The concept of legitimacy comes from the Latin word legitimus (consistent with the laws, lawful, lawful). legitimacy means the consent of the people with the government, a positive attitude towards the current government of the majority of the population, as well as the recognition of its legitimacy by the world community in order to establish official and unofficial relations. The legitimacy of power is determined by its ability to solve the external and internal problems of the country.

The concepts of legitimacy and legality should not be confused. Legality means only the legitimacy of power, and legitimacy is a much deeper concept, meaning that power is accepted by the masses, they agree to obey such power, considering it fair, authoritative, and the existing order is the best for the country. The legitimacy of power implies that the laws are enforced by the main part of society. Legitimate power is based on the recognition of the right of power holders to prescribe norms of behavior for other people. Legitimacy means the recognition by the population of this power, its right to govern, its compliance with people's ideas about justice, the validity of any actions of the authorities, the presence of motivation in order to obey. The lower the level of legitimacy, the more often the government will rely on coercion.

The term "legitimacy" arose at the beginning of the 19th century. in France. Initially, it was applied in relation to the power of the king as the only legitimate, legitimate, in contrast to the violent change of power by Napoleon.

Ensuring the legitimacy of power is its legitimization.

Legitimization means the recognition or confirmation of the legality (legitimacy) of any right or authority, including the right of political power to make political decisions and carry out political actions and actions.

The criteria for the legitimacy of power are either the development of democratic procedures (election of power), or the ability of power to maintain stability and order in society, even if it was established as a result of a coup or revolution.

Signs of the legitimacy of power are the conviction of the majority of citizens in the legitimacy of power and the existing system, as well as the freedom of citizens to express their will.

It is possible to identify several types of legitimacy of power :

• o power based on the right of succession to the throne. In this case, many necessary actions, unpopular with the people, could be carried out only with the use of violence;
• o charismatic tin, when power is based on a specific person, distinguished by strong leadership qualities (charisma) (examples from history: Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, etc.);
• o liberal-democratic, or constitutional type of legitimacy, characterized by the free will of citizens, the election of government bodies. Such legitimacy is most common in the modern world;
• o ethnic type of legitimacy, involving the formation of power structures on a national basis. This type of legitimacy is formed with the high activity of people of the indigenous nationality, the proclamation of the ideas of the nation state.

Power serves as the basis, object and driving force of politics. The struggle for power is a characteristic feature of the political life of any society, of any era. The concentrated expression of power is the relationship of coercion - execution.

According to M. Weber, there are three types of legitimization:

• o traditional - a centuries-old habit of submission (to kings, emperors, princes, etc.);
• o charismatic - faith and submission to the authority of some charismatic personality;
• o rational - submission to such authority, which is clear, understandable and operates on the basis of democratic laws (legitimacy of the benefits of submission).

The following means of legitimization are used: informing about the goals and objectives of the current policy, its economic feasibility, compliance with the interests of the people, the formation of a national idea, etc. At the same time, the authorities must show that they are able to cope with this. The most universal means of legitimizing power is elections and referendums, which allow people to feel their involvement in power, the dependence of power on the people.

An important instrument of legitimization is the mass media, which allow the manipulation of public consciousness.

The means of legitimizing power depend primarily on the political regime established in a particular state.

There are the following main political regimes: totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic.

Democracy - a political regime based on the method of collective decision-making with equal influence of participants on the outcome of the process or on its essential stages. In order for power to be legitimate under a democratic regime, it must be controlled by society, and access to politics by its individual members must be difficult and as transparent as possible.

There are some basic features of modern democratic regimes. In a truly democratic society, the people actively involved in politics , and such participation is fixed by law. First of all, the participation of citizens in politics is carried out in the form of an electoral process that allows the people to accept or not accept the existing government, to show how legitimate they consider it.

In the implementation of the electoral process, the level of socio-economic development of the state, the high civil culture of the population, which determine the requirements for candidates, are very important.

As the French philosopher, writer and politician Joseph de Maistre argued, every nation is ultimately worthy of its own government. And one more quote: "Democracy cannot rise above the level of the human material of which its voters are composed" (Bernard Shaw).

