Political power is the highest type of power. Types of political power

Everyone knows the purpose of state power. However, not everyone knows exactly how it functions. What are the most optimal for the society? Let's try to figure everything out in our article.

What is power?

Power has existed at all stages of human development. Even in the primitive communal system, relations of leadership and subordination were formed. This type of interaction expressed the needs of people for organization and self-regulation. At the same time, power is not only a mechanism for regulating society, but also a guarantor of the integrity of a certain group of people.

What is the main feature of political power? Thinkers of different times had their own opinions on this matter. For example, he spoke about the desire to achieve good in the future. was more pessimistic, and therefore found in power the desire to subjugate his own kind. Bertrand Russell defined the relationship of leadership and subordination as the production of intentional results. However, all scientists agree on one thing: power is natural.

Objects and subjects

The question of what is the main feature of political power cannot be considered without defining the main components of the concept. It is known that any power is the ratio of domination and subordination. Both types of relations are realized by the subjects of political power: social communities, and the state itself. The people influence the government only indirectly. This happens through elections. Only in rare cases can “grassroots” institutions be created, which take all power into their own hands.

The state implements most political powers. The power apparatus includes the ruling parties, the bureaucratic elite, pressure groups and other institutions. Character and strength state functions depend on the regime of political power. Historical eras were characterized by different regimes. Each of them should be disassembled.

Types of government

The political regime is called the type government controlled, a set of methods, forms and techniques for the implementation of domination and subordination. Today, in most countries, democracy reigns - a regime in which the people are recognized as the source of power. Ordinary people are indirectly involved in the exercise of state power. By voting, the state power is formed, which works in harmony with the people.

The opposite of democracy is authoritarianism. This is a regime in which the entirety of state power is in the hands of one person or a group of persons. The people do not take any part in state affairs. Russian empire XVIII-XX centuries can be called an authoritarian state.

Totalitarianism is called a toughened form of an authoritarian regime. The state not only completely subjugates the people, but also interferes in all spheres of social life. There is complete control by the authorities over each person. History knows many examples of totalitarian political power. These are Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, modern North Korea, etc.

Complete anarchy and the absence of a political regime are characteristic of anarchy. Anarchism is established after revolutions, wars or other social upheavals. As a rule, such a system predominates for a short time.

Functions

What is the main feature of political power? Having considered the main state regimes, we can say with confidence: this is the construction of relations of domination and subordination. Such relationships manifest themselves in different ways and may have dissimilar goals. However, the principle of power is always the same: the subordination of one group of persons to another.

Power, whatever it may be, has approximately the same functions. First and main feature the state is that it has the authority to manage. With his help, the authorities realize their plans. The next function is called control and supervisory. Power monitors the quality of its management, as well as to ensure that no one violates its order. To implement the control function, law enforcement agencies are created. The third function is organizational. Power forms relationships with citizens and public organizations to achieve mutual understanding. Finally, the last function is called educational. Power earns its credibility by forcing citizens to be obedient.

The legitimacy of power

Any authority must be legal. Moreover, it must be recognized by the people. Otherwise, conflicts, revolutions and even wars are possible. History contains many examples of political power that was destroyed by the people due to a lack of recognition and compromise.

How does power become legitimate? Everything is simple here. The people themselves must empower the persons to whom they will subsequently obey. If a person or a group of people seizes power against the will of the people, then a catastrophe will happen.

So what are the characteristics of political power? This is the presence of a clear structure, administrative apparatus, legitimacy and legality. Any power should serve only for the benefit of the people.

The concept of "power" is one of the fundamental categories of political science. It provides the key to understanding political institutions, politics and the state itself. The indivisibility of power and politics is taken for granted in all political theories past and present. Politics as a phenomenon is characterized by a direct or indirect relationship with power and activities to exercise power. Social communities and individuals enter into various relationships: economic, social, spiritual, political. Politics is a sphere of relationships between social groups, strata, individuals, which concerns mainly the problems of power and management.

All outstanding representatives of political science paid close attention to the phenomenon of power. Each of them contributed to the development of the theory of power.

Modern concepts of power are very diverse. Within the framework of an educational lecture, it is advisable to formulate generalizing provisions.

In the very broad sense the word power is the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to exert a decisive influence on the activities, behavior of people with the help of any means - authority, law, violence. In this aspect, power is economic, political, state, family and others. This approach also requires a distinction between class, group and personal power, which are intertwined, but not reducible to each other.

