power is based on tradition (the institution of the monarchy) and the recognition of the results of free elections.

The legitimacy of power is not a permanent, frozen state, but a rather mobile variable. The legitimacy of power at some stages of its existence may increase, at some it may fall. In society, there are fluctuations in the legitimacy of power. These fluctuations are associated with the processes of legitimization and deligitimization of power. Legitimization is a process of growing public recognition of leaders and institutions of political power. Deligitimization is the process of a decline in the authority of a leader and institutions of political power.

Signs of a decline in the legitimacy of power are:

Increased coercion

Restriction of rights and freedoms;

Prohibition of political parties and independent press;

The growth of corruption of all institutions of power, their merging with criminal structures;

Low economic efficiency of power.

The last sign is the most significant indicator of the deligitimization of power.

The illegitimacy of power can be disputed by its opponents both openly and covertly. The extreme point of falling legitimacy of power are revolutions, coups.

In general, the legitimacy of power is directly dependent on its effectiveness, i.e. the degree to which the authorities fulfill their tasks and functions. Ideally, this means guaranteed implementation of power orders with the lowest level of coercion, minimum costs and expenses. A prerequisite for this is the sufficiency of the grounds of power and the efficient use of its resources.

An important indicator of the effectiveness of power is the clear interaction of all its branches, the rationality of vertical and horizontal structures.

Equally important in relation to power on the part of citizens is their economic well-being, ensuring the level and quality of life, recognized in this society as normal.

In general, power is recognized as effective, and therefore legitimate, if it succeeds in ensuring stability, certainty, and order. The power that is not able to prevent major political conflicts, civil and ethnic wars, the confrontation of the legislative and executive authorities, the center, regional and local authorities, is losing its legitimacy.

In modern society, various means of legitimizing power have been developed: political, ideological, economic, etc. Political means include, first of all, the search for support, the expansion of the social base of power. An important tool of this form of legitimization is the democratization of public life, the expansion of citizen participation in governance. This creates a feeling of general involvement of people in the policies pursued by the authorities, and allows citizens to a certain extent to feel their subject.

Propaganda of the current political course and the ideological treatment of the masses can contribute to the feeling of involvement in power.

The most effective means of legitimizing power is the successful implementation of state policies and economic programs, a steady increase in incomes of the population and, in general, the standard of living.

Typology of legitimate domination according to M. Weber

LEGITIMATE

Lordship

Traditional Charismatic Rational

legal

BASES

Tradition, Belief in Submission

customs unusual to law, principles

quality habits of a legal leader

Questions and Tasks:

1. What is the essence of power?

2. Describe the basic approaches to the definition of power.

3 What are the hallmarks of political power.

4. What is a power structure? What are its main elements?

5. What is the difference between the concepts of legitimacy and legality of power?

6. What is the relationship between politics and power?

A) politics - the purpose and means of power;

B) power - the goal and means of politics;

C) politics and power have nothing in common;

D) politics and power completely coincide.

7. Why is the principle of separation of powers used?

A) to overcome the crisis of power;

B) as an instrument of destruction of the state;

C) to achieve consensus;

D) to increase the effectiveness of the functioning of the political system.

8. Political power includes:

A) economic power;

B) family power;

C) the legislative branch;

D) spiritual authority;

D) the executive branch.

9. What is charismatic dominance?

A) these are power relations based on recognition of special qualities by leaders;

B) a kind of rational domination;

C) orientation to foreign policy support;

D) government in the interests of a narrow group of persons.

10 Rational-legal rule is:

A) a form of power, the main subject of which is the richest layer of society;

B) the type of domination, which is characterized by the attitude to the political leader as a special, extraordinary being;

C) the type of domination, based on the norms sanctified by custom;

D) the type of domination based on the voluntary recognition of established legal norms.

1. Political power as an object of political analysis. Power is one of the central concepts of modern political science. However, the phenomenon of power itself goes beyond the political sphere itself. It is found in various fields of public life - economics, culture, science, education, the family sphere, as well as outside of public life - in the animal world. The simplest universally accepted definition of power belongs to Max Weber, who saw in it the ability of one individual to carry out his will in certain social conditions, contrary to the resistance of another individual. In other words, this is the ability of subject A to influence object B so that the latter does something that he would never do of his own free will. The volitional interpretation of the category of power was widely represented in the history of political thought. In addition to M. Weber, G. Hegel, I. Fichte, A. Schopenhauer and many other philosophers considered power from this point of view. The development of scientific knowledge as a whole led to the development of ideas about power, taking into account different aspects of this complex and multifaceted phenomenon.

Of great importance for understanding the essence of power and power relations was the emergence and development of sociological knowledge. Within the sociological approach, several concepts can be distinguished. The Marxist interpretation of power proceeded from the paradigm of social conflict and considered political power in the system of intergroup relations as a consequence of the economic dominance of one class over another.

In the second half of the 20th century, structural-functionalist and systemic interpretations of power gained fame. From the point of view of T. Parsons, power was seen as relations between entities that fulfill certain social roles assigned to them, in particular, those who govern and govern. These roles themselves are determined by the structure of the entire social system, where each element ensures its successful functioning.

Later, on the basis of a systematic approach, communicative concepts of power appeared. Representatives of these concepts are H. Arendt, C. Deutsch, N. Luman, J. Habermas. In them, power is considered as the most important element of the communication system of society. As a typical example, we can describe the interaction of the traffic controller and the driver. If the traffic controller is able to control the actions of road users, and drivers obey his instructions, this is the result of the exchange of information between them, that is, the result of communication processes. Consequently, the main thing in power relations is the maintenance of communication between subjects and objects of power.

