One of the main specific properties political power is an legitimacy. It is a form support, justify the legitimacy of the use of power and the implementation of (a specific form of) government either by the state as a whole or by its individual structures and institutions.

Etymologically, the word "legitimacy" originates from the Latin legalis - legality. However, legitimacy and legitimacy are not synonymous. Since political power is not always based on law and laws, but always enjoys one or another support of at least a part of the population, legitimacy, which characterizes the support and support of power by real subjects of politics, differs from legality, testifying to a legal, legislatively justified type of government, i.e. on the recognition of its legitimacy by the entire population as a whole. In some political systems, power can be legal and illegitimate, as, for example, during the rule of metropolises in colonial states, in others it can be legitimate, but illegal, as, say, after a revolutionary coup supported by the majority of the population, in others, both legal and legitimate, as, for example, after the victory of certain forces in the elections.

In the history of political thought, many conflicting views have been expressed regarding the very possibility of legitimizing power. Thus, scientists who stand on anthropological positions and the platform of natural law proceed from the fact that legitimacy is possible and real, since in human society there are some absolute values ​​and ideals common to all. This gives citizens the opportunity to maintain power.

At the same time, many scientists believe that it is precisely the absence of such common ideas in a segmented society that is the reason for the impossibility of the emergence of legitimacy. So, according to the Austrian scientist G. Kelsen, human knowledge and interests are extremely relative, and therefore everyone is free both in designing their lives and in relation to power. At the same time, supporters of contractual theories argue that support for power is possible as long as there is a joint agreement among citizens regarding its goals and values. Therefore, "any type of legitimacy presupposes the existence of a minimum social consensus about those values ​​that are accepted by the majority of society and which underlie the functioning of the political regime."

Another approach in the XVIII century. proposed by the English thinker E. Burke, who shared the theoretical and practical aspects of legitimacy. He did not analyze legitimacy in itself, but connected it only with a specific regime, with specific citizens. In his opinion, only the positive experience and habit of the population can lead to the construction of a model of power in which it would satisfy the interests of citizens and, therefore, could enjoy their support. Moreover, this experience and the corresponding conditions should be formed, accumulated in an evolutionary manner, preventing the conscious construction of legitimacy.

Currently in political science It is customary to take a more concrete approach to the concept of legitimacy, fixing a much wider range of its sources and forms. Thus, as a rule, three subjects are considered as the main sources of legitimacy: the population, the government, and foreign policy structures.

Legitimacy, which means support for power from the general population, is the most cherished goal of all political regimes. It is this that primarily ensures the stability and sustainability of power. The positive attitude of the population towards the policy of the authorities and their recognition of the competence of the ruling elite are formed on any problems that are in the focus of public opinion. Approval and support by the population of the authorities are associated with a variety of political and civil traditions, mechanisms for the dissemination of ideologies, processes for the formation of the authority of values ​​shared by the "tops" and "bottoms" of values, a certain organization of the state and society. This makes us treat legitimacy as a political and cultural characteristic of power relations.

The population, as already noted, can support the rulers even when they govern the state poorly. Because of this, such legitimacy can be formed even in the face of a decrease in the effectiveness of government. Therefore, with this form of legitimacy, the real disposition and complementarity of citizens to the existing regime, which does not depend on formal legal regulations, is put at the forefront.

At the same time, legitimacy can be initiated and formed not by the population, but by the people themselves. state (government) and political structures (pro-government parties) that encourage the mass consciousness to reproduce positive assessments of the activities of the ruling regime. Such legitimacy is already based on the right of citizens to fulfill their obligations to maintain a certain order and relations with the state. It directly depends on the ability of the authorities, elite structures to create and maintain people's beliefs in the justice and optimality of the established political institutions and their line of conduct.

For the formation of such legitimacy, the institutional and communicative resources of the state are of great importance. True, such forms of legitimacy often turn into excessive legalization, which ultimately makes it possible to consider any institutionally and legislatively formalized government as the legalized right of the authorities to use coercion. Thus, legitimacy is essentially identified with the legality, legitimacy, legal validity of state power and the security of its existence in society.

Legitimacy can be formed external political centers - friendly states, international organizations. This kind of political support is often used in the election of state leaders, in international conflicts.

In other words, within the state, different political subjects may have a different character and have different level support from public or international opinion. For example, the institution of the presidency in Yugoslavia enjoys wide support at home, but is strongly condemned in the international arena, where many countries recognize Milosevic as a war criminal. Or, conversely, individual politicians or parties at home may be ostracized, while abroad enjoy support as representatives of the democratic movement. Thus, the population can support the parliament and protest against the activities of the government, or it can support the president and have a negative attitude towards the activities of representative bodies. Thus, legitimacy can be of varying intensity, making it possible to establish hierarchical links between individual politicians and authorities.