The most important form of power is political power. Political power is the real ability of a given class, group, individual to carry out their will in politics and legal norms. Political power is characterized either by social domination, or by a leading role, or by the leadership of certain groups, and most often by various combinations of these qualities.

It should also be noted that the concept of political power is broader than the concept of state power. Political power is exercised not only by state bodies, but also through the activities of parties, public organizations of various types... State power is a kind of core of political power. It relies on a special coercive apparatus and applies to the entire population of a country. The state has a monopoly on the development of laws and other orders that are binding on all citizens. State power means a certain organization and activity in the implementation of the goals and objectives of this organization.

In political science, the concept is used source of power... The sources, or grounds, of power are diverse, since the structure of social relations is diverse. The grounds (sources) of power are understood as means that are used to influence objects of power in order to achieve the set objectives. Resources Power are potential foundations of power, that is, means that can be used but are not yet used or are underutilized. The whole set of used and possible bases of power constitutes it potential.

The universally recognized source of power is power... However, power itself also has certain sources. Sources of strength can be wealth, position, possession of information, knowledge, experience, special skills, organization. Therefore, in general, we can say that the source of power is a combination of social factors that create the prevailing, dominant, dominant will. In other words, these are economic, social, psychological foundations political power.

State power can achieve its goals by various means, including ideological influence, persuasion, economic incentives and other indirect means. But only she has a monopoly on compulsion with the help of a special apparatus for all members of society.

The main forms of manifestation of power include domination, leadership, management, organization, control.

Political power is closely related to political leadership and authority, which in certain meanings act as forms of exercising power.

The emergence and development of political power is due to the vital needs of the formation and evolution of society. Therefore, the authorities, naturally, perform extremely important special functions. It is the central, organizational and regulatory control principle of policy. Power is inherent in the organization of society and is necessary to maintain its integrity and unity. Political power is aimed at regulating social relations. It is a tool, the main means of managing all spheres of public life.

political society ideological power

Expressing and defending the interests of certain social strata, the political power, at the same time, one way or another, is organizing political life society as a whole. It “is formed as a system of functions from modeling one's own activity; analysis of the political and social situation and specific situations; defining your strategy and particular tactical tasks; supervision and suppression ... deviating from the norms of behavior; appropriation and disposal of the necessary resources (material and spiritual ...); allocation of policy resources - confidence-building measures, agreements, exchange of concessions and advantages, awards and rewards, etc .; transformation of the political and public (social, economic, legal, cultural, moral) environment of the authorities in their interests and in the interests of their policies. "

Political power manifests itself in a variety of forms, the main among which are domination, leadership, organization, control.

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

Leadership is expressed in the ability of the subject of power to exercise his will by developing "programs, concepts, attitudes, determining the prospects for the development of the social system as a whole and its various links. Leadership determines current and future goals, develops strategic and tactical objectives.

Management is manifested in the conscious, purposeful influence of the subject of power on various links of the social system, on controlled objects in order to implement the directives of the leadership. Controlled by different methods which can be administrative, authoritarian, democratic, coercive, etc.

Political power comes in many forms. A meaningful typology of political power can be built on various grounds:

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

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

State power, like political power in general, can achieve its goals through political education, ideological influence, dissemination of the necessary information, etc. However, this does not express its essence. “State power is a form of political power that has a monopoly on issuing laws that are binding on the entire population, and relies on a special coercive apparatus as one of the means to enforce laws and orders. State power equally means both a particular organization and practical activities to implement the goals and objectives of this organization ”.

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

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

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

The expediency of the separation of powers is determined, firstly, by the need to clearly define the functions, competence and responsibility of each branch of government; secondly, the need to prevent abuse of power, establish a dictatorship, totalitarianism, usurpation of power; third, the need for mutual control of the branches of government; fourth, the need of society to combine such contradictory aspects of life as power and freedom, law and law, state and society, command and obedience; fifth, the need to create checks and balances in the exercise of power.

The legislative branch is based on the principles of constitutionality and the rule of law. It is formed through free elections. This power makes amendments to the constitution, determines the foundations of the domestic and foreign policy of the state, approves the state budget, adopts laws that are binding on all citizens and government bodies, and controls their implementation. The supremacy of the legislative branch is limited by the principles of government, the constitution, and human rights.

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

The judiciary is a relatively independent structure of state power. In its actions, this power should be independent from the legislative and executive branches.