In recent decades, neo-modernist concepts of power have spread. These, in particular, include the concept of “archeology and genealogy of power” by M. Foucault and the concept of “field of power” P. Bourdieu. M. Foucault sees in power non-personalized and non-materialized relations between its subjects, and P. Bourdieu introduces the concept of “symbolic power” based on “symbolic capital” (economic, cultural, informational, etc.) distributed among the subjects in accordance with their positions in the “political field”, in other words, in the social space formed by the hierarchy of power relations.

The relationalist concepts (relation - relations) of the authorities, whose representatives can be called P. Blau, D. Cartwright, D. Rong, J. French, see in it, above all, the special relationship between its subject and object. A subject is one who is able to control the object in accordance with its goals and interests. But since the subjects and objects of power are people with their emotions and feelings, psychological knowledge and approaches are widely used in the study of power relations.

One of the first attempts to justify power on the basis of a psychological approach was behaviorism. From the point of view of behaviorism, all power, including political power, is a special type of behavior in which some people command and others are forced to obey them. The behavioral approach considers power, first of all, as interpersonal interaction and therefore draws attention to the subjective motivation of submission and domination. For example, from the point of view of G. Lasswell, the initial impulse for the emergence of power relations may be the “will to power” inherent in some individuals and the possession of a certain “political energy”. A person seeks power in the hope of improving his life through the acquisition of wealth, prestige, etc. Power can also be an end in itself, in itself representing a source of pleasure. With this approach, political power is interpreted as a certain phenomenon that arises on the basis of a clash of diverse “wills to power”, as a kind of balance, balance of various political forces.

Psychoanalysis interprets the desire for power as a manifestation, sublimation of suppressed libido. In Z. Freud, it was understood as an attraction of a sexual nature, and in C. Jung as simply mental energy in general. From the point of view of psychoanalysis, the desire for power and the possession of it can compensate physical or spiritual disabilities in individuals. Moreover, the will to power in some should be complemented by a willingness to obey, "voluntary slavery" in others. Z. Freud believed that in the psyche of every person there are structures that can contribute to the fact that he prefers slavery to freedom for personal protection or because of love for the ruler. Proponents of psychoanalysis see the psychological nature of submission either in a special hypnotic suggestion that exists in the relationship between the leader and the crowd (S. Moskovichi), or in the person’s extreme susceptibility to symbols expressed in the language (J. Lacan).

Of course, power cannot be explained only with the help of psychological categories. Therefore, one cannot but recognize the need for its systemic, structurally functionalist and relationalist interpretations. However, power, including political power, is always subject-object relations, relations between people, with all their psychological qualities and characteristics. In addition to the will to power, its subject must possess other psychological prerequisites for the implementation of its power functions. By no means is everyone by nature capable of leading activities, making decisions that go beyond his own, everyday interests.

An even greater degree of psychological basis is the willingness to subordinate to the object of power. Submission to another's will, following the rules established by other people, should be based on a clearly expressed psychological motivation. This motivation is directly related to the means and resources that are at the disposal of the subject of power. If power is based on power and the possibility of punishment, then it contributes to the appearance of fear of possible sanctions as the main motive for submission. The strength of power based on fear of punishment is directly proportional to the possible severity of the punishment and inversely proportional to the likelihood of avoiding punishment in case of disobedience. Motives of obedience may consist in unconscious submission to another's will by virtue of habit, custom. Such motivation is laid, as a rule, at an early age and then reproduced for a long time, even throughout life, unless it conflicts with a person’s real life interests. As soon as people begin to notice that the power to which they are accustomed to obey does not correspond to their requests, has outlived itself and does not represent any value, they refuse such power to trust.

Political power, i.e. state power is able to concentrate in its hands significant material resources: money, land, etc. The presence of such resources in the subject of power can contribute to the formation of her motive such as interest. Interest-based power is generally the most stable. Personal interest encourages people to voluntarily and conscientiously implement the instructions and orders of the subject of power. The latter disappears the need for constant monitoring and application of any penalties. Submission on the basis of such a motive as a belief related to the concepts of mentality, value orientations and attitudes leads to similar results (and even greater ones). The willingness to obey state power in this case is formed under the influence of high ideological motives of a patriotic, religious or moral sense.

Authority also represents a motivation for submission favorable to power. This concept embraces the highly valued qualities that subordinates see in the leader and which ensure their submission without conviction or threat of punishment. Authority is formed on the basis of common interest and consent of the object and subject of power and the belief of subordinates in the special abilities of the leader. Authority can be true when the leader really possesses qualities and abilities attributed to him, and false, based on errors. Depending on the qualities underlying it, authority can be business, scientific, religious, moral, etc.

Power based on interest, conviction and authority often grows into the identification (identification) of a subordinate with a leader. In this case, the maximum power of power is achieved and the leader is perceived by the subordinate as his representative and defender. The identification of the subject of power with the object can be explained by the following reasons: 1) the real dual situation of people in relations of power, for example, in democratic organizations where individuals choose and control leadership, on the one hand, and implement its decisions, on the other; 2) the common interests and values \u200b\u200bof managers and subordinates and the emergence of a sense of unity among performers with the entire organization or group.