Another sign of true democracy can be considered a multi-party system, which allows all representatives of social groups, even those who are a minority, to express their point of view about the actions of the authorities. Democracy must be sovereign, i.e. independent of the interference of other states or international organizations.

If the political regime is truly democratic, conditions are created for the free expression of the will of the people, justice and freedom are provided to citizens, then they consider such power to be legitimate.

In Russia, all the main means of legitimizing power are used:

• 1) legal support for the election of power;
• 2) political pluralism;
• 3) local self-government;
• 4) informatization of society;
• 5) the interaction of society and government.

Legal support of elective power . Following the results of a national referendum in 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted, in accordance with which the political system in our state was built. The Constitution states that "...Russia is a democratic federal law-governed state...".

The task of the rule of law is to strictly maintain the measure between positive incentives and coercion. This is the politics of domination, the politics of peacemaking, the art of the possible, the creation of reasonable balances between social driving forces and social interests.

A system of normative legal federal and regional acts has been adopted that establishes the principles of electoral law and the electoral process in the Russian Federation.

At the same time, when forming a democratic regime, the norms of international law are also taken into account, and, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the norms of international law take precedence over the norms of domestic law. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules than those provided for by law, then the rules of the international treaty shall apply. It is believed that international law, to a greater extent than national law, reflects the ideas of humanism and justice.

If the result of the referendum had been different, the Russian Federation would not have existed, most likely, the country would have collapsed, like the USSR.

A referendum is a form of direct expression of the will of the citizens of the Russian Federation on the most important issues of state and local significance.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation determines that "the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people."

The people as a source of power exercise it:

• o directly through elections and referendums;
• o through public authorities;
• o through local governments.

Citizens of the Russian Federation who have reached the age of 18 have an active suffrage, with the exception of those who are recognized by the court as incompetent or are held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court verdict.

Democratic, free elections to the bodies of state power, local self-government, as well as a referendum are the highest direct expression of the power belonging to the people. The state guarantees the free expression of the will of citizens of the Russian Federation in elections and referendums, the protection of democratic principles and norms of the electoral law and the right to participate in a referendum.

Measures of administrative and criminal liability for violations of the norms of the electoral law are envisaged. For example, administrative offenses include: violation of the right of citizens to familiarize themselves with the list of voters; interference in the work of election commissions; failure to comply with the decision of the election commission; violation of the procedure for providing information about voters; violation of the established procedure for publishing documents related to the preparation and conduct of elections; violation of the rights of a member of an election commission, an observer, a foreign (international) observer, an authorized representative of a registered candidate, an electoral association (bloc), a representative of the mass media; violation of the rules of pre-election campaigning; bribing voters; non-provision or non-publication of a report, information on the receipt and expenditure of funds for the preparation and conduct of elections; etc.

Measures of criminal liability are provided for such offenses as obstruction of the exercise of electoral rights or the work of election commissions; falsification of election documents or incorrect counting of votes; etc.

Political pluralism implies a variety of political views and organizations, free participation of citizens in political life, competition between various political forces in the struggle for access to power.

According to the Constitution, political diversity and a multi-party system are recognized in the Russian Federation. This means that various public political associations can be created, registered and carry out their activities in Russia on the grounds determined by law.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation states that public associations are equal before the law. The equality of public associations before the law is manifested in the equality of the requirements of the state to the charters of public associations. In Russia, in addition to equality before the law, the equality of public associations among themselves is fixed. This presupposes equality of rights and obligations of public associations in both public and economic activities.

The principle of a multi-party system, enshrined in the Constitution, assumes that each party, as a kind of public association, expressing the political will of its members, seeks to participate in the formation of state authorities and local self-government bodies.

Each party has the right to adopt program documents, which are then published to the public, to nominate candidates for deputies and other elective offices. But, participating in elections, the party cannot receive financial support from foreign states, organizations and citizens. In accordance with the Federal Law of July 11, 2001 No. 95-FZ "On Political Parties", citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to create political parties on a voluntary basis in accordance with their convictions, to join political parties or to refrain from joining political parties, to participate in the activities of political parties in accordance with their statutes, as well as to leave political parties without hindrance. The creation and activities of political parties whose goals or actions are aimed at carrying out extremist activities are prohibited.