The diversity of opportunities for different political actors to support a system of government suggests equally diverse types of legitimacy. In political science, the most popular classification was compiled by M. Weber, who, from the point of view of subordination motivation, distinguished the following types:

-traditional legitimacy, formed on the basis of people's belief in the necessity and inevitability of submission to power, which in society (group) receives the status of tradition, custom, habit of obedience to certain individuals or political institutions. This type of legitimacy is especially common in the hereditary type of government, in particular, in monarchical states. A long habit of justifying this or that form of government creates the effect of its justice and legitimacy, which gives power a high stability and stability;

-rational(democratic) legitimacy arising from the recognition by people of the justice of those rational and democratic procedures on the basis of which the system of government is formed. This type support is formed due to a person's understanding of the presence of third-party interests, which implies the need to develop rules general behavior, following which creates an opportunity for the realization of his own goals. In other words, the rational type of legitimacy has, in fact, a normative basis characteristic of the organization of power in complexly organized societies. People here are subject not so much to personalities embodying power, but to rules, laws, procedures, and, consequently, political structures and institutions formed on their basis. At the same time, the content of rules and institutions can dynamically change depending on changes in mutual interests and living conditions;

– charismatic legitimacy that develops as a result of people's belief in the outstanding qualities they recognize as a political leader. This image of an infallible person endowed with exceptional qualities (charisma) is transferred by public opinion to the entire system of power. Unconditionally believing in all the actions and plans of a charismatic leader, people uncritically perceive the style and methods of his rule. The emotional enthusiasm of the population, which forms this highest authority, most often occurs during a period of revolutionary change, when the social orders and ideals familiar to a person are collapsing and people cannot rely on anything. former norms and values, nor on the still emerging rules of the political game. Therefore, the charisma of a leader embodies the faith and hope of people for a better future in Time of Troubles. But such unconditional support of the ruler by the population often turns into Caesarism, leaderism and a cult of personality.

In addition to these ways of supporting power, a number of scientists single out others, giving legitimacy a more universal and dynamic character. Thus, the English researcher D. Held, along with the types of legitimacy already known to us, suggests talking about such types of legitimacy as: "consent under the threat of violence", when people support power, fearing threats from its side, up to a threat to their security; legitimacy based on apathy population, testifying to its indifference to the prevailing style and forms of government; pragmatic(instrumental) support, in which the trust rendered to the authorities is carried out in exchange for the promises of certain social benefits given by it; normative support, which implies the coincidence of political principles shared by the population and the authorities; and finally the highest standard support, meaning the complete coincidence of such principles.

Some scholars also distinguish ideological a type of legitimacy that provokes public support for the authorities as a result of active agitation and propaganda activities carried out by the ruling circles. Allocate and patriotic a type of legitimacy in which the highest criterion for the support of the authorities is the pride of a person for his country, for its domestic and foreign policy.

Legitimacy has the property of changing its intensity, i.e. the nature and degree of support for the government (and its institutions), so we can talk about crises of legitimacy. Crises are understood as such a drop in real support for public authorities or the ruling regime as a whole, which affects the qualitative change in their roles and functions.

Currently, there is no unambiguous answer to the question: are there absolute indicators of a crisis of legitimacy or is it a purely situational characteristic of political processes? Thus, scientists who link the crisis of the legitimacy of the regime with the destabilization of political power and government name the following factors as such criteria:

Ø the impossibility of the authorities to carry out their functions or the presence of illegitimate violence in the political space (f. Bili);

Ø the presence of military conflicts and civil wars (D. Jaworski);

Ø the government's inability to adapt to changing conditions (E. Zimmerman);

Ø destruction of the constitutional order (S. Huntington);

Ø lack of major structural changes or reduced effectiveness of the government in carrying out its main tasks - budgeting and distribution political functions among the elite. American scientist D. Siring believes: the higher the level political participation in the country, the stronger the support political structures and community leaders; he also points to the maintenance of the socio-economic status quo. Calculations of socio-economic indicators are also widespread, the achievement of which indicates that the system of power has gone beyond its critical values.

Supporters of a situational consideration of the causes of crises of legitimacy most often associate them with the characteristics of the socio-cultural features of the population, the role of stereotypes and traditions that operate both among the elite and among the population, attempts to establish a quantitative limit of legitimate support (in terms of figures of 20–25% of the electorate). It is possible that such approaches are to a certain extent based on the ideas of L. S. Frank, who wrote: “Every system arises from faith in it and is maintained as long as this faith is preserved in at least a minority of its participants, as long as there is at least a relatively small the number of "righteous" (in the subjective sense of the word) who disinterestedly believe in him and selflessly serve him.