2. Mechanisms for the exercise of political power. In the structure of power, the subject and object, sources of power, foundations of power and resources of power are always distinguished.

The subjects of power can be the state and its individual institutions, political elites and leaders. The objects of power are both individuals and social groups, as well as large masses of people - the population of a particular territory or the whole state.

Sources of power can be law, power, authority, prestige, wealth, interest, mystery, charisma, knowledge, ideas, etc.

The foundations of power and the resources of power are close, but not completely identical. Under the foundations of power understand the foundation on which the sources of power are based. Power resources are specific means by which a subject of power acts on an object to achieve its goals. Several typologies of power resources are known. A typology of resources based on the sphere principle is widespread. Certain types of resources are classified according to their areas of application: economic, social, cultural and informational, legal, power, etc.

Economic resources, primarily property and money, have always been the most important resources of any government. In medieval feudal society, state power widely used the most important resource of land ownership at that time to achieve its goals. In Moscow Russia, the nobility was an estate in the public service, for which estates were paid. Money has been and remains an even more universal economic resource. Without them, in modern society it is impossible to seize power or successfully dispose of it.

The social resources of power are its ability to change through various levers, including the economic, social status of individuals and social groups, providing their support and achieving certain goals. For example, in the first years of the existence of the communist regime in our country, the social status of the intelligentsia was low. Subsequently, measures were taken to increase the prestige of intellectual work and raise the status of related social groups, since the need arose for the socio-economic development of the Soviet Union.

Cultural and informational resources are very diverse. Along with the information itself, without which the functioning of any social structure is impossible today, various scientific knowledge, ideas, and spiritual values \u200b\u200bbelong to cultural and information resources. Examples of how the government can use all these resources are easy to find in the history of any country, including ours. Let us ask ourselves a question: why in the Soviet Union almost nothing was reported about railway and air disasters, about destructive natural disasters? This was done deliberately in order to maintain calm and stability in society, confidence in the existing system of government. The Communist, like any other totalitarian regime, dosed information on events in the country and in the world, limited the access of the population to such knowledge, which could call into question the prevailing ideological and political principles.

Power resources include means of violence and coercion, including weapons, as well as state institutions associated with this coercion: army, police, security service, prison, etc.

Demographic resources are the people themselves, without which no government can do. An example of the use of demographic resources is the selection and placement of personnel in various areas of public life, including in the structures of power and management.

Legal resources are laws and other normative acts (presidential decrees, government orders, etc.) that are used by the authorities in the process of their functioning.

In the typology of the famous political scientist A. Etzioni, legal norms, together with the value orientations that determine the behavior of people, are included in the composition of regulatory resources. Along with these resources, he also allocates utilitarian and coercive resources to the authorities. Etzioni classifies various economic and social benefits as utilitarian, and penalties used by the authorities to achieve their goals are compulsory.

Depending on which of the resources the subject uses to influence the object, different types of power are distinguished. We can talk about the economic power that is possessed by those who have money or property in relation to those who have no money and property. So, any employer has a certain degree of power in relation to the employee. The main sign of political power in relation to its other varieties is the fact that it can use all the variety of resources, not only coercive and legal, but also economic, social, cultural, informational, demographic.

Other distinguishing features of political power include:

• A) legality in the use of force;
• B) supremacy, that is, the binding nature of its decisions for all individuals and institutions within a given territory;
• C) publicity, which means the depersonalization of power, some distancing and isolation from other public institutions;
• D) monocentricity, that is, the presence of a single decision-making center; this distinguishes political power from economic power, which has almost as many decision centers as subjects of economic relations.

The typology of historical forms of political power proposed by the French political scientist M. Duverger gained fame. He identified three such forms of power: anonymous - characteristic of primitive, poorly structured societies; individualized - arising as the division of labor and the isolation of individual types of activity become more complicated; and institutionalized - based on a system of social institutions that perform well-defined functions. In modern societies, political power exists primarily in its third, institutionalized form.

Political power is often understood as a synonym for state power, based on the main institutions of the state (parliament, government, law enforcement agencies) and using all the resources controlled by the state. But in the political sphere, power is manifested in other forms. One can speak, for example, of party power, which extends to a certain number of members and supporters of the party. Some public organizations, in particular, trade unions, also have power. The spiritual power based on the use of cultural and information resources may be possessed by the mass media and the public opinion formed by them. Under normal conditions, state power monopolistically occupies the immanently inherent legal position in society. But there may be cases when illegal power structures challenge the monopoly of state power. For example, criminal racketeering disputes the state monopoly on tax collection, criminal groups, terrorizing the population, remove it from subordination to official state structures. All this may be the result of a weakening state and, in turn, lead to the emergence of alternative centers of power and decision-making.

Modern political science defines such basic functions of political power: 1) domination (complete submission of the object to the will of the subject, relying on force); 2) leadership; 3) regulation of public relations; 4) control; 5) coordination; 6) mobilization.

Despite its monocentricity, political power has the properties of separation and distribution. The separation of powers can be horizontal in nature, when certain functions are assigned to special state institutions. For example, the separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial. The separation of powers can also be vertical in nature when its powers are divided between central and local state institutions. But with all the options for the separation of powers, which will be discussed in more detail below, it is necessary to maintain the principle of its monocentricity, eliminating conflicts in the form of confrontation between the legislative and executive authorities or the subject of the federation and the federal center. Violation of the principle of monocentric power can lead to disastrous consequences for society. This happened, for example, in our country after the February Revolution of 1917, when the confrontation between the Provisional Government and the Soviets led first to the destabilization and disorganization of all public life, and ultimately to the establishment of a totalitarian regime.