Local self-government should contribute to the approximation of public authorities to the population, the formation of civil society in our country. In Russia, the formation of local self-government (since the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), its legislative foundations have been created, and extensive experience in the work of municipalities has been accumulated. The formation of local self-government brings Russia closer to a truly democratic society, because it makes it possible to get away from the monocentric model of power organization traditional for Russia.

The interaction of society and government is provided by a variety of means. The Public Chamber of the Russian Federation was established in accordance with Federal Law No. 32-F3 of April 4, 2005 "On the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation". According to this law, the Public Chamber is elected every two years and carries out interaction of citizens with state authorities and local self-government in order to take into account the needs and interests of citizens, protect their rights and freedoms in the formation and implementation of state policy, as well as in order to exercise public control over the activities of bodies authorities. The Public Chamber provides support to non-profit organizations in Russia. In 2009, due to amendments to the legislation, a procedure was established in accordance with which all socially significant bills are subject to mandatory examination by the Public Chamber.

The study of public opinion has been organized, for example, the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) has been created, sociological surveys are regularly conducted, including on problems of attitude towards the current government, etc.

Informatization of society. In today's world, information is practically the main source of power. Control over information resources and flows allows the authorities to successfully pursue their policies. However, direct control is no longer possible, so often the authorities themselves produce certain information and its interpretation.

In accordance with the principles of a democratic society, citizens have the right to access information resources, including information about the activities of government bodies. No less important is the organization of feedback between the population and the authorities. Mass media play an important role in informatization of society.

Thus, in general, a democratic regime is being created in the Russian Federation. At the same time, the problem of legitimizing power exists due to the large scale of corruption, the facts of excessive administration, bureaucracy, the fear of a large part of state and municipal employees of openness and transparency in their work, isolation from the needs of citizens, etc. High social differentiation remains, the standard of living of a fairly large part population is extremely low. Local self-government is still extremely poorly developed. The apoliticality of the population, its low legal culture are noted.

Without legitimate power, it will not be possible to create a sovereign democracy, in which both the system of power and its actions are shaped by Russian citizens.

Legality- legal substantiation of power, its compliance with legal norms. Legality is established and guaranteed by the state power and is of a rational nature.

Form of legalization of power- legislation, for example, acts on succession to the throne, on the election of parliament, president, etc.

It is understood: a) illegal seizure of power by a person by a group of persons; b) appropriation of other people's power (excess of authority). For example, a usurpation can be considered an election victory as a result of fraud.

Legal power can be illegitimate.

legitimacy- this is the acceptance of power by the population of the country, the recognition of its right to manage social processes, the readiness to obey it.

legitimacy- this is the quality of the relationship between state power and subordinates. This phenomenon is not legal, but political, moral and value, psychological and is expressed in the following.

Voluntary recognition of the value of state power and its right to govern. Recognition is a consequence of the fact that the government corresponds to the ideas and expectations of the population, expresses its fundamental interests. This affects the effectiveness of government.

Types of legitimation (M. Weber)

- 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 acquires high stability and stability for the authorities;

- rational (democratic) legitimacy, its source is a rationally understood interest, which induces people to obey the decisions of the government, formed according to generally recognized rules, i.e. based on democratic procedures. In such a state, it is not the personality of the leader that is subject, but the laws within which the representatives of power are elected and operate.

- charismatic legitimacy, emerging 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 arises during a period of revolutionary change, when the social orders and ideals familiar to a person are collapsing and people cannot rely either on former norms and values, or on the still emerging rules of the political game.

There are other types of legitimacy. One of them - ideological legitimacy. Its essence lies in the justification of power with the help of ideology introduced into the mass consciousness. Ideology justifies the correspondence of power to the interests of the people, nation or class, its right to govern. Depending on who an ideology appeals to and what ideas it uses, ideological legitimacy can be class or nationalist. In the countries of command-administrative socialism was widespread class legitimacy. In the second half of the XX century. many young states in an attempt to gain recognition and support of the population very often resort to nationalist legitimation their power, often establishing ethnocratic regimes.