Summarizing the most significant approaches, we can say that the main sources of the crisis of the legitimacy of the ruling regime, as such, can be called the level of political protest of the population, aimed at overthrowing the regime, as well as indicating distrust of the regime results of elections, referendums,

plebiscites. These indicators indicate the "lower" limit of legitimacy, followed by the collapse of the current regime and even a complete change in the constitutional order. To the factors that determine its "upper" limit, i.e. the current, dynamic change in likes and dislikes for the authorities can be attributed to: the functional overload of the state and the limited resources of the authorities, a sharp increase in the activity of opposition forces, the constant violation of the regime established rules political game, the inability of the authorities to explain to the population the essence of their policy, the wide spread of such social diseases as an increase in crime, a drop in living standards, etc.

In general, the resolution of crises of legitimacy should be built taking into account the specific reasons for the decline in support for the political regime as a whole or its particular institution, as well as the type and source of support. As the main ways and means of overcoming crisis situations for a state where public opinion is valued, the following can be mentioned:

Maintaining constant contacts with the population;

Conducting explanatory work regarding their goals;

Strengthening the role legal methods achieving goals and constantly updating legislation;

The balance of the branches of power;

Compliance with the rules of the political game without prejudice to the interests of the forces participating in it;

Organization of control by the organized public over various levels of government;

Strengthening democratic values ​​in society;

Overcoming the legal nihilism of the population, etc.

Legitimacy of political power

(lat. Legitimus - legal) - recognition by the people and political forces of the legitimacy, legitimacy of political power, its tools, mechanisms of activity, as well as the methods of its election. Legitimacy is not a legal process, therefore, from a political science point of view, it does not have legal functions. It fixes the fact of recognition by the people, and therefore, is empowered to prescribe norms of behavior for people. Legitimate power is therefore mutually trusting. The people trust the government to carry out certain functions, and the government undertakes to fulfill them using a variety of mechanisms and methods.

Most effective method the legitimacy of political power is the involvement of citizens in the management of society and the state, control over the activities of officials. At the same time, the level of legitimacy increases. Another trend shows that the lower the level of legitimacy, the stronger the coercion, and power, based not only on force, is “naked power” (B. Russell).

The state of full legitimacy is a very difficult process to achieve and maintain. Only in a society with established norms of behavior, a developed culture of power and a culture of the people, high level socio-economic and political development, we can seriously talk about the legitimacy of political power, its individual bodies.

Since the time of M. Weber, three models of legitimacy have been distinguished. Traditional legitimacy is based on customs, strength and loyalty to the traditions that have developed in a particular society. Charismatic legitimacy is characterized by personal loyalty to the leader, the leader due to his extraordinary qualities. Rational legitimacy is based on the rationality principle by which political power is established.

There are three levels of legitimacy of power: ideological, structural and personalistic. The ideological level is based on the correspondence of power to a certain ideology. Structural level characterizes stability political system society, in which the mechanisms for the formation of its institutions have been worked out. Personalist legitimacy is the approval of a particular ruling person by the population.

The decisive lever of legitimacy, capable power, its strength and authority is law, legal culture. If there is no legality as an independent mechanism and regulator of public and private life, then this vacuum is filled by the authorities and it acquires the function of “legal” activity, i.e. becomes an institution of “right of power”. The “right of power” preserves the alienation of the authorities and the people, the illegitimacy of relations between them and creates a field of impunity, illegal actions of the authorities, gives rise to legal nihilism among citizens. In the situation of "right of power" it is impossible to achieve a conscious motivation for the activities of people, since they are not free, crumpled by the "right power", which is absolute and does not change, improve, etc. General lawlessness can lead to the process of desocialization of society and the state.

In society and the state, the rule of law, based on freedom, culture and the interests of the people, the individual, should prevail.

Shpak V.Yu.

Political science. Vocabulary. - M: RGU. V.N. Konovalov. 2010 .

Political science. Vocabulary. - RGU. V.N. Konovalov. 2010 .