3. The legitimacy and legitimization of political power. Legitimacy is a term that is widely used in modern political science and political practice. Sometimes it is interpreted extremely widely, identifying with formal legal legality. However, this is far from always the case. From a psychological point of view, the legitimacy of power, indeed, means legitimacy, but subjective legitimacy. For one reason or another, people can give a positive assessment to political institutions that concentrate power within themselves, recognize their right to make managerial decisions and be willing to voluntarily submit to them. This relationship between power and people is called legitimacy. Legitimate power is assessed by people who recognize it as legitimate and fair. Legitimacy also means the presence of authority in the government, the compliance of this government with the basic value orientations of the majority of citizens.

The term "legitimacy" in its current meaning was introduced into the scientific circulation by the German sociologist Max Weber. Although he did not specifically deal with the problems of social or political psychology, a pronounced psychological approach is found in his methodology for distinguishing types of legitimate domination. The characterization of the types of legitimacy of power by M. Weber is based on his own concept of the types of social action. In the most general terms, “social action” is features, methods of human behavior in various spheres of life, the result of which are all social relations and institutions. M. Weber identified several types of social action, depending on what motives this action is determined.

The highest type of social action, the scientist considered the purposeful action. In other words, an action that is motivated solely by conscious, rational interests. It contains a predetermined goal and the path to its achievement is developed with the help of rational tools - mathematical, technical, natural and social scientific knowledge, as well as legal norms. Value-rational social action is based on a conscious belief in certain ethical, aesthetic or religious ideals. The third type of social action M. Weber associated exclusively with emotional and sensory motivation and called it “affective”. Finally, the sociologist characterized the fourth type of social action as “traditional”, where the main motive is habit, unconscious adherence to once and for all established stereotypes of behavior.

Based on the above types of social action, M. Weber identified three types of legitimate domination. The first type was called them "legal." Only in this type do legitimacy and formal legitimacy coincide. The main motive for the submission of power is interest, and it is based on a purposeful social action. In a political system built on the legal type of legitimacy, authorities do not submit to a specific person, but to established laws, and not only those citizens who govern, but also those who are called to govern (the ruling elite, a bureaucratic apparatus consisting of their specially trained officials). The formal legal basis is decisive here. As long as everything is carried out in accordance with the law, the system fully retains its legitimacy. The legal-rational type of legitimate domination cannot do without specially trained, competent officials, who, according to Weber, constitute a rational bureaucracy. A rational bureaucracy implies such a technology and structure of public administration in which the entire administrative process is divided into separate anonymous operations that require professional knowledge, skills and experience.

An official of this type of management must meet the following criteria: 1) to be personally free and subject only to official duty, and not to his or her own interests; 2) occupy a clearly defined place in the service hierarchy; 3) have a certain competence (in this case, know your rights and obligations firmly); 4) work on a contract basis in the conditions of free choice; 5) hold a position in accordance with their professional qualifications; 6) receive regular monetary compensation in accordance with the position held; 7) be able to climb up the ranks of the service hierarchy, depending on the effectiveness of their activities; 8) consider their service as the main profession; 9) not to use his official position and the opportunities arising from it for personal purposes; 10) obey the uniform discipline for all.

However, M. Weber himself understood that in real life the bureaucratic method of management is different from the ideal type. Political practice shows many examples of turning officials into a closed caste, acting not in the interests of society, but mainly for personal purposes. Therefore, to neutralize the negative consequences of bureaucratization of power and management, various forms of control over the activities of officials by political institutions and public opinion are used.

Another type of legitimate domination, in which M. Weber saw the motivation for submission to be a “moral habit of certain behavior”, he called “traditional”. This type of domination is based on a belief in the rule of law and even sacredness from ancient times existing orders and authorities and is associated with traditional social action. Based on a generalization of the historical experience of a number of countries, Weber identifies two forms of traditional legitimate domination: patriarchal and estate. The patriarchal form of organization of traditional power took place, according to Weber, in Byzantium. She is characterized by a relationship of personal dependence in the apparatus of state administration. Although quite high posts can be occupied by both natives of the social lower classes, including yesterday's slaves, and the immediate relatives of the emperor himself, they are all powerless servants of the latter. Examples of the class form, according to Weber, can be found in the feudal states of Western Europe. Here, the mechanism of power is more impersonal. Subordinate links of the power hierarchy have great autonomy, and the hierarchy itself is based on the principles of estate and class honor. This form of traditional domination creates the conditions for the formation of an aristocracy, to some extent restricting the power of the monarch.

With the traditional type of legitimate domination, and especially with its patriarchal form, the role of formal law is extremely low and, therefore, there is no way to act “regardless of the person”. Personal loyalty and loyalty to the boss is much more important than knowledge and competence. Therefore, it is personal loyalty that is an important condition for career advancement.