Technocratic legitimation– power d/b professional

Legitimacy is a term that is widely used in modern political science and political practice. Sometimes it is interpreted extremely broadly, identifying it with formal legal legality. However, this is not always the case. From a psychological point of view, the legitimacy of power really means legality, but legality is subjective. For one reason or another, people can give a positive assessment to political institutions that concentrate power in themselves, recognize their right to make managerial decisions and be ready to voluntarily obey them. This relationship between power and people is called legitimacy. Legitimate power is assessed by the people who recognize it as lawful and fair. Legitimacy also means the presence of authority in power, the correspondence of this power to the basic value orientations of the majority of citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

Another type of legitimate domination, in which M. Weber saw the motivation for submission in the "moral habit of certain behavior", he called "traditional". This type of domination is based on the belief in the legitimacy and even the sacredness of ancient orders and authorities and is associated with traditional social action. Based on the generalization of the historical experience of a number of countries, Weber identifies two forms of traditional legitimate domination: patriarchal and class. The patriarchal form of organization of traditional power took place, according to Weber, in Byzantium. It is characterized by relations of personal dependence in the apparatus of state administration. Although quite high positions can be occupied by both people from the social lower classes, including yesterday's slaves, and the closest relatives of the emperor himself, they are all disenfranchised servants of the latter. Examples of estate forms, according to Weber's views, can be found in the feudal states of Western Europe. Here the mechanism of power is more impersonal. The lower levels of the power hierarchy have greater autonomy, and the hierarchy itself is based on the principles of class affiliation and class honor. This form of traditional domination creates conditions for the formation of an aristocracy, to some extent limiting the power of the monarch.

With the traditional type of legitimate domination, and especially with its patriarchal form, the role of formal law is extremely low and, therefore, there is no possibility to act "regardless of persons." Personal loyalty and loyalty to the boss is much more important than knowledge and competence. Therefore, it is personal devotion that is an important condition for moving up the career ladder.

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

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

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

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

Ideological legitimacy is based on the conviction of citizens in the correctness of those ideological values ​​on which the political regime and the institutions representing it are based. The more citizens share the values ​​and norms characteristic of a given political regime, the greater the degree of legitimacy it possesses and, conversely, the fewer such citizens, the lower the level of legitimacy. Structural legitimacy is based on the conviction of citizens in the optimality of the structure of the institutions of the political system and the functions they perform, on confidence in the correct distribution of roles in power structures and the approval of the legal norms on which this system is based. It is easy to see that Easton's structural legitimacy is similar to Max Weber's legal-rational legitimacy. Similarly, one can draw an analogy between personal legitimacy according to D. Easton and charismatic legitimacy according to M. Weber. Personal legitimacy, according to Easton, is based on the belief of individuals in the personal qualities of political leaders, on confidence in their ability to best manage their power. But if "charisma", Weber believed, is inherent only in outstanding historical figures, then Easton proceeded from the fact that political leaders who do not really have special qualities can receive mass support. As real political practice shows, the authorities are able to achieve very ordinary personalities and they can enjoy fairly stable and broad support from the population and, therefore, have personal legitimacy.

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

The first of these is formed by the rules for receiving and exercising power.

The second level is the beliefs of the rulers and the ruled regarding the functioning of the political system.

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

In modern political science, the concept of the legitimacy of the political power of the French political scientist J. Chabot has become famous. He defines legitimacy as the adequacy of the real or supposed qualities of the rulers (as well as those who intend to become them) to the implied or explicit consent of the governed. J. Chabot distinguishes four types of legitimacy: democratic, ideological, technocratic and ontological. Democratic legitimacy is inherent in political systems that operate on the basis of basic democratic principles: collective decision-making, consideration of the will of the majority, observance of human rights and freedoms. Democratic legitimacy is relative and must be complemented by other types of legitimacy. First of all, it is technocratic legitimacy, understood by Chabot as the degree of professionalism and competence of those who are in power and make decisions. It is not enough for a leader to just win the support of voters, it is necessary to justify the trust placed by effective management activities. Shabot understands ideological legitimacy in much the same way as Easton, linking it to the functioning of the Soviet and other totalitarian regimes.