See what "Legitimacy of political power" is in other dictionaries:

This article lacks links to sources of information. The information must be verifiable, otherwise it may be questioned and removed. You can ... Wikipedia

LEGITIMACY- (lat. legitimus legal, lawful) the degree of correspondence of political power with the value representation of individuals, social groups, society; the conviction of the population in the need to obey the authorities. The author of the term, the German scientist M. Weber, ... ... Political Dictionary-Reference

LEGITIMACY- (Latin legitimus agreeing with the laws, legal, lawful) a certain historically established, socially significant order of the origin and functioning of power, which makes it possible to achieve agreement in power structures and in their ... ... Political Science: Dictionary-Reference

- (lat. kgitt mus legal) an obligatory sign of the legitimate authority of any civilized state, denoting its recognition both within the country and in the international arena. L. as a concept develops during the period of the English and French bourgeois ... Law Encyclopedia

LEGITIMACY- (LEGITIMACY) contemporary problem legitimacy is a problem of political representation and consensus. Problem political legitimacy arises with the disappearance of lines political relations inherent in small societies; currently… … sociological dictionary

legitimacy- a legal term used in political science (see) to characterize a social order that has prestige, by virtue of which it dictates mandatory requirements and sets patterns of behavior. L. is not so much a property of itself ... ... Terminological dictionary of a librarian on socio-economic topics

LEGITIMACY legitimacy of the regime, politicians and leaders, reflecting the qualities that stem not from formal laws and decrees, but from social harmony and their acceptance as legitimate, that is, corresponding to the value norms with ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

- (legitimacy) Consists in the fact that the procedure applied by a particular system of government for creating and enforcing laws is acceptable to its citizens. The term is taken from Weberian sociology. As Weber emphasized, ... ... Political science. Vocabulary.

Power and body of power- social force, unity of will and means of subordinating some social subjects to others. V. is a necessary mechanism for managing and social regulation. Implementation in. presupposes its legitimacy - the justification and recognition of its powers ... ... Projective Philosophical Dictionary

RULE OF STATE POWER- Unlimited state power by nothing but the Constitution, natural law and laws. V.g.v. means that there is no other, competing power on the territory of the state, that no other power stands and cannot stand above it. So… … encyclopedic Dictionary"Constitutional Law of Russia"

Books

• For which the `party of crooks and thieves` disliked me, Gudkov Gennady Vladimirovich. Gennady Gudkov involuntarily became the most scandalous deputy in the recent history of Russia. He ended up in the State Duma in 2001, having made a difficult path from the leader of the People's Party and parliamentarian, ...
• Why did the "party of crooks and thieves" dislike me, Gudkov Gennady Vladimirovich. "Gennady Gudkov involuntarily became the most scandalous deputy in the recent history of Russia. He ended up in the State Duma in 2001, having come a difficult way from the leader of the People's Party and parliamentarian, ...

Foundations of political power, its legitimacy

Everything in the life of society has a beginning. There is a beginning and the political power that dominates in a particular country. Historical experience shows that much depends on what this beginning was in its further fate. It is known that political power can be formed as a result of free democratic elections, but it can also be the result of a military coup or a bloody revolution, which will become a tragedy for many segments of the population and take millions of human lives, completely destroy the country's economy. The people do not forget the tragedies associated with the establishment of power. Decades pass, generations change, but the feeling of distrust of the people in the government that illegally led the country remains ineradicable, the relationship between those in power and those under the rule is based, as a rule, on the fear of the latter.

People have different attitudes towards power, originally legal, officially recognized by society itself and foreign states. Such an initial competent formation of power contributes to the establishment of a consensus in relation to society and political power, the recognition by society and the people of its right to a leading role. It should be noted, however, that in itself the initially legitimate establishment of power is not a guarantee that in the future this political power will fully justify the trust of the people. There are numerous examples of bitter disappointment in society. There are many such examples, including in the history of Russia in recent years.

So, the recognition by society of the legitimacy, legitimacy of official power is its fundamental characteristic. In political science this characteristic denoted by the concept of "legitimacy" (from lat. legitimus - legal). Let us immediately emphasize that we are talking about public recognition of power, about the trust and support that society and the people provide to it, and not about the legal, legal consolidation of political power in the relevant state documents. It is not difficult for those who have taken power into their own hands to obtain legal, legal legitimacy. Therefore, the price of such a formal recognition of power is not so great in comparison with the recognition of political power by the people, that is, the legitimacy of political power. Accordingly, one should distinguish between the concepts of "legitimate power" (public recognition of its legitimacy) and "legal power" (legal, formal consolidation).

The concept of "legitimate power" was first introduced into science by the German scientist Max Weber. He also showed that legitimation(obtaining legitimacy by the authorities) is not in all cases the same type of process that has the same roots, one basis. Weber singled out three main sources (foundations) of legitimacy, legitimacy of political power.

First, power can gain legitimacy in accordance with tradition. For example, under the monarchical form of government, according to the established tradition, power is inherited.

Secondly, political power acquires the qualities of legitimacy due to the huge popularity and personality cult of a politician who heads state power. Weber called this type of power charismatic. Charisma (from Greek charisma) means a divine gift. This type of legitimacy of political power is based on exclusive, unique properties that the leader discovers, allowing him to act as a prophet and leader.

Thirdly, the legitimacy of power, which is based rational-legal basis. This power is recognized by the people because it is based on rational laws recognized by them.

This differentiation speaks volumes. To paraphrase a well-known proverb, one can state: “Tell me what type of legitimacy of power is in a given country, and I will tell you about the level of its economic and political development, about the political regime that prevails in it, about the goals set by political power, and even about” duration of her life. At least, it is possible to say with a fairly high degree of accuracy whether this power will be long-term or short-term.

In particular, it is obvious that the first two of these types of legitimacy of political power - traditional and charismatic - are characteristic of states with a poorly developed political system. They are also in economic terms are usually underdeveloped. If such countries have a high economic level, then this is not the result of natural processes, but a consequence of special circumstances (for example, wealth in energy resources in countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, etc.). According to the form of government, these are monarchies or political regimes headed by charismatic leaders. Of course, in modern world there are states that have retained the monarchy (for example, Great Britain), the legitimacy of political power in which cannot be attributed to the two named. These states, as a rule, have a parliamentary form of organization of power. In them, the real basis of power is its rational-legal basis. For them, as well as for all democratic countries, the third of the named types of legitimacy of political power is characteristic. As a rule, all states that have the third type of legitimacy as the basis (source) of power are characterized by a highly developed political system.

Traditional and rational-legal types of legitimacy of power are more durable than charismatic ones. In the first case, one heir succeeds another, and, other things being equal, this can continue for many decades, or even centuries. For example, the legitimacy of the royal power of Great Britain is so strong that at the present time (despite all the scandals that have occurred last years in the royal family) only 25% of the British, as follows from the surveys, are strongly in favor of the elimination of the institution of the monarchy in the country. Support the monarchy 35%. The rest do not insist on the abolition of the monarchy, because, in their opinion, it is still better than the so far unknown system that will replace it.

The legitimacy of power, based on a rational-legal criterion, also (and perhaps to an even greater extent) provides a basis for predicting its longevity. This is facilitated by the fact that this form is characteristic of political power in states with modern democratic political regimes, with a high level of political and political development. economic systems characterized by political and economic stability. As an example, we can say about the presidential power in the United States.

But the charismatic legitimacy of political power does not provide grounds for predicting its long existence. It's not just that with the death of a charismatic political leader, everything changes. There are other reasons as well. This type of legitimacy of power performs a special function. Its formation is associated, as a rule, with periods of profound social changes - revolutions, wars, large-scale social reforms, when it becomes vitally important to "raise", mobilize, lead the whole people in order to achieve the goals set. To do this, it is necessary to eliminate the established orders in society, to overcome social inertia. To achieve the goals set by a charismatic political leader, the masses are needed, who do not have a high political culture, blindly trusting their leader. Relative (on the scale of history) short duration, based on the charisma of power, is also determined by the means that it uses. This is the desire of the leader for sole power, the all-round maintenance of the cult of his personality, the suppression of all democratic forms in the development of society, the constant search for "enemies of the people", physical reprisals, etc. It is obvious that sooner or later all these manifestations of charismatic legitimacy are perceived by the people as a manifestation of a far from the best (from known civilizations) form of political power.

The legitimacy of political power is a circumstance that is given great importance. Practice shows that the support of the authorities by the society and the demonstration of trust are an important factor in its effectiveness. Conversely, the weak conviction of citizens in the legitimacy of political power is one of the reasons for its instability. Therefore, any political power in every possible way seeks to maintain and stimulate the trust of the people. For this, various means are used. Various documents are published: decrees, resolutions, legislative acts. The objects of legitimation are usually the state itself and its organs, the social system, political regime, ongoing political and economic programs, etc. Informal effective methods and means are used. These can be political movements in support of the authorities, non-governmental organizations pursuing the same goal. Recent events in Russia provide an example of the legitimation of political power: after October 1993, the creation of a new system of power was accompanied by the adoption of a new Constitution, a referendum, and elections to Federal Assembly. With the help of these means, the new government carried out the process of its legitimation, that is, gaining the support and trust of the people.

In the legitimization of political power, the personality of the statesman plays an important role as a guarantor of legitimacy. In the Constitution Russian Federation it is noted that the President of the Russian Federation is its guarantor.

Such means as various kinds of rituals, symbols, and the use of traditions are essential for strengthening the confidence in the authorities on the part of the people. As an example of adherence to traditions and rituals, the English political system can be cited. Of course, any political power cares about maintaining its legitimacy. One can even state the existence in each country of a system for ensuring the legitimacy of power. The structural components of this system are the bodies of legitimization of political power, directly or indirectly contributing to the preservation of people's trust in the existing political system. These include

bodies of state power and administration (legislative, executive and judicial power);

authorities influencing political consciousness(facilities mass media);

power structures (organs of violence).

Legitimation methods include

persuasion (impact on political consciousness);

inclusion (participation in ruling, granting privileges);

traditionalism (appeal to stereotypes of thinking and behavior);

the possibility of using force is also not ruled out.

On the other hand, it should be noted that there are many factors that weaken the legitimacy of political power. For example, a situation in which political power is powerless to protect society from crime, corruption and other antisocial phenomena causes great damage to legitimacy.

It should be noted that the original legitimacy of political power (whichever of the three named types it belongs to) is not a guarantee that the trust of the people will never be lost. History knows many examples when political power, while remaining legal (legal), ceases to be legitimate, that is, enjoying the trust of the majority of members of society. There are many reasons. These include the country's crisis situation, which political leaders are unable to change, unfulfilled programs and promises, and much more.

Any government needs legitimacy.

Legitimacy - the political function of a state authority, which means the recognition by the majority of citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any power is legitimate, which is based on popular consensus.

concept "legitimacy" means recognition by the community of an indisputable basis for officials (rulers) to exercise power functions. It is worth noting that it is opposed to the illegal seizure of power, its usurpation. Legitimacy implies trust in the authorities and the support of the rulers, i.e. loyalty, on the part of the majority of the members of the community, because in any society there are always people who are in opposition to the rulers.

The main thing in the concept of “legitimacy” will be the nature (“tonality”) of the attitude towards power on the part of the population (people) subject to it. - legitimate. If ϶ᴛᴏ is not so, and the people do not “love” the authorities and do not trust the authorities, although they obey it for the time being within the instinct of self-preservation (primarily because of the fear of mass repressions), then such authority appears as illegitimate .

Raising the question of the legitimacy of state power requires knowledge of the content and sources of not only the three classical types of legitimacy - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal (democratic) - but also such types of legitimacy as ideological, technocratic, etc. It is also required to answer the question of whether how do the legitimacy of power and its effectiveness (effectiveness) fit together

Note that technocratic legitimacy

Along with the traditional types of legitimacy of power (traditional, charismatic and rational-legal), there is also such a type as technocratic legitimacy.

For the simple reason that politics deals with the interests and destinies of millions of people, and the cost of mistakes in this area often takes the form of tragedies for entire nations, the question of the effectiveness of politics and politicians is particularly acute. It is with this issue that technocratic legitimacy is connected, the core of which is the requirement for the authorities to be competent, to be professional. It should be borne in mind that for those who exercise power or hope to achieve it, politics takes on the character of a craft, a specialized occupation, which necessarily implies the presence of special knowledge and experience. If ϶ᴛᴏ is not so, then politics turns into politicking, loses effectiveness. Very figuratively, the essence of technocratic legitimacy is expressed by Russian folk proverbs: “Take hold of the tug, do not say that you are not hefty”, “Do not know the ford, do not stick your head into the water.”

The formula that reflects the relationship (interdependence) between the legitimacy and effectiveness of power is the rule: the degree of legitimacy of power is most often directly proportional to its effectiveness, i.e. the more efficiency, the more legitimacy. And vice versa. In the event that ϶ᴛᴏth efficiency, which is called “the cat cried”, then the initially legitimate government, which does not cope with the tasks assigned to it, eventually loses the trust of citizens and turns into illegitimate in their eyes.

If we evaluate the power in post-socialist Russia through this prism, then it clearly lacks professionalism. It is known that Germany and Japan, defeated and thoroughly destroyed in the Second World War, took some 15-20 years to perform an “economic miracle” and be reborn like a “phoenix bird from the ashes”. But for the same period of time (if we date the start of market reforms to August 1991), we have not even fully restored what (through thoughtlessness or malicious intent) we thoroughly destroyed.

It is no coincidence that on October 26, 2006 - the day after the communication of the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin on the air with the people, during which he had to "take the rap" for all the "sins" of the executive of those in power - the then chairman of the federal government M. Fradkov appointed members ϲʙᴏ of his cabinet is a disappointing diagnosis: "collective irresponsibility" associated with "organizational weakness and insufficient knowledge of the subject." That is, what you manage and what you manage.

Types of legitimacy

Distinguish three "ideal types" legitimacy:

• traditional, based on a set of customs, the power of action of which has been recognized since time immemorial, and on the habit rooted in a person to adhere to such customs;
• charismatic, which is entirely characterized by the personal devotion of people who are subject to the cause of a person and their trust only in his person as a leader-leader;
• rational, arising from ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙia of power to a rational principle, with the help of which the legal order of the current political system is established.

In relation to the last type, the concept of “democratic legitimacy” is used as a synonym.

In addition to these three "ideal types", there are other types of legitimacy, namely:

• technocratic, which can be expressed by a Russian proverb: “He took hold of the tug, do not say that it is not hefty”, i.e. power must be professional;
• ontological(ontology - the doctrine of being), which contains ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙie powers universal principles human and social existence.

Structural legitimacy

The most important factor in recognizing the validity of government is the formation of authorities on the basis of legality. This is structural legitimacy(first view) It is worth noting that it is called so because it determines the structure of the political system. This legitimacy can take two forms. First of all, ϶ᴛᴏ traditional legitimacy, which implies public recognition of the rulers who have received power in ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙ and with the traditions and customs of this community: elders, leader (the most authoritative leader), the monarch, etc. Secondly, ϶ᴛᴏ is more common in democratic communities legal legitimacy, i.e., public recognition of the transfer of power in ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙii with established laws on the election of government bodies.

At the same time, the acquisition by rulers of powers on a legal basis does not yet guarantee them the preservation of trust and support, i.e., legitimacy. abuse of power, violation of laws and citizens' ideas about justice, the inefficiency of government bodies in managing society can cause a political crisis, undermine confidence, i.e., loss of legitimacy. In established democracies, crises of legitimacy are resolved in a civilized manner. It is worth saying that for ϶ᴛᴏgo, procedures are provided for the removal from power of a ruler who has lost authority. For example, an increase in extra-parliamentary forms of political activity (rallies, protest marches, etc.) can lead to the voluntary resignation of political leaders, early elections, a referendum, etc.

Charismatic legitimacy

Charismatic legitimacy is based on the belief in the special talent of a leader who claims access to political power, his charisma is a divine gift, grace. The trust of citizens in this case has an emotional character and is based on personal sympathy for the leader. With ϶ᴛᴏm, the importance of legal norms is belittled on both sides. The charismatic way of legitimizing rulers is often used during periods of revolution, when new authorities cannot rely on law or tradition.

The named types of legitimacy will be ideal models. AT political practice they intertwine and complement each other. Today there will be new types of legitimacy. The rise of nationalism led to the emergence of the so-called ethnic legitimacy- the formation of power structures on a national basis. This variety can be attributed to the kind of legal legitimacy, when the qualification of nationality is explicitly or implicitly used in elections.

Degree of legitimacy, i.e., trust in rulers, is difficult to quantify. At the same time, there are certain indicators that can be used for this purpose. Among them are: the level of coercion necessary for the performance of managerial functions by the rulers; the nature of attempts to replace representatives of authorities, manifestations of civil disobedience (riots, strikes, etc.); election results; survey results; and etc.

Legitimacy of political power

Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and just. The word "legitimacy" itself comes from the Latin. legitimus- law. But not every legitimate power can be legitimate. Already in the Middle Ages, there are theoretical justifications that a monarch who becomes a tyrant and does not fulfill his destiny deprives his power of legitimacy. In the ϶ᴛᴏm case, the people have the right to overthrow such a government (F. Aquinas, in particular, spoke about ϶ᴛᴏm)

Legitimacy - ϶ᴛᴏ confidence of the people that the government will fulfill ϲʙᴏ and obligations; recognition of the authority of power and voluntary submission to it; an idea of ​​the correct and expedient use of power, incl. and violence. Legitimate power is traditionally able to ensure the stability and development of society without resorting to violence.

M. Weber singled out three main types of political domination and ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙforms of legitimacy that they give:

• traditional domination - legitimacy based on the traditions of a patriarchal society, for example, monarchy - traditional legitimacy;
• charismatic dominance - legitimacy based on real or imaginary outstanding qualities of the ruler, leader, prophet - charismatic legitimacy;
• dominance based on rationally created rules— rational legal legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in a democratic society.

In addition to those listed, there are other types of legitimacy, for example: ontological, ideological, structural, etc.

Ontological legitimacy most typical of ancient and traditional societies, when the existing norms of being are perceived by people as a natural (non-human) established order, and its violation as a catastrophe, anarchy, chaos. This is the recognition by a person (society) of the existing order as the norm of being, which applies not only to society, but to the entire outer space. It is this legitimacy that is closely linked to the life and death of the canonized political leader of the nation. His life represents power and order, and his death represents anarchy and chaos. History knows many examples when, after the death of his leader, the people were afraid of the future. An example is the death of V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, Kim Il Sung (North Korea), etc.

At the core ideological legitimacy there are certain ideological "constructions" - attractive ideas, promises of a "bright future" or "new world order", religious dogmas, etc. Thus, the communist ideology and promises of the rapid construction of communism largely ensured the legitimacy of the Soviet regime of power; the ideas of national socialism contributed to the legitimization of the fascist regime in Germany. Some countries of the Near and Middle East elevated Islam to the rank of state ideology.

Structural legitimacy is based on the rules and norms established in society for the establishment and change of power, for example, the constitution (constitutional legitimacy) If the majority of citizens are dissatisfied with the political power existing in society, they “tolerate” it until new elections.

The legitimacy of power is closely related to its effectiveness. Power, which has legal grounds for dominance in society, as a result of its ineffective policy, may lose the trust of citizens and become illegitimate. And vice versa, power that has no legal basis, as a result of effective policy, can gain the trust of the people and become legitimate. The process of recognizing the legitimacy of power is called se legitimization and the loss of its legitimacy - delegitimization.

Any political power, even the most reactionary one, strives to appear in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the world community as effective and legitimate. Therefore, the process of legitimization of power will be a matter of special concern to the ruling elite. It is important to note that one of the most common tricks is to hush up the negative results of its policy and all sorts of "bulging out" real and imaginary successes. Quite often, independent media become an obstacle in such a substitution of negative factors for positive ones. An illegitimate and inefficient government is afraid to enter into a dialogue with society and with their opponents, ɥᴛᴏ in order not to finally show their inconsistency. Therefore, it seeks in every way to limit the activities of independent media or to put them under ϲʙᴏth control.

Legitimation is the process of asserting the legitimacy or legitimacy of power within society. The essence of this phenomenon reflects the constant desire of persons with certain powers to confirm their political viability. Thus, the legitimacy of power is the recognition by the public masses of the legitimacy of power, which is based on the voluntary consent of the population to obey its decisions.

One can speak of the legitimacy of force if the methods of its establishment and the results of its activities are consistent with the moral and legal norms, views, principles and beliefs characteristic of the majority of citizens.

In political science, Weber's classification of the legitimacy and legitimacy of force is widely used. According to Weber's concept, legitimacy is traditional, legal and charismatic.

The traditional type of legality and legitimacy is based on the belief of the population in the inviolability of traditions and norms that have developed in the course of a certain historical development specific society. These foundations regulate, empowering some and forcing others to obey. All members of society are required to comply with the rules. In case of disobedience, certain sanctions approved in society are applied. The typical legitimacy of the type is reflected in monarchical regimes. At the same time, the transfer of powers from one person to another occurs in accordance with tradition.

The charismatic legitimacy of power is based on special personal qualities, charisma - determination, courage, courage and so on. Thus, political force becomes recognized and legitimate. Charisma can contribute to the formation of a leader, his idealization and deification. The legitimacy of this type of power can manifest itself in different ways. The charismatic type of legitimacy and legitimacy of force was characteristic of the Roman Empire under Julius Caesar, France during the reign of Napoleon, the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong.

The legal legitimacy of power is based on the legal system established and used in society, in accordance with specific historical circumstances. Persons endowed with political power are appointed (or elected) according to the existing legal procedure. At the same time, the rules for the activities of political figures are clearly spelled out in legal acts.

Legitimacy is an essential property of state power. The term arose at the beginning of the 19th century in France and was used as a characteristic of legality. It should be noted that at that time the power of Napoleon was considered unauthorized-usurped and, therefore, illegal and unauthorized (illegitimate). Subsequently, the scope of the content of the concept has increased significantly. Thus, legitimacy began not only to mean the legitimacy and legitimacy of power, but also to reflect a state of society in which citizens recognize (agree or believe) that the established political force has the right to attribute to them one or another variant of behavior in the state.

According to Weber's theory, the legitimacy and legitimacy of force is thus characterized by two features. The first is the recognition of power, which is implemented by the relevant state institutions. The second sign is the obligation of the citizens of the state to obey the authorities.

It should be noted that it may remain competent and legal in case of expressed distrust of citizens to some leaders of the system or certain institutions.

Speaking of legitimacy, we should mention its level (degree). The lower the degree of legitimacy and legitimacy, the more violence is used to maintain political power.