legitimacy of political power.

Any political power in the process of its emergence, development and functioning can be evaluated differently by people. At the same time, the range of these assessments is quite wide: from the unconditional recognition of this power to its categorical ignoring. A positive assessment, acceptance by the population of power, recognition by them of its right to govern and consent to obey this power means its legitimacy.

The very term "legitimacy" (from Latin legitimus - legal) arose at the beginning of the 19th century and expressed the desire of supporters of the monarchy to restore the power of the king in France after the revolution as the only legal one, in contrast to the power of the usurper. At the same time, legitimacy acquired another meaning - the recognition of this state power and territory of the state in the international arena. Currently, legitimacy is an obligatory sign of civilized power, recognition by civil society and the world community of its legitimacy.

It is important to note that the legitimacy political power does not mean its legality. Legality, understood as action through the law and in accordance with it, is reflected in the category "legality". "Legitimacy" and "legality" are close, but not identical concepts. The first of them is evaluative, ethical and political in nature, the second is legal and ethically neutral. Any power that makes laws, even the most unpopular ones, and enforces them, is legal. At the same time, it may be illegitimate; not be accepted by the people, legislate at their own discretion and use them as a weapon of organized violence. In society, there can be not only illegitimate, but also illegal power, for example, the power of shadow workers, mafia structures, bandit formations, etc.

Legitimate political power is based on the recognition by citizens of the right of power holders to prescribe norms of behavior for members of society, on their consent to accept the rule and power of a given class, party, movement, social stratum, etc. It is no coincidence that they say that any political regime with which the people agree is legitimate. However, this does not mean that absolutely all citizens of the country accept this power. There is a certain part of society (a dissenting minority) that does not recognize and does not even accept a legally elected government. Therefore, legitimacy means that the majority of members of society recognize the existing power and comply with its laws and decisions, obey this power.

Legitimacy is a sociocultural characteristic of political power. It is the result of the evolution of human society and is associated with the development of culture. Legitimacy is classified by type of culture. M. Weber made a great contribution to the typology of the legitimacy of power. He highlighted in particular three types the legitimacy of power, reflecting the level of development of culture in society and the peculiarities of the motives for the recognition by the people of this power and subordination to it: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal.

Historically, the first type of legitimacy of political power is traditional legitimacy based on the right of succession to the throne. It corresponded to the norms of traditional society and was acquired thanks to customs, the habit of obeying authority, faith in the steadfastness in the sacredness of ancient orders. In traditional legitimacy, M. Weber singled out two varieties of it: patriarchal, based on the relations characteristic of the patriarchal family (unquestioning obedience to elders, personal, informal nature of relationships) and estate, based on relative autonomy and unconditional obedience to the code of honor (oath, given word, custom etc.).

The traditional legitimacy of power is most characteristic of monarchies and is notable for its strength. Therefore, the symbolic preservation of the hereditary monarch in many modern democratic countries Europe (England, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Sweden) significantly strengthens the authority of state power, gives it stability and stability.

The second type of legitimacy of political power is charismatic legitimacy . Usually it is inherent in societies that are going through stages of modernization, but have not mastered democratic methods and forms of government. Charismatic legitimacy is based on the belief of citizens in exceptional qualities, a special gift, i.e. the charisma of a leader (manager) who stands out from his surroundings. In its developed form, charisma is essentially a superhuman endowed with special qualities. M. Weber, for example, saw images of charisma in Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, as well as in Pericles, Caesar, Napoleon. In the 20th century, a whole galaxy of leaders with the qualities of charisma was formed in many countries: V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, F.D. Roosevelt , W. Churchill , A. Hitler , Charles de Gaulle , Mao Zedong , I.B. Tito and others

The charismatic type of legitimacy of power often arises during periods of revolutionary change, when a political group that has come to power cannot rely on the authority of traditions or the democratically expressed will of the majority to be recognized by the population of the country. In this case, it consciously cultivates the greatness of the personality of its leader, whose authority sanctifies the institutions of power, promotes their recognition and acceptance by the population.

History shows that charismatic power tends to be short-lived. It exists as long as it has success. At the first failures, miscalculations, people stop supporting it.