The concept of ontological legitimacy by J. Chabot is the most difficult to perceive. The political scientist pointed out that in this case “we are talking about identifying the correspondence of political power to the objective order inscribed in human and social reality, the continuation of the order established in cosmic extrahuman reality.” Here the idea is expressed that the existence of any political system is justified as long as it does not conflict with the most universal laws of the development of nature and society.

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

Along with the theoretical problem of the legitimacy of political power, there is a practical problem of its legitimation, that is, the acquisition of legitimacy in the eyes of society. The legitimization of power in some cases may coincide with legalization - the adoption of fundamental legal acts, primarily constitutions. The legitimation mechanism can be elections or referendums, which reveal the level of popular support for leaders, parties, institutions, regulations or decisions. The ideological legitimization of power is necessary not only in totalitarian systems, the leaders of the most democratic countries also rely on certain ideological values ​​to justify their actions and decisions.

One of the fundamental differences of a democratic system is that in it power cannot be appropriated, but only "acquired" by winning competitive elections. In other words, at the personal level, the legitimation of power is subject to cyclic renewal (confirmation).

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

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

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

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

1. The level of coercion used by the authorities to implement their policies (legitimate authorities can do without direct violence at all, illegitimate authorities often simply “sit on bayonets”).
2. The presence or absence of attempts to unlawfully overthrow a given government or political leader.
3. The presence or absence of mass actions of civil disobedience, as well as the strength of such disobedience.
4. The results of elections, referendums, as well as data from sociological studies, if the latter are reliable.
5. The degree of corruption in power, etc.

Along with the process of legitimation of power in political practice, the opposite process can also occur - the delegitimization of power, that is, the loss of those factors that determined its legitimacy. The delegitimization of power can be the result of a number of reasons: 1) a consequence of the contradiction between the selfish aspirations of the ruling elite and the ideological values ​​that dominate in a given society; 2) a consequence of the contradiction between officially proclaimed democratic principles and real political practice related to the restriction of the rights and freedoms of the population, pressure on the media, persecution of the opposition; 3) a consequence of the increase in the inefficiency of the bureaucratic apparatus and its increased corruption; 4) a consequence of a split within the ruling elite due to the loss of confidence in the justification of its claims to power; 5) a consequence of the conflict between the branches of government. A crisis of legitimacy can also occur when the political system ceases to accept the demands of the main social groups, when it lacks or ceases to function mechanisms that protect the interests of the broad masses of the people.

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

Only ideology could not be the only legitimizing factor of the communist regime in the USSR for so long. It was supported by factors of a different order. We can also talk about a certain economic efficiency of this regime. The tasks of industrial modernization were solved in technical, technological and socio-cultural terms. Agrarian Russia turned into a nuclear-missile superpower, launched the first artificial Earth satellite and carried out the first manned flight into space. It should not be forgotten that, starting from the mid-1950s, there was a steady upward trend in the level of material well-being of the majority of the population of the Soviet Union, which could also use a wide range of free social services, albeit of low quality by world standards.

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

Ideological erosion became a reality in full measure already during the leadership of the country by Leonid Brezhnev. His reign was marked, on the one hand, by unprecedented achievements, but at the same time by growing disillusionment with former ideals and values. First of all, the notions of a "bright future" - communism, which did not come on the promised dates, turned out to be discredited, and the party leadership avoided direct explanations with the people about this. In addition, a real increase in the standard of living was not always felt psychologically. Often, on the contrary, dissatisfaction with their financial situation increased due to the continued shortage of many goods and services. With the aggravation of socio-economic problems, degradation in many areas of public life has intensified. Corruption and the disintegration of the party-state apparatus began to be clearly revealed. And all-encompassing corruption, according to the French sociologist M. Dogan, is a symptom of the delegitimization of the regime. But it was still far from its complete delegitimization in the Soviet Union, especially since society for the most part was in the dark about the real problems facing it.

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

The process of legitimizing power in the new Russia after the collapse of the communist regime and the collapse of the USSR was not easy. The adoption of normative acts necessary in the new conditions and, above all, the Constitution was delayed. This led to a political crisis. There was a situation when formal legality (legality) and legitimacy not only did not coincide, but in some points were in conflict with each other. So it was in September-October 1993 during the confrontation between President Yeltsin and the majority of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation. B. Yeltsin by that time had not yet completely lost his "charisma", acquired by him in the fight against the previous system, including populist methods. In the early years of the reforms, Yeltsin's "charisma" was perhaps the only factor that legitimized the changes that were taking place and the newly emerging attitudes and institutions. As Yeltsin's popularity waned, the authorities more and more diligently looked for other means of legitimation. For example, the ideological factor was involved. If in the early 90s there were references to liberal values, then prominent representatives of the ruling regime used patriotic slogans and rhetoric borrowed from the opposition.

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

See: Political science. Textbook for high schools. Ed. prof. V.A. Achkasov and V.A. Gutorova. Read in full at: http://all-politologija.ru

Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. Legitimacy is associated with the belief of the vast majority of the population that the existing order is the best for a given country.

The term "legitimacy" itself is translated from French as "legality". But the translation is not entirely accurate. Legality is reflected in the term "legality". "Legitimacy" and "legality" are close, but not identical concepts. The first is more evaluative, ethical in nature, and the second is legal.

The famous German sociologist M. Weber singled out three ways to achieve legitimacy, reflecting the features of the motives of submission.

1. traditional legitimacy. It arises due to customs, the habit of obeying authority, faith in the steadfastness and sacredness of long-standing orders. Traditional domination is inherent in monarchies. The overwhelming weight of tradition leads people to reproduce relationships of power and subordination again and again over many generations. In its motivation, traditional legitimacy is in many ways similar to relationships in a patriarchal family, based on unquestioning obedience to elders and on the personal, informal nature of relationships. The power of tradition is such that when leaders break it, they can lose legitimacy in the eyes of the masses. In this sense, the power of the elite is severely limited by the same tradition that gives it legitimacy. Traditional legitimacy is enduring. Therefore, according to M. Weber, the preservation of a hereditary monarch, which reinforces the authority of the state with centuries-old traditions of honoring power, is useful for the stability of democracy.

2. Legal or rational-legal legitimacy. It is based on the voluntary recognition of established legal norms aimed at regulating relations of control and subordination. The most developed form of this type of power is the constitutional state, in which impartial norms clearly indicate the rules for its functioning. On the other hand, these norms are open to change, for which there are procedures established by law. In systems of this kind, the power of the political elite is legitimized by the “kingdom of law”. To justify their power, the elite refers to the current legislation (the Constitution).

3. charismatic legitimacy. It is based on faith in the exceptional qualities of a leader with which he is endowed by God, i.e. faith in his charisma. Therefore, he is sometimes even deified, a cult of his personality is created. Charismatic power is relatively unstable compared to traditional and legal power. Charisma is closely related to the qualities of the individual, while tradition and law are facts of social life. The charismatic method of legitimation is often used during periods of revolutionary change, when the new government for recognition by the population cannot rely on the authority of traditions or the democratically expressed will of the majority. In this case, the greatness of the personality of the leader is deliberately cultivated, whose authority sanctifies the institutions of power, contributes to their recognition and acceptance by the population. Charismatic legitimacy is based on the emotional, personal attitude of the leader and the masses.

The legitimacy of power is not limited to these three classical types. There are others, such as ideological legitimacy. Its essence lies in the justification of power with the help of ideology introduced into the mass consciousness. Ideology justifies the right to manage the correspondence of power to the interests of the people, nation or class. Ideological legitimacy is based on the impact on the consciousness and subconsciousness of people through the methods of persuasion and suggestion. But unlike rational-legal legitimacy, which appeals to consciousness, reason, ideological legitimacy is a one-way process that does not involve feedback, active participation of citizens in the development of ideology.

In the second half of the XX century. many young states resort to increased nationalist legitimacy in an attempt to gain recognition and support from the population. This kind of legitimacy is present to a greater or lesser extent in many modern states.

It should be borne in mind that the types of power are associated with a specific political reality. Really existing political systems are an interweaving of all three types with the predominance of one of them. Therefore, one should not confuse the types of power, singled out as a theoretical concept, with the concrete reality of political systems, where they appear only partially and in combination with each other. At the same time, without singling out these ideal types, understanding real political systems would be impossible.

Researchers identify several sources of legitimacy.

1. Participation of citizens in governance, which creates a general involvement of people in the policy pursued by the authorities, allows citizens to feel, to a certain extent, its subject.

2. Technocratic legitimacy, i.e., legitimacy through the economic, military, educational, etc. activities of power.

In this case, legitimacy is directly dependent on the success of such activities. Failures weaken the legitimacy of power, while successes strengthen it (for example, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.).

3. Legitimacy through coercion. Everything is aimed at coercion, but the forms are different. They are manifested in the restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens. The stronger the coercion, the lower the level of legitimacy. Strength is the last argument of power, with the help of which it seeks to increase its legitimacy.

An important place in the functioning of power is occupied by the problems of delegitimization, the aggravation of which can cause a crisis and even the collapse of the political regime.

The main reasons for delegitimization are as follows:

a) the contradiction between the universal values ​​that dominate society and the selfish interests of the ruling elite;

b) the contradiction between the idea of ​​democracy and socio-political practice. This is manifested in an attempt to solve problems by force, by putting pressure on the media;

c) the absence in the political system of a mechanism for protecting the interests of the masses;

d) the growth of bureaucratization and corruption;

e) nationalism, ethnic separatism in multinational states, manifested in the rejection of federal power;

f) the ruling elite's loss of faith in the legitimacy of its power, the emergence of sharp social contradictions within it, the clash of different branches of power.

These are the most important problems of the legitimacy of power, which in modern conditions is becoming extremely important.

Bibliography

1) Power: Essays on the Political Philosophy of the West // Ed. Msheniveradze M. M. M., 1995.

2) Ilyin I. Axioms of power. 1994. Krasnov B.I.

3) Razuvaev V.V. Power in Russia: bureaucratic dimension 1995.

4) Shestopal V. B. Image of power in Russia: desires and reality 1995.

Power, mocked with impunity,
close to death
O. de Balzac

What is power? Modern science offers a variety of interpretations of this concept. Power has become the object of close attention and study of many humanitarian disciplines. Representatives of each of them make a feasible contribution to the common treasury of knowledge about power. However, many research approaches often stop only at describing the objectified forms and modifications of power, prerequisites, resources, and results of power influence. In addition, scientists every time run into natural epistemological limitations, which are imposed by the theoretical and methodological specificity of the field of knowledge on behalf of which they act. In this context, power sometimes becomes quite close and understandable - and yet it constantly eludes the inquisitive researcher (pursuer?) essence.

Possessing the immanent property of inclusiveness, power permeates all spheres and levels of human social and cultural existence. It is an amazing fusion of actuality and potentiality, "reality" and "actuality", freedom and necessity, human and superhuman ... Power is a kind of self-evidence and at the same time "this mystery is great."

The complexity, inconsistency and mystery of power, its irremovable "noumenal" (and above all - in the anthropological perspective) is the reason that each new attempt to penetrate the labyrinths of power reality leaves more questions than answers. One of these is the question of the means, methods and technologies of legitimation, explanation, justification, ensuring the recognition of power as Power.

The problem of legitimacy and legitimization of power was actively developed by the German sociologist Max Weber. His concept of three ideal types (foundations, principles) of legitimacy has become a classic of world social science thought. “Firstly,” the scientist writes, “this is the authority of the “eternally yesterday”: the authority of morals, consecrated by the primordial significance and habitual orientation towards their observance, is the “traditional” domination as it was carried out by the patriarch and the patrimonial prince of the old type. Further, the authority of a personal gift (charisma), complete personal devotion and personal trust, caused by the presence of the qualities of a