The third type of legitimate domination has been defined as "charismatic." By charisma (divine gift), M. Weber understood some extraordinary abilities bestowed on some individuals and distinguishing them from other people. The charismatic qualities of a sociologist included the ability to magically affect others, a prophetic gift, outstanding fortitude and words. Charisma, according to Weber, is possessed by heroes, great commanders, magicians, prophets and seers, brilliant artists, prominent politicians and, finally, the founders of world religions such as Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed. The charismatic type of legitimate domination is characterized by a completely different motivation for submission than the traditional one. If with traditional legitimacy, motivation is based on habit, attachment to the usual, once and for all established, then with charismatic legitimacy it is associated with a strong impact on the psyche and consciousness of people of something new, bright, unusual. Here we are talking about the affective type of social action. The source of attachment to the charismatic ruler, willingness to follow his instructions is not tradition and formal legal norms, but emotionally colored personal devotion to him and faith in the charisma of this person. Therefore, M. Weber believed, the charismatic leader must constantly prove the presence of this very charisma, otherwise his power may hang in the air.

The charismatic type differs from the legal-rational and traditional types of legitimate domination in the absence of clear rules and norms; decisions in this case are made from irrational motives. In real political practice, the leader’s charisma may not be associated with any special gift, but is the result of an uncritical perception of his image by supporters and followers. Often, such charisma arises from skillful demagogy and populism. A politician who has come to power on the basis of such “artificial” charisma may soon disappoint his adherents with an inability to fulfill his promises and realize the often utopian wishes of his followers. M. Weber noted that the leader, unable to prove his charisma, begins to lose it. To maintain power, such a leader has no choice but to resort to force, repression. This is the mechanism of the emergence of authoritarian dictatorships in many countries of the "third world". Similar examples could be seen in the post-Soviet space (Georgia under Gamsakhurdia).

It is easy to see that the number of types of social action and types of legitimate domination of M. Weber is not the same. Value-rational social action does not have a corresponding type of legitimacy. Modern concepts of legitimacy eliminate this inconsistency.

In the process of developing political science, ideas of legitimacy also developed. As an object of legitimacy, they began to consider not only power as a substance, but also its institutional expression in the form of a political system as a whole. According to the famous American political scientist S. Lipset, the concept of "legitimacy" means the ability of the system to generate and maintain the people's faith that its political institutions are in the best interests of society. Another equally well-known American political scientist D. Easton considers such a power or political system legitimate that corresponds to the moral principles of individuals, their own ideas about what is fair or correct in the field of politics. As sources of legitimacy D.Iston calls ideology, political regime and political leadership. Based on this, he identifies three types of legitimacy: ideological, structural and personal.

Ideological legitimacy is based on the conviction of citizens in the correctness of those ideological values \u200b\u200bon which the political regime and the institutions representing it are based. The more citizens share the values \u200b\u200band norms that are characteristic of a given political regime, the more legitimacy it has and, conversely, the fewer such citizens, the lower the level of legitimacy. Structural legitimacy is based on the conviction of citizens in the optimal structure of the institutions of the political system and the functions they perform, on the assurance of the correct distribution of roles in the power structures and the approval of the legal norms on which this system is based. It is easy to see that structural legitimacy in understanding Easton is similar to legal and rational legitimacy in understanding Max Weber. In the same way, an analogy can be drawn between personal legitimacy according to D. Easton and charismatic legitimacy according to M. Weber. Personal legitimacy, according to Easton, is based on the belief of individuals in the personal qualities of political leaders, on the confidence in their ability to best manage their power. But if "charisma", Weber believed, is inherent only to outstanding historical figures, then Easton proceeded from the fact that political leaders and those who did not possess special qualities could receive massive support. As real political practice shows, the authorities are able to achieve very ordinary personalities and they can enjoy fairly stable and broad support from the population and, therefore, have personal legitimacy.

A kind of combination of the normative concept of M. Weber and the empirical one - D. Easton is the concept of D. Beetham. He believes that the legitimization of power is carried out simultaneously at three levels:

The first of them form the rules for receiving and sending power.

The second level is the beliefs of the governors and the governed regarding the functioning of the political system.

The third level is the active consent of the governed, expressed in specific political actions. One can speak about the full legitimacy of power only when there is a connection between the content of the rules of the political game, their positive assessment and the political behavior emerging from them on the side of the political system, expressing the will to preserve the system in its unchanged foundations.

In modern political science, the concept of the legitimacy of the political power of the French political scientist J. Chabot gained fame. He defines legitimacy as the adequacy of the real or perceived qualities of managers (as well as those who intend to become them) to the implied or clearly expressed consent of the governed. J. Shabo identifies four types of legitimacy: democratic, ideological, technocratic and ontological. Democratic legitimacy is inherent in political systems that operate on the basis of basic democratic principles: collegial decision-making, taking into account the will of the majority, respect for human rights and freedoms. Democratic legitimacy is relative and should be complemented by other types of legitimacy. First of all, this is technocratic legitimacy, understood by Shabo as a degree of professionalism and competence of those who are in power and make decisions. It is not enough for the leader to win the support of the voters; it is necessary to justify the trust placed in effective managerial activity. Shabo understands the ideological legitimacy in almost the same way as Easton, linking it to the functioning of the Soviet and other totalitarian regimes.

The concept of ontological legitimacy of J. Shabo is the most difficult for perception. The political scientist pointed out that in this case "it is a question of revealing the correspondence of political power to the objective order inscribed in human and social reality, the continuation of the order established in cosmic non-human reality." Here the idea is expressed that the existence of any political system is justified as long as it does not conflict with the most universal laws of the development of nature and society.