The third type of legitimacy of political power is rational-legal (legal) legitimacy. It is based on a rationally understood interest that induces people to obey the decisions of all central authorities, democratically elected and acting within the framework of the law. Rational legal legitimacy is the result of a long socio-economic and socio-cultural evolution of human society. In such a society, citizens are not subject to the personality of the leader, but to the laws within which representatives of power are elected and act. This type of legitimacy of power is characteristic of democratic states.

The considered types of legitimacy of political power in real life modern societies are not always found in pure form. They, as a rule, are combined, act in a mixed form, complement each other.

The legitimacy of political power is not limited to these three classical types. There are other ways of legitimation, and, consequently, types of legitimacy. For example, ideological legitimacy of power - its justification by means of ideological influence on the masses, instilling in people the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"justice" of the existing power relations in society and the state. Wherein great importance is given to the promotion of the values ​​on which the policy pursued by the authorities is based. State propaganda serves functional socialization, i.e. recognition by the masses of state policy and the authorities that pursue this policy.

As a result of the acquisition of national statehood by one or another people, ethnic legitimacy, i.e. formation of power structures of the state, its political and bureaucratic elite on a national basis. Ethnic legitimacy develops with the high activity of indigenous people (even if they are a minority of the country's population), manipulation of the idea of ​​national sovereignty, non-resistance of non-indigenous people, and the formation of ethnocracy. It is precisely such processes that are now taking place in a number of states that were formed in the early 1990s in the post-Soviet space (the Baltic countries and some others). Historical experience shows that ethnic legitimacy has no historical perspective, because the leading trend in world social development is the establishment of rational legal legitimacy of political power.

Legitimacy is not a given characteristic of political power once and for all. If the government ceases to be effective, does not ensure the stability of society, it loses the trust and support of its people. Its legitimacy is in crisis, which could lead to the fall of power. So it was in Russia in March 1917 and in the USSR in August 1991.

The ruling elite, in order to maintain a high level of legitimacy of its power, develops and implements politics of legitimation of power using various means for this: technocratic, sociotechnical, ideological, psychological, etc. Technocratic means, for example, come down to scientific and technical support for the political and economic course of power (in laws, infrastructure, tax system, finance, etc.).

Sociotechnical funds are used to find the most painless solution to critical social problems, for example, reducing unemployment, environmental protection of the population, etc. Ideological the funds are aimed at promoting the values ​​on which the policy of power structures is based, the formation of public opinion in favor of the authorities. Psychological means are associated with the struggle for the minds of people, affect their worldview, life, social and spiritual guidelines. With the help of methods of persuasion, suggestion and others, ideas are introduced into the minds of people that political power corresponds to their interests.

In the process of legitimation of political power, an important role is played by taking into account the intensity (degree of manifestation) of the legitimacy of power. The fact is that legitimacy is quite difficult to measure by any indicators. However, there are certain indicators that can be used depending on the degree of their reliability. Among them - the level of coercion necessary to carry out the will of power in society and the state, quantitative and qualitative analysis attempts to overthrow the government or its leaders, the intensity of civil disobedience against the authorities, the intensity of labor strikes, protest rallies, etc.

The degree of manifestation of the legitimacy of political power can also be determined by the results of elections to government bodies, mass demonstrations, manifestations of support or, on the contrary, opposition to the government and other power structures. The absence of coercion in the implementation of state policy and political programs also indicates the degree of legitimacy of power. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that legitimacy is not identical with popularity. In general, legitimacy is directly dependent on the effectiveness of power. The effectiveness of power is its effectiveness, the degree of fulfillment of those functions and expectations that the masses of the people, their majority, as well as the most influential political and economic forces of society and the state - their elite.

AT modern conditions legitimacy based on efficiency is a decisive factor in the credibility of government and its support by citizens. Any kind of legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, rational-legal, etc.) is associated with the population's hopes for the effectiveness of power. Many authoritarian regimes of power that were illegitimate at first (for example, in Chile, Brazil, South Korea and other countries), based on successful economic activity, effective guidance public order and improving the welfare of the population gradually acquired legitimacy, received the support of the people.

Currently in the global community a large number of States are experiencing a crisis of the legitimacy of political power. For many decades, it has manifested itself most acutely in the form of political and economic instability, frequent coups d'état, especially in young developing states. AT last years The problem of the legitimacy of power is extremely relevant for many post-communist countries, including the states formed after the collapse of the USSR.

In this regard, it should be noted that a variety of measures and means are used to maintain the legitimacy of political power: changing legislation and public administration in accordance with the new requirements of the time; creation of such a system of power, the legitimacy of which is based on the traditions of the population; legal precautions; the use of personal charismatic qualities of state and government leaders; the separation of political institutions from the armed forces; successful implementation of state policy, economic and social programs; maintaining the proper level of law and order, etc.

As practice shows, ultimately, the process of maintaining the legitimacy of political power, the strength and effectiveness of this power depends on the intellectual potential and energy of its subjects, on their ability to take advantage of favorable factors and the ability to neutralize unfavorable ones. The constant reproduction of the legitimacy of power makes it strong and reliable.

Power as a social phenomenon is one of the fundamental principles of the development and functioning of human society. It is a special volitional relationship between people in the process of their joint activities, when some people (subjects) with the help of various means (resources) encourage others (objects) to act to achieve certain goals.

Power exists always and everywhere where there are stable associations of people: in the family; production and other collectives (including military); organizations and institutions; in the state. In the latter case, we are dealing with supreme, political power, which is a specific form of social relations between large groups of people, the real ability of a certain class, social group, the individual to carry out his will in the sphere of politics. The core of this power, its main content is state power.

Political power in the process of its functioning can be perceived and evaluated differently by people. A positive assessment, acceptance by the population of power, recognition of its right to rule, govern and consent to obey it are expressed by the concept of "legitimacy". Legitimate political power effectively mobilizes large masses of people to achieve socially significant goals, since it enjoys the trust of these masses.

Literature

Power in life and the science of power. Dictionary-reference / Under the general editorship. V.F. Khalipova. - M.: Vityaz, 2004.

Gromyko A.A. Political power. - M .: Society "Knowledge" of the Russian Federation, 2000.

Confisakhor A.G. The psychology of power. SPb. 2004.

Ledyaev V.G. Power: Conceptual analysis. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2001.

Luman N. Power / Per. from German / - M .: Praxis, 2001.

Polishchuk V.D., Fedorova A.M. Legitimization of political power in Russia: Polemic notes. - Saratov, 1999.

Khalipov V.F. The science of power. Cratology: Tutorial. - M., 2002.

lat. Legitimus - legal) - recognition by the people and political forces legitimacy, legitimacy of political power, its tools, mechanisms of activity, as well as ways 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 one 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. The structural level characterizes the stability of the political system of 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 "law 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 "the 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.

One of the main specific properties of political power is 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 constructing 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 the values ​​that the majority of society accepts and that underlie the functioning of 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.

At present, it is customary in political science 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 actors may have a different character and have different levels of support in 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, rational type 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 leader's charisma embodies the faith and hope of people for a better future in troubled times. 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 state authorities or the ruling regime as a whole, which affects the qualitative change in their roles and functions.

At present, there is no unequivocal answer to the question: absolute indicators 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 the absence of major structural changes or a decrease in the effectiveness of the government in fulfilling its main tasks - budgeting and distributing political functions among the elite. American scientist D. Siring believes: the higher the level political participation in the country, the stronger the support of political structures and leaders by society; 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). Perhaps such approaches are based to a certain extent 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, the sharp increase in the activity of opposition forces, the constant violation of the established rules of the political game by the regime, the inability of the authorities to explain to the population the essence of their policy, the wide spread of such social diseases, like 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

Political dominance can be assessed differently by citizens. A positive assessment, the acceptance of power by the population, their recognition of its legitimacy means its legitimacy. Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and just. Legitimacy is associated with the presence of authority in power, its compliance with the value ideas of the majority of citizens.

The term ʼʼlegitimacyʼʼ in French means legitimacy. But this translation is not entirely accurate. Legitimacy, understood as action through the law and in accordance with it, must also be inherent in illegitimate power. It is characterized by the concept of ʼʼlegal powerʼʼ, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ means the formal compliance of power and its actions with the law.

Legality comes from power in the face of the state, which makes laws and controls their implementation, while legitimacy comes from citizens.

For this reason, the legality and legitimacy of real power do not always correspond to each other and may even be in a state of conflict, for example, when the government formed as a result of a coup d'état acts through the laws it adopts (ᴛ.ᴇ. it is legal), but is not recognized citizens and, therefore, is not legitimate. Consequently, later this concept acquired more broad meaning. Legitimacy began to be associated with the lawful and just use of power.

Legitimacy - ϶ᴛᴏ recognition of the legitimacy of official power by society and the international community.

For the first time the principle of legitimacy of power was studied by Max Weber.
Hosted on ref.rf
He singled out 3 types of legitimacy of power: traditional, rational-legal, charismatic.

1- Traditional legitimacy - belief in the sacred nature of customs and traditions.

That is, this is a reference to ʼʼdivine lawʼʼ, when the power of the rulers is an expression of the power of God on Earth. From here came the conviction of the legitimacy and greatness of monarchical power, the extreme importance of complete subordination to it.

This type of power has survived to this day in some countries of the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Kuwait.

2 - rational-legal legitimacy - faith in the legality and rationality of the rules for the formation and functioning of institutions of political power.

For example, the formation of power in free elections, the principle of the rule of law. This is bureaucracy.

3 - charismatic legitimacy - faith in the exceptional qualities of the bearer of political power. ʼʼCharismaʼʼ - translated from Greek means ʼʼdivine giftʼʼ, ʼʼdivine graceʼʼ.

This method of legitimacy of power is often used during periods of revolutionary change, a radical break in social relations. In this case, the magnitude of the personality of the leader is consciously cultivated.

The legitimacy of power is not limited to these 3 classical types. In the second floor. 20th century the rise of nationalism (3) led to the emergence of ethnic legitimacy, ᴛ.ᴇ. formation of power structures on a national basis. This type is common in young states that emerged after the collapse of the USSR, where ethnocratic regimes are often established, characterized by the admission to power of only representatives of one, titular nation and political discrimination against other ethnic groups.

Typology of the legitimacy of power:

1) structural - characteristic of stable societies, where power was formed on the basis of existing norms and rules.

2) ideological - is based on the ideas of justice prevailing in society.

If ideas about power are associated with collectivism and equality, then the authorities are expected to have an equalizing policy in the economic and social spheres, and the state should take care and patronize citizens.

If these values ​​are associated with freedom, individualism, then the authorities should interfere less in the economic and social spheres, and create conditions for the activity of citizens.

3) personalized legitimacy - based on a positive attitude towards the personality of the head of state.

As noted, legitimacy is the result of the ability of the authorities to create and maintain the faith of the people in their political institutions, in the actions of leaders in the interests of society, ᴛ.ᴇ. it is an essential condition for political stability (4). The legitimacy of power is directly dependent on its effectiveness, ᴛ.ᴇ. the degree of fulfillment by the authorities of their tasks and functions.

According to a number of scientists who study the countries of the Third World, characterized by frequent coups, the concept of the legitimacy of political power does not apply to all states, but only to those of them whose citizens identify themselves with the people and the state in which they live.

Consider the question of the legitimacy of power in our country.

In Russia for a long time there was a monarchical form of government (2), ᴛ.ᴇ. in the traditional way. At the head of power, at first, there were tsars from the Rurik dynasty, and then the Romanovs. Ideological legitimacy was provided by the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Russian statehood experienced the greatest shocks 3 times.

The first - in the late 16th - early 17th century, when after the death of the son of Ivan the Terrible Fyodor Ivanovich, who had no heirs, the reign of the Rurik dynasty ended. The resulting dynastic crisis led to the lowest level of legitimacy of power. The Great Troubles in the Russian state is the clearest example of the loss of the legitimacy of power. With the election at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 ᴦ. Mikhail Romanov as Tsar of the Muscovite State, the legitimacy of power began to be restored. The Romanovs ruled for 304 years.

The second time - the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917 ᴦ., which led to the destruction of the monarchical form of government, also destroyed the former foundations of the legitimacy of power. The Bolsheviks began to form a new model of the legitimacy of power, which consisted of a combination of rational-legal and charismatic types.

One of the most important manifestations modern crisis legitimacy of power in our country is a contradiction in the value bases of the majority of society and the ruling elite. The majority of society has been brought up in the traditions of collectivism and equality, in connection with this, the discomfort that they experience when looking at the luxurious life of rich and wealthy people against the backdrop of their poverty is one of the main reasons for the decline in the authority of modern political power in Russia.

Differentiation of political power .

As society develops, political power becomes an internally extremely complex entity. The subject of power is becoming more and more complicated and internally differentiated. This is especially noticeable in the late 20th - early 21st century. But long before that, philosophical doctrines appeared that reflected the process of differentiation of power. The most famous theory is the ʼʼseparation of powersʼʼ (17th century, English political theory, Locke; in France, Montesquieu, 18th century). The principle of separation of powers determined the distribution of power into three branches: legislative, executive, judicial. Separation of powers is a political and legal theory and practice, according to which power is usually understood not as a single entity, but as a combination of various power sections and functions, carried out by bodies independent of each other. The principle of separation of powers is reflected in the constitutional acts of the French Revolution of the 18th century, used in the US Constitution of 1787ᴦ., in Russia - in the Constitution of 1993ᴦ.

Traditionally, there are three branches of government.

1) Legislative. Reflects the will of the population, creates a binding legal field for all.

2) Executive. Carries out leadership, management of the country, based on the regulatory framework.

3) Judicial. Supervises the implementation of the law.

The idea of ​​separation of powers is simple and understandable. What is it for?

1) Each branch of government performs strictly defined functions with the greatest efficiency.

2) The branches control, restrain each other, preventing excessive strengthening of one of them. To do this, there is a system of ʼʼchecks and balancesʼʼ. This is such a mechanism for the functioning of the branches of power, in which they balance each other in strength and political weight.

3) The possibility of usurpation (misappropriation) of power and its concentration in one hand is excluded.

As a result, a type of state is developing, which is commonly called a legal one.

Consider the individual branches of government.

Legislative . It is represented by parliament (from French - to speak). Parliament - ϶ᴛᴏ nationwide, representative institution of the state, carrying out legislative functions. Originated in England in the 13th century. Parliament is always elected. May consist of one or two chambers. In federal states, members of the upper house may become parliamentarians ex officio. Functions vary depending on the form of government, but in general:

1) legislative activity

2) adoption of the budget

3) appointment to positions

4) control over the executive branch

5) foreign policy powers.

executive branch . Ensures the implementation of adopted decisions and laws. The scope of its powers varies from different countries, is determined by the form of government, but, in general, they are as follows:

1) draws up a draft budget of the country and implements it (after approval by the parliament);

2) has a legislative initiative;

3) ensures the implementation of economic, social and cultural policy;

4) ensure the defense capability of the country;

5) ensure the protection of public order.

Judicial branch . In the doctrine of the separation of powers, the main thing is that there should be a strong independent and equal judiciary. The judiciary is a branch of state power that independently administers justice. Justice is a type of state activity aimed at resolving social conflicts (related to the violation of rights) through constitutional, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. Judicial power is exercised by the courts, which administer justice on behalf of the state. These are the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court, etc.
Hosted on ref.rf
The courts are independent, should not be guided by political views, etc. So, the problem of power is extremely diverse. It is studied by a number of sciences, incl. political science. The latter focuses on the features of the functioning of power in general and political power in particular, the conditions for its stability, adequate achievement of socially significant goals.

The legitimacy of political power - the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Legitimacy of political power" 2017, 2018.

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”. 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 the ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙia of the power of the rational principle legal order the current political system.

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), in which lies the power of the universal principles of 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, the growth of extra-parliamentary forms 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 required to perform 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 all 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 a hindrance in such a substitution negative factors independent mass media become positive. 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 restrict the activities of independent media or to put them under ϲʙᴏth control.