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

Subsequently, the ideas of Montesquieu were developed in the works of other thinkers and legislative consolidation in the constitutions of many countries. The US Constitution, for example, which was adopted in 1787, states that the legislative power in the country belongs to Congress, the executive power is exercised by the President, and the judicial power is exercised by the Supreme Court and those lower courts approved by Congress. The principle of separation of powers, according to constitutions, underlies state power in a number of other countries. However, it has not been fully implemented in any country. At the same time, in many countries the principle of uniqueness is the basis of state power.

For many years in our country it was believed that the idea of ​​separation of powers could not be realized in practice due to the fact that power is one and indivisible. The situation has changed in recent years. Now everyone is talking about the need for separation of powers. However, the problem of separation has not yet been resolved in practice due to the fact that the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers is often replaced by the opposition of these powers.

The solution to the problem of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers lies in finding an optimal balance between them as areas of a single state power, a clear definition of their functions and powers.

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

Political power has a variety of functions. It implements general organizational, regulatory, control functions, organizes the political life of society, regulates political relations, structuring the political organization of society, shaping public consciousness, etc.

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

Power as a phenomenon of public life

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

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

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

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

The concept of power and types of power

Depending on the resources on which subordination is based, the main types of power are distinguished. So, H. Heckhausen identifies six types of power.

1. Power is rewarding. Its strength is determined by the expectation B of the extent to which A will be able to satisfy one of his (B) motives and how much A will make this satisfaction dependent on the desired behavior of B.

2. Coercive power. Its strength is determined by the expectation of B, firstly, by the measure in which A is able to punish him for actions that are undesirable for A, and, secondly, to what extent A will make the dissatisfaction of motive B dependent on his undesirable behavior. Coercion here consists in the fact that the space of possible actions B as a result of the threat of punishment narrows. In the extreme case, the power of coercion can be exercised directly physically.

3. Normative power. We are talking about internalized B norms, according to which A has the right to monitor compliance certain rules behavior and, if necessary, insist on them.

4. Reference power. It is based on B's identification with A and B's desire to be like A.

5. Expert authority. It depends on the amount of special knowledge, intuition or skills attributed to A by B, which are related to the sphere of the behavior in question.

6. Informational power. This power occurs when A possesses information capable of causing B to see the consequences of his behavior in a new light.

The Spanish political scientist F. Lord-y-Alays in his work analyzes the economic, military, informational power and the power of fear (phobocracy). When characterizing economic power (plutocracy), he notes that it represents wealth, turned into an instrument of domination in society. Economic power is power based on wealth. Its main means is money. At the present time, the author notes, economic power has reached an exceptional strength of consolidation. Economic power as such does not in itself resort to violence, but it is capable of shamelessly violating all divine and human norms. She seems to remain behind the curtain, but to a large extent dictates behavior actors on the public stage.

Political science is primarily concerned with political power.

"Power" and "political power" are not synonymous. Political power is a form of power. It covers all types of power relations in the field of politics. It expresses the ability of the subject to ensure the subordination of the object in the sphere of politics. Political power is a specialized, organizational and legal, institutionalized type of power. As the French political scientist J. M. Denquin writes, this power carries out specialized functions that are of a political nature: it makes political choices and reveals collective will, which is opposed to individual wills. Political power is the real ability of some social groups to carry out their will in politics and legal regulations.

The specificity of political power is expressed in the following:

• it is formed by delegating a part of the rights and powers both "up" and "down";
• always mobilizes to achieve some goals;
• solves the problem of consent, taking into account the fact that society is divided by different interests;
• based on a maneuver whose range is determined by agreement or struggle;
• requires concentration of the rights and wills of people in government bodies, political parties, etc., that is, in the subjects of political power, through which it is realized.

In modern political science, you can find another list of features of political power: the ability and readiness of the subject of political life to express political will; coverage of the entire field of political spaces; the presence of organizational structures through which the subject of political expression carries out political activities; exposure of subjects political activities on the formation of law, the implementation of the rule of law; ensuring social domination of the subject of political power in society.

Quite acute in science is the question of the relationship between political and state power.

We do not agree with K. S. Hajiyev that "the state is the main and only bearer of political power." First, because the subjects (actors) of political power can be: the state; political parties and organizations; ruling elites, bureaucracy, lobbies (pressure groups); group and individual leadership; personal power; individuals (citizens) in an election, a referendum, and even a crowd (okhlos). The multitude of subjects of power allows us to speak of at least two types of political power: state and public.

Secondly, under the conditions of the primitive communal system, political power (the prince, the elder) already existed, but there was no state power, the implementation of which requires a special apparatus isolated from society.

Polish political scientist E. Wyatr highlights the characteristic features of state power: “This power is exercised with the help of a separate apparatus in a certain territory, which is covered by state sovereignty, and has the ability to turn to the means of organized legislative institutional violence. State power is the highest, most complete expression of political power - it is political power in its most developed form. "

Traditionally, the following distinguishing features of state power are distinguished:

• legality in the use of force and other means of power within the country;
• supremacy, binding decisions for the whole society and, accordingly, for other types of government;
• publicity, that is, universality and impersonality, which means an appeal to all citizens on behalf of the whole society with the help of law (law);
• monocentricity, that is, the presence of one decision-making center;
• possession of all the resources of power at the same time and the ability to use them to varying degrees, depending on the current situation in power relations.

A special form of power is public power. It is formed by party structures, public organizations, independent mass media, and public opinion.

M. Duverger identifies three stages in the evolution of forms of power:

Stage 1: Power is anonymous, that is, it is distributed among members of the clan and tribe; manifests itself in a set of beliefs and customs that strictly regulate individual behavior; is not of a political nature.

Stage 2: Power is individualized, that is, power is concentrated in the hands of leaders, groups (the power of leaders, elders, emperors).

Stage 3: Power is institutionalized, that is, it relies on special institutions that perform a number of functions: the expression of common interests; control; ensuring social peace and order, etc.

Complementing the typology of M. Duverger, we can say about the fourth stage, which is taking place in our time - “supranational” power, represented by legislative (European Parliament) and executive (Commission of the European Communities) institutions, whose powers extend to the territory and population of a dozen European countries.

Power as social phenomenon performs a number of functions. The main functions of political power in social system arise, are formed in the process of realizing the needs of management, regulation of social relations.

One of the most important functions of political power is to preserve social integrity through the alignment of priorities corresponding to the values ​​of a given culture, and strict adherence to them; through the implementation of the needs and interests of social groups exercising power functions.

Another function is to regulate social relations, maintain the stability of the functioning of the social organism.

The first two functions are closely interrelated, which allowed the French political scientist F. Bro to assert that any political power has as its task "to ensure order ... to preserve the status quo of society, to reform it or revolutionize it."

French political scientist A. Touraine noted that the accumulation and concentration of national resources is also a function of power. He noted that: "Political power is a means from the" spontaneity "of consumption to the" artificiality "of accumulation."

One of the parameters for assessing power is its effectiveness. The effectiveness of a government is judged by the extent to which it carries out its functions. The following definition of the effectiveness of power can be formulated: it is the ability to perform their tasks and functions with the lowest costs and expenses in the shortest possible time.

In modern political science literature, the following criteria for the effectiveness of power are distinguished:

• the sufficiency of the foundations of power and the optimal use of its resources;
• the presence of a nationwide agreement on the goals and ways of development of a given society;
• the cohesion and stability of the ruling elite;
• rationality of "vertical" and "horizontal" power structures;
• the effectiveness and timeliness of control over the implementation of their orders;
• organizational, technical and personnel support for accounting and analysis of government orders;
• the existence of an effective system of sanctions in case of failure to comply with the order of the authorities;
• the effectiveness of the power self-control system, one of the indicators of which is its authority;
• adequate reflection of the interests of those social groups on which the government relies, along with linking them with the interests of society as a whole.

The strength of political power, its authority depends on how successfully it copes with the task of regulating social relations in society. Political power is built into the governance system. Social management is the purposeful impact of the political system on the development of society. It consists of two parts: self-government, when the regulation of the system is carried out without outside interference, and power control, when the regulation of the system is carried out through coercion, subordination. We see the difference between management and power in the fact that management, using the power mechanism, is focused on the process, and power - on the result.

The most frequently used is the separation of the forms of exercising power: legislative, executive and judicial.

Depending on the breadth of distribution of power relations, one can distinguish:

• mega-level - international organizations vested with power (UN, NATO, etc.);
• macrolevel - the central bodies of the state;
• meso-level - lower-level government bodies;
• micro-level - power in primary self-government bodies, etc.

Another basis for the typology of political power is M. Weber's position on three types of domination: traditional, legitimate, charismatic.

Traditional power is based on the belief in the sacred, indisputable nature of traditions, the violation of which leads to severe magical-religious consequences. All human activity is aimed at reproducing the community, at ensuring a stable order that eliminates chaos and instability. Power is personalized and involves the personal loyalty of subjects and servants to the ruler.

Charismatic power is based on a belief in the "supernatural", "extrabehavioral" abilities of a leader. His authority is based on belief in the person's ability to take responsibility and solve all issues in a miraculous way.

Legal authority is based on laws, rules and regulations; management here is conditioned by knowledge and strict adherence to the norms governing power activities, their active use to achieve the set goals.

Zh. T. Toshchenko offers his own approach to the classification of forms of political power. The specificity of his approach lies in the fact that the analysis of real specific characteristics, quite clearly expressing the features of this form of power; the subject of power is clearly identified; the main ideological attitudes, goals and intentions of representatives of this or that form of power are characterized, which allows, through the prism of ideology, to reveal the political orientation, the possibility of preserving the corresponding power structures, their viability and resistance to any shocks and tendencies of disorganization; reveals the political structure of government and other bodies; describes the features of the relationship between rulers and ruled; allows you to determine the state, trends and problems of political consciousness and behavior, to understand their essential and specific forms of expression.

He identifies "eternal" and specific forms of power. He refers to the former as democracy, oligarchy, to the latter - ochlocracy, militocracy, ideocracy, aristocracy, monarchy, ethnocracy, theocracy, technocracy. Let's consider in more detail each of the named forms.

Democracy is one of the main forms of social and political governance, organization of the state and political movements(see Chapter 9 for more details).

Oligarchy. Its main characteristics are: the exercise by a small group (social stratum) of political and economic domination in society, the manifestation of corporatism to the highest degree, direct or indirect obstruction of the elections of power bodies and their replacement by appointments, the formation of monopoly rights and powers belonging only to this social group, sponsoring , privatization, purchase of the state apparatus. Oligarchic tendencies are characteristic of almost all modern states.

Ochlocracy (crowd power). At its core, this form of power means:

1) The power of socio-political groups using populist sentiments and orientations of the population in extremely primitive forms, which creates conditions for arbitrariness and lawlessness in all spheres of public life.

2) Ochlocracy creates a situation of disorder, riots, pogroms, awakening base aspirations, senseless destruction, reckless murder and arbitrariness, trampling on all guarantees of human life. Ochlocracy often comes into its own during a transitional period, in critical periods for society.

Militocracy. One of the modern forms of militocracy is the junta. This is a form of power when power belongs to the military, special paramilitary associations and organizations that exercise power in the country. The main features of the junta are: massive political terror, violent methods of governing the country and society.

Ideocracy. A form of power in which theories and concepts are decisive, justifying ideas and conclusions put forward in advance. The Soviet Union was an ideocratic state.

Aristocracy. The interpretation of the aristocracy changed with the development of mankind. It was understood as: 1) a form of government, which meant the power of the privileged groups of society; 2) part of the social structure of society, which included people who occupy an authoritative position in society, who have power, wealth, influence; 3) people characterized by stable highly moral attitudes and goals, brought up in a strictly defined algorithm of moral norms and prescribed rules. At present, the aristocracy as a form of power has come to be identified with conservatism.

Monarchy is one of the oldest forms of government, when absolute power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose power is inherited. The monarchy changed its forms at various stages. On the whole, all monarchies turned out to be rather unstable formations, which disintegrated under the blows of both internal and external forces.

Ethnocracy is a form of political power in which economic, political, social and spiritual processes are managed from the standpoint of the primacy of the interests of the dominant ethnic group to the detriment of the interests of other nations, nationalities, and nationalities. Its essence is manifested in the ignorance of the rights of national (ethnic) groups of peoples when solving fundamental issues of public life, when the unilateral representation of the interests of the dominant nation is realized, and not the interests of a person, social groups, regardless of ethnic origin, religious and class affiliation.

Zh.T. Toshchenko identifies the following essential features of ethnocracy:

• ethnocracy emphasizes ethnic interest, exaggerates it, puts it in the first place among other possible values;
• the confrontation between the interests of the nation and the interests of the individual is supported by ethnocracy not spontaneously, but deliberately, with exaggeration existing contradictions, with the glorification of ethnic confrontation, its rise and even attempts to deify;
• ethnocracy always uses the image of the messiah, leader, Fuhrer, who is endowed with superhuman qualities, concentrates in himself an understanding of the essence and secret thoughts of his people;
• one of the main goals of ethnocracy is to show the surrounding states the greatness of a given people, to show its role and significance;
• economic, social, cultural spheres are subordinate main goal- dominion over other peoples;
• ethnocratic regimes are interested in conflicts, in hatred, in maintaining social tension;
• ethnocracy preaches intransigence.

The following types of ethnocracy can be distinguished.

1. Racism, which in its fundamental principle is based on the idea of ​​dividing peoples into higher and lower. The racist government strives for the purity of the race, resists attempts to achieve equality between peoples, establishes restrictions and prohibitions at the legislative level for "lower" peoples.

2. Fascism, which openly proclaimed ethnic criteria in determining politics and organizing public life.

3. Chauvinism, which is characterized by excessive patriotism to the point of misunderstanding with a focus on military force, ultranationalism with elements of authoritarianism.

4. Nationalism, which acts as politics, social practice, ideology and psychology of the process of subordination of some nations to others, as a preaching of national exclusivity and superiority.

5. Separatism (political), which is understood as:

• movement and actions for the territorial separation of a particular part of the state in order to create an independent state;
• wide, practically uncontrolled autonomy of a part of the state on the basis of national, linguistic or religious characteristics.

6. Fundamentalism. This type of ethnocracy acts as an extremely conservative trend, in which nationalist and confessional claims are closely intertwined, the expression of which becomes social-political and religious movements and organizations demonstrating their adherence to right-wing conservative ideological and political views. (At present, the attention of scholars and politicians is focused on Islamic (Muslim) fundamentalism).

7. On the present stage historical development there is a tendency to involve representatives of various religious confessions in power relations and to use religious ideology in the struggle to achieve, preserve and maintain power. This allowed Zh. T. Toshchenko to single out such a form of power as theocracy.

The main features of the theocratic form of political governance are: religious and legal regulation of all aspects of public and state life, the implementation of legal proceedings according to the norms of religious law, the political leadership of religious leaders, the proclamation of religious holidays as state ones, the oppression or prohibition of other religions, the persecution of people for religious reasons, active intervention religion into education and culture. In theocratic societies, totalitarian control over the behavior and lifestyle of the individual is established, for the status of the individual is determined by the person's belonging to religion and its institutions.

In the XX - XXI centuries. there is an increasing influence of science and technology on political relations... The consequence of this is the hope of many ordinary people that with the help of new scientific disciplines, new technology, new people (technocrats) will be resolved the problems and contradictions of human life. Technocratic social and political concepts that claim to be fundamentally new design society based on the most mechanized technology and efficient organization industry, appeared at the end of the XIX century. One of the sources of their formation were the real achievements of Great Britain, the USA, Germany in the economy, in creating a new image of society. Another source of the creation of the theory of technocracy was the movement of progressives (W. Lippmann, G. Crowley and others), who advocated the establishment of a new public order in the form of a centralized nationwide government under the guidance of experts who know the technology of "social engineering". The third source is the technical-organizational theory of "scientific management", which was represented by F. Taylor. He argued that the main figure of society is a professional who is guided by scientifically solutions to any problem in the field of industry, which, in his opinion, can and should be transferred to the management of the country and the state.

It is on the basis of the ideas of progressivism, social engineering and scientific management that the founder of technocratism, as political trend, T.B. Veblen, draws the following conclusions:

• anarchy and instability modern society are the result of government policymaking;
• stabilization of society and giving it positive dynamics is possible only by transferring the leadership of the entire economic life and government to the technicians;
• it is necessary to oppose the power of technocracy to the power of the "money bag".

Zh.T. Toshchenko concludes that technocracy means:

• 1) management (in the broad sense of the word) of all social processes professional specialists on the basis of those laws and principles that are guided in the world of technology, technology, science;
• 2) a specific form of political power, in which methods of managing technology and technology are used and which are transferred to power relations, to state power;
• 3) the possession of political power by technicians and their leadership in the life of any industrial society.

Political life is a special form of realizing the interests of the state, political parties and associations, classes, nations, social groups, voluntary organizations and even an individual for the conscious use of power that satisfies their political interests. Political life finds its clear expression in power relations, which are always aimed at protecting, consolidating and developing the positions achieved, creating new prerequisites for further strengthening the existing power.

The main bearer of power relations is always the state. It, in the person of specific bodies in the center and at the local level, acts (or should act) as the main subject of ruling, which determines the main directions of development of political and legal relationship... The dynamism of social processes depends on its ability to rationally, timely and effectively ensure interaction between various economic, social and cultural institutions, to coordinate the interests of all subjects of political life.

But a special problem is presented by the interaction of the state with the person, or, more precisely, the person with the state. In principle, this is a problem of feedback, because only its presence and constant improvement ensure viability political structures... Based on this, knowledge of moods, trends in their change, forms of interaction and ways of attracting people to solving social problems is the essence of the sociological interpretation of human interaction with the state.

For sociology, the structuring of power relations, personified by the state, is of great importance.

The most commonly used classification used in the social sciences is the separation of the forms of exercise of power: legislative, executive and judicial. Their deformation to a large extent contributes to arbitrariness, indiscriminate decisions of cases and, on this basis, the violation of human rights and freedoms. The implementation of these principles of organizing power, like nothing else, is capable of creating the prerequisites and conditions for real political creativity of people. It is from these positions that the structure of the construction of Soviet power bodies, in which executive functions were closely intertwined with legislative, representative ones, is criticized.

Sociological studies of the three branches of government show significant differences between them, as well as the assessment of their activities by the population. For example, in everyday consciousness (and in Soviet time, and in the present period) there continues to be a conviction that main person in the judicial system, it is the prosecutor. According to the analysis of the relevant documents, in the mid-1990s, the number of citizens' appeals (letters) to the prosecutor's office was dozens of times higher than the number of similar appeals to the court.

At the same time, the entire judicial system is still rated very low or nothing definite can be said about it great amount people. The most visible for most people are the executive authorities, and then the legislative, with almost complete lack of information about the activities of the judiciary. But for all the seeming paradox (after all, the relevant acts have long been adopted), the assessment by the population of all branches of government reflects their real situation, which cannot be changed by any decrees, decrees, decrees and other official instructions.

The principle of separation of powers - legislative, executive, judicial, is closely related to targeted responsibility for the performance of the respective functions. And here it is a matter of technology - whether one or several persons, one or several institutions are responsible for the performance of certain functions (it is known that in a number of countries and in different eras, the performance of, for example, legislative, executive and judicial functions was combined). It is important and fundamentally that it is always legally clear: for what function, at what moment and who can be asked to the fullest extent of the law.

In this regard, we should dwell on the most famous Roman legal maxim: rule by dividing. This provision has been interpreted and is now being interpreted in the sense that successful management presupposes violence (ie, "The ruler - separate, play off the subjects"). In fact, what is meant is the exact opposite: successful management is based on distinction (“divide” - judgment, discrimination) and only in this sense, the division of those whom you rule (i.e. “Ruler - cognize, reconcile the interests of subjects; distinguish between your own power abilities and functions ").

Another basis for the typology of political power is the well-known position of M. Weber about three types of domination: traditional, legitimate, charismatic. Such a division rather gives an idea of ​​the nature of power than of its essence. After all, charisma can manifest itself in a democratic and autocratic leader, and in a traditional one. In our opinion, with all the attractiveness of this formulation of the question, this approach is very difficult to use in a specific sociological research... It characterizes rather some logical conclusion, is the subject of abstraction from existing practice. This is all the more indicative that in real life it is impossible to find these types of domination in their pure form: they are usually "simultaneously represented in practically all political regimes. The whole question is the degree, the level of their embodiment in the specific analyzed type of political power. That is why, when characterizing the Russian state, depending on the political positions of the analyst, traits of traditionalism are also found, which is reflected in the adherence to the principles of functioning Soviet system, and the features of legitimacy, manifested in the formation of the rule of law, and the phenomenon of charisma, which was embodied in the activities of the first president of Russia.

Another approach to the typology of political power is manifested in the examination of the exercise of power at the interacting levels: federal, regional and local. These authorities, depending on the situation, are evaluated differently by the population. It is interesting to note that when perestroika began, people were very sympathetic to the activities of the central authorities and in fact refused to trust the representatives of local authorities. government agencies... In the mid-90s, studies showed exactly the opposite attitude: a relatively high assessment of the activities of local authorities with a very critical attitude towards the president, government, State Duma, the level full confidence to which it did not exceed 4-10.9% in 1994-1996.

Analysis sociological information shows that a certain confrontation has developed between the macro-, meso- and micro-levels, which is associated with the redistribution of power, responsibility for the rational organization of the production, social and personal life of citizens, with the possibility of financial support for housing and social programs and activities.

Besides, in scientific literature there are various attempts to classify the forms and types of power: 1) institutional and non-institutional; 2) by function; 3) in terms of the volume of prerogatives; 4) by methods, etc. ...

We would like to draw attention to one more division that can be carried out by analyzing the structure and activity of the ruling subject. This typology is based on an assessment of the nature and quality of power, on the degree of participation of the population in its implementation, on the completeness of representation of the interests of various social groups.

Based on this, the following types of power can be named.

Democracy, which functions within the framework of civil society and the rule of law and embodies universal procedures related to: 1) the election of legislative bodies by the people; 2) with universal suffrage; 3) with free expression of will; 4) with the right of the majority to restrict (but not abolish) the rights of the minority; 5) with the confidence of the people in the authorities; 6) with the state being under public control, etc. (In this interpretation, we applied a modern explanation of democracy, in contrast to Aristotle, who characterized democracy as a spontaneous form of exercising power.)

A distortion of these and other modern principles of the implementation of democracy can lead to its rejection by the majority of the population, as happened in Russia after hopes for democratic reforms soared in 1991-1992. According to VTsIOM, by the end of 1996, only 6.2% of the respondents were in favor of democracy, while 81.1% were in favor of order, which can be regarded as the formation of a favorable (or sparing) situation for the possible establishment of tough political power.

In a democracy, access to all types of information changes significantly, as a result of which many groups of the population behave differently, openly express their attitude to specific political processes.

Oligarchy personifies the power of a few individuals or groups in the state, sharply limiting the rights and powers of other subjects who want to participate in political life and seek to come to power. The oligarchy usually does not allow its change even on the basis of procedures approved by legislation, rejects any attempts to limit its power. Therefore, the redistribution of power can occur only within this group, for which "palace" coups and various kinds of secret agreements are used. The oligarchy is ready to move to such forms as totalitarianism rather than democracy in order to preserve the possibility of continuing political domination.

This type of power is typical for many states, including Russia, both in tsarist times and in Soviet times. We can only talk about different aspects of this oligarchic power, and not about its presence or absence. This is even more applicable to the political life of modern Russia, where the struggle of oligarchic groups is the essence of the ongoing political changes.

An increasingly widespread type of power is ethnocracy, although it usually appears in a camouflaged form. Its manifestations - ethno-limitation, ethno-egoism and ethnophobia - really exist in a number of states of the world, including in one form or another in the CIS countries. The danger of this form of power is manifested not so much in the fact that all key positions in politics and economics are concentrated in the hands of persons of the same nationality, but in the fact that tensions between peoples are increasing, which leads to hidden or open confrontation, increased migration, increased distrust on ethnic soil and serious, and sometimes a sharp deterioration of the situation in the region.

The possibility of theocratic forms of power continues to exist, when power is concentrated in the hands of the religious elite or among political leaders guided by religious postulates. Theocratic states existed in ancient times (for example, Judea in the 5th - 1st centuries BC), in the Middle Ages (the Holy Roman Empire, the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates), and in the New Time (Paraguay - 17th century). In the modern period, there is Iran, headed by the Shiite clergy, attempts are being made to create theocratic states in Algeria and Chechnya. The establishment of theocratic regimes is accompanied by the strengthening of religious regulation of all aspects of public and private life, which is expressed in giving religious holidays the status of state ones, in carrying out legal proceedings based on the requirements of religion, and in the participation of ministers of religious cults in the political struggle.

A form of power such as technocracy is also spreading, when the implementation of the functions of the state occurs from the standpoint of production, economics, without due regard to political and social requirements. One of the miscalculations of the ideologues of perestroika and the neoliberals who replaced them was that specialists of the national economy came to all links of state and socio-political power, who, knowing a lot about the organization of production, as a rule, did not know how to be guided by needs. social development, did not know human psychology well, performed their functions by virtue of duty, and sometimes careerism by virtue of a given assignment, and not a personal understanding of the meaning of political work.

Technocrats quite consistently implemented their conviction that institutions and governing bodies dealing with economic affairs should not participate in political work and influence it. They ignored the fact that any form of power is in one way or another associated with the impact on the human mind, submission to a certain order and the desire to achieve a specific result. They did not understand that these functions would not be fully or partially realized if the attitude of people to various actions in the field of politics was not taken into account.

It is worth mentioning about such a form (type) of power as ochlocracy, which appeals to populist sentiments in their most primitive and at the same time massive manifestations. This type of power is distinguished by the volatility of the political course, oversimplification in solving complex social problems, constant appeals to the lumpenized strata of the population, resorting to provocations to arouse mass passions. History shows that the more and the longer the authorities abuse these methods, the more sad and ominous political leaders end their journey, who turned to these sectors of society for assistance and support.