For all the variety of concepts of the legitimacy of power, they all have many similar aspects. The differences between them are explained by the complexity of the phenomenon of legitimacy

Along with the theoretical problem of the legitimacy of political power, there is a practical problem of its legitimization, that is, the acquisition of legitimacy in the eyes of society. The legitimization of power in some cases may coincide with legalization - the adoption of fundamental legal acts, primarily constitutions. The mechanism of legitimation can be elections or referenda, with the help of which the level of support by the population of leaders, parties, institutions, regulations or decisions is revealed. The ideological legitimization of power is sometimes necessary not only in totalitarian systems; leaders of the most democratic countries rely on certain ideological values \u200b\u200bto justify their actions and decisions.

One of the fundamental differences of a democratic system is that power cannot be appropriated in it, but only “acquired” as a result of victory in competitive elections. In other words, at the personal level, the legitimation of power is subject to cyclical renewal (confirmation).

In non-democratic systems, the role of a factor that legitimizes the rules for gaining power is played by an ideology based on both values \u200b\u200band group interests, which justify the rejection of political rivalry as such and, therefore, do not require confirmation of power in free elections. The consequence of the rejection of competitive elections is the phenomenon of forced support of the regime, which consists in the impossibility of expressing openly rejection of a particular group of rulers without simultaneously expressing doubts about ideologists and rejecting the basic rules of the political game. The governed face an alternative: either recognition of the full legitimacy of power, or its complete illegitimacy.

In countries of real socialism, the legitimization of power was carried out primarily ideologically (hence the name of these regimes - ideocratic). However, over time, the ruling communist parties were forced to look for other arguments as well (for example, economic successes) to justify their dominance, which, in principle, contradicted the foundations of the existing political system and undermined it from the inside.

Political power, especially of a high level, is often personified. Therefore, in order to maintain the authority and, consequently, the legitimacy of power, it is necessary to maintain and strengthen the authority of the political leaders representing it. Under authoritarian, totalitarian regimes, charismatic or, using Easton’s terminology, personal legitimation can take the form of a “personality cult,” but more civilized examples of such legitimization are also observed in a democracy. For legitimizing power, the effectiveness of the decisions and actions of those who possess it is of great importance. A political regime that does not have sufficient legitimacy can gain it if it contributes to the successful resolution of the problems facing society and, thereby, the satisfaction of the needs and aspirations of the majority of the population.

The following signs can be considered as empirical indicators of the degree of legitimacy of power:

The level of coercion used by the authorities to implement their policies (legitimate authorities can do without direct violence at all, illegitimate authorities often simply “sit on bayonets”).

The presence or absence of attempts to unlawfully overthrow a given government or political leader.

The presence or absence of mass acts of civil disobedience, as well as the power of such disobedience.

The results of elections, referenda, as well as data from case studies, if the latter are reliable.

The degree of corruption of power, etc.

Along with the process of legitimizing power in political practice, the reverse process can also occur - the delegitimization of power, that is, the loss of the factors that determined its legitimacy. The delegation of power can be the result of a number of reasons: 1) a contradiction between the egoistic aspirations of the ruling elite and the ideological values \u200b\u200bprevailing in a given society; 2) a consequence of the contradiction between officially proclaimed democratic principles and real political practice related to the restriction of the rights and freedoms of the population, pressure on the media, and the prosecution of the opposition; 3) the consequence of increasing the inefficiency of the bureaucratic apparatus and increasing its corruption; 4) the result of a split within the ruling elite due to the loss of confidence in the justification of its claims to power; 5) a consequence of the conflict between the branches of government. The crisis of legitimacy can also occur when the political system ceases to accept the requirements of the main social groups, when it lacks or ceases to function mechanisms protecting the interests of the broad masses.

The processes of legitimation and delegitimization of power can be illustrated by examples from the history of the communist political regime in our country. As with any other totalitarian regime, ideological legitimacy was of particular importance to the power of the Bolshevik party in Russia. In the process of legitimizing the communist regime, two main components can be found. The first is associated with the gradual displacement of all views alien to the communist ideology, the second is with the adaptation of the communist ideology itself to the realities and traditions of Russian society. The eradication of dissent began on the very second day after the October coup, but it continued for a fairly long time, since it was necessary to solve a whole range of problems associated with this. It was necessary to eliminate the carriers of ideological trends alien to “Marxism-Leninism”, and at the same time form a new ideological and propaganda apparatus. It took at least two decades to solve this problem. However, this alone would not be enough to establish total ideological control over society. From the point of view of the regime, it was also necessary to establish an information blockade, to turn the USSR into an informationally closed society isolated from the rest of the world. Gradually, Soviet people more and more fenced off not only from the outside world, but also from their past.

Only ideology could not be for so long the only legitimizing factor in the communist regime in the USSR. It was reinforced by factors of a different order. We can talk about a certain economic efficiency of this regime. The tasks of industrial modernization in technical, technological and socio-cultural terms were solved. Agrarian Russia turned into a nuclear missile superpower, launched the first artificial Earth satellite and carried out the first manned flight into space. We should not forget that since the mid-50s there has been a steady tendency towards an increase in the level of material well-being of the majority of the population of the Soviet Union, which could also use a wide range of free social services, albeit not high by international standards.

Improving the life of the Soviet people was a good addition to the promise of universal happiness in the "bright future" - under communism. And the very image of this bright future was an important element of the ideological doctrine and the justification of all the difficulties and troubles of everyday life, legitimized any actions of the authorities. It was ideology for Soviet society that was the most integrating and legitimizing force in the existing government.

Ideological erosion fully became a reality already during the leadership of the country by L.I. Brezhnev. His rule was marked, on the one hand, by previously unprecedented achievements, but also by growing disappointment in former ideals and values. First of all, the idea of \u200b\u200ba “bright future” was discredited - communism, which did not come within the promised time frame, and the party leadership avoided direct explanations with the people about this. Moreover, a real increase in living standards was not always felt psychologically. Often, on the contrary, dissatisfaction with their financial situation intensified due to the continuing deficit in many goods and services. With the aggravation of socio-economic problems, degradation in many areas of public life intensified. Corruption and decomposition of the party-state apparatus began to be clearly revealed. And comprehensive corruption, according to the French sociologist M. Dogan, is a symptom of the delegitimization of the regime. But it was still far from its full delegitimization in the Soviet Union, especially since society for the most part was ignorant of the problems that really confronted it.

At the beginning of the "perestroika", for the most part, Soviet society was not yet ready for serious and systemic changes. M. Gorbachev faced not only the resistance of a part of the conservative apparatus, but also the inertia of the mass consciousness as a whole. Therefore, the help of the media was needed, which received, albeit limited "from above," the freedom to criticize existing realities in order to "stir up" society. But the so-called "glasnost" became the first stone that broke into the abyss and carried away the whole system of myths on which the dominant ideology rested. The process of degradation of ideology continued in previous years, but it collapsed, unable to withstand the "pressure drop" caused by the opening of external and internal ideological gateways. In parallel with the rapid erosion of the ideological foundation of the legitimacy of communist power, the economic inefficiency of the system has also been revealed. As a result of delegitimization, the former economic and political system collapsed, opening a new period in the development of our country.

The process of legitimizing power in the new Russia after the collapse of the communist regime and the collapse of the USSR was not easy. The adoption of the necessary regulatory acts in the new conditions and, above all, the Constitution was delayed. This led to a political crisis. There was a situation when formal legitimacy (legality) and legitimacy not only did not coincide, but in some points were in conflict with each other. So it was in September - October 1993 during the confrontation between President Yeltsin and the majority of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation. By that time, Boris Yeltsin had not yet completely lost his “charisma”, which he had acquired in the struggle against the previous system, including populist methods. In the early years of the “charisma” reforms, Yeltsin was almost the only factor that legitimized the changes that took place and the newly emerging relationships and institutions. As Yeltsin’s popularity fell, the government more and more diligently sought other means of legitimizing it. For example, an ideological factor was involved. If in the early 90s there were references to liberal values, then prominent representatives of the ruling regime used patriotic slogans and rhetoric borrowed from the opposition.

In recent years, as a result of economic stabilization, improvement of legal and political mechanisms, prerequisites have arisen for the establishment of a democratic type of legitimacy. But only time will tell whether this type of legitimacy will prevail in Russian society.

test questions

Compare the main approaches to determining the essence of power and power relations.

What are the main elements in the structure of power.

Find the connection between sources of power and motives for submission.

Which of the power resources do you think are most important?

How is political power different from economic?

What is the connection between the theory of social action of M. Weber and his theory of legitimate domination?

What are the similarities and differences between the concepts of “legality” and “legitimacy”?

What are the similarities and differences between the concepts of “charismatic legitimacy” and “personal legitimacy”?

What, in your opinion, are the criteria for the effectiveness of power?

Describe the role of the ideological factor in the processes of legitimization and delegitimization of the communist regime in the former USSR.

Literature

Alekseeva T.A. Modern political theories. M., 2000.

Achkasov V.A., Eliseev S.M., Lantsov S.A. Legitimation of power in post-socialist Russian society. M., 1996.

Weber M. Selected Works. M., 1990.

Power and Democracy: Foreign Scientists on Political Science / Ed. P.A. Tsygankova. - M., 1992.

Power: essays on the modern political philosophy of the West / Otv. ed. M.V. Mshvenieradze. - M., 1989.

Degtyarev A.A. Fundamentals of political theory. M., 1998.

Canetti E. Mass and Power. M., 1997.

Legitimacy and legitimation of power in Russia / Otv. ed. S.A. Lantsov, S.M. Eliseev. - SPb., 1995.

Ledyaev V.G. Power: Conceptual Analysis. M., 2001.

Political science: new directions / Scientific ed. E.B.Shestopal. - M., 1999.

Political science. Problems of Theory / Ed. V.A. Gutorova. SPb., 2000.

Philosophy of Power / Ed. V.V. Ilyina. - M., 1993.

Power is called social interaction. At least there are at least 2 subjects. One of them obeys, the other realizes with the help of the first his will and interests. In this case, the subjects are the authorities and the people. No subordinates, no power. Power, in fact, itself serves to structure and streamline relationships between people. For this, the authorities use various means, ranging from violence, fear and coercion to persuasion and encouragement.

What is political power and what does it consist of?

Political power is divided into state and public.

• State power is exercised through specially created institutions of power. This is the parliament, the government, the judiciary, law enforcement agencies (police, army, prosecutors, etc.), as well as the legal base.
• A variety of party structures, public organizations, independent media, public opinion in the aggregate form public power.

Always in opposition to state power is public. If opinions on any issues diverge, these 2 components of power begin to confront each other. As a result, either the adoption of a common reasonable decision, or the struggle in different manifestations.

What is characterized by political power

The existence of political power is possible in two main forms:

• official or legal authority
• unofficial, informal power.

If official power is represented by a stable, legitimate state structure, then informal power can be manifested by the power of individual influential persons or clans and even assume a mafia character.

What is the structure of power

Sources of power can be knowledge, an authoritative principle, power or its direct application, wealth, law, prestige, charisma, social and political status. That is, everything connected with the imperious beginning, with the fact that it can make millions obey. Servants of power, those who bring it to life can realize a power attitude through order, submission, punishment, rationing behavior.

The subjects of power are the state, namely its institutions, political elite circles, leaders and political parties. The objects of power are individuals, social groups, masses, classes, etc. The field of activity of the government is economic, social, legal, administrative-power, cultural and informational issues.

By using the resources of power, the means to influence the object of power, power implements and dictates its will. For example, using material means, the government encourages employees of various fields to work. They, in turn, for wages ensure the fulfillment of the will of power.

Tasks [ ] .

The charismatic type of power can be considered the most peculiar. Firstly, it is based on belief in supernatural holiness, heroism or some other dignity of a leader. Moreover, the authority of his personality extends to the institutions of power, contributes to their recognition and acceptance by the population. The unconditional support of the leader by the population often turns into Caesarism, leaderism and a personality cult. Secondly, it is often based on the denial of everything that was before, that is, it implies that the proposed version of domination is the best. A charismatic leader comes to power often in the time of troubles, when there is no need to rely on the authority of traditions or laws, and the population is ready to support someone who promises a better future.

It is because of the very specifics of charismatic power that a number of problems arise with the transfer of power.

Mechanisms for the transfer of charismatic power:

1. The leader himself appoints a successor. In this case, people's love and trust are transferred to the "successor of the cause."
2. The charisma of the institute (“not a person paints a place, but a man’s place”) allows the leader to become one by taking the post of head of state (US President). The charisma of an organization is also widespread, which implies unconditional support by the population of all members of a particular organization (CPSU, CPC, etc.).
3. Charisma of the family is a very rare version of the transfer of power. In this case, the state is governed by members of the same clan or dynasty. In the modern world, this practice exists mainly in eastern countries. The most striking example is the rule of the Gandhi family in India.

If none of the above mechanisms for transferring power is working, the struggle for power begins within the elite.

• advantage: management effectiveness (especially during a crisis)
• drawback: practical accountability and lack of control

Phobocracy

Phobocracy   (from other Greek φόβος   and

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

  - the ability of a social subject (individual, group, layer) to impose and carry out his 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.

They allocate power: political, economic, spiritual, family, etc. Economic power is based on the right and ability of the owner of some resources to influence the production of goods and services, spiritual - on the ability of owners of knowledge, ideology, information to influence the change in people's consciousness.

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

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

Structural Elements of Power

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

In this regard, we must turn to accepted in political science classifications of grounds (sources) of power,   and to understand what type of power is generated by such ones as force or the threat of the use of force, wealth, knowledge, law, charisma, prestige, authority, etc.

Particular attention should be paid to the argumentation (evidence) of the statement that power relations are not only relationships of dependence, but also of 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 subjects on the ruling, but also the ruling on the subjects. Although the volumes of this dependence are different.

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

The main signs of political (state) power

Political power is a kind of power complex,   including both state power, which plays the role of the “first violin” in it, and the power of all other institutional political actors represented by 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 signs   giving it a universal character. In this regard, one must be prepared to disclose the content of such concepts-signs of this power as universality, publicity, supremacy, monocentrism, a variety of resources, a monopoly on the legitimate (i.e., stipulated and stipulated by law) use of force, etc.

With the state (or, in a broader sense, political) power, concepts such as “Political domination”, “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 designed to carry out general leadership and management of the social organism.

Institutionalization of power in the form of political domination means the structuring in society of the relations of command and submission, order and execution, the organizational separation of managerial work and the usually associated privileges, 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 synonyms. First the concept (legality) emphasizes the legal aspects of power   and acts as an integral component of political domination, i.e. regulated by the law of consolidation (institutionalization) of power and its functioning in the form of a hierarchical system of state bodies and institutions. With clearly defined steps of order and execution.

The legitimacy of political power

- the political property of a public authority, which means recognition by most citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any authority based on popular consensus is legitimate.

Power and power relations

Many people, including some political scientists, believe that the struggle for gaining power, its distribution, retention and use constitute 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 someone’s relationship with someone, it’s   always asymmetric ratio, i.e. unequal, dependent, allowing one individual to influence and change the behavior of another.

Grounds of authorityperform in the most general form 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 any joint activity of people there are those who command, and those who obey them; those who make decisions and those who execute them.   Power is characterized by the activities of those who govern.

Sources of power:

• authority- power as a force of habit, traditions, 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   - leadership 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, to establish generally accepted values \u200b\u200band to interact. In undeveloped communities, power can be dissolved; it belongs to all together and to no one individually. But already here, public authority takes on the character of a community’s right to influence the behavior of individuals. However, the difference of interests that is inevitable in any society violates political communication, cooperation, and coherence. This leads to the decomposition of this form of power due to its low efficiency, and, as a result, 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 selected or appointed people - rulers. Rulers   they receive powers from the community (full power, public authority) to manage public relations, that is, to change the activity of subjects in accordance with law. The need for management is explained by the fact that people in relationships with each other very often are guided not by reason, but by passions, which leads to the loss of community goals. Therefore, the ruler must have the power that would keep people within an organized community, would rule out extreme manifestations of selfishness and aggression in public relations, ensuring universal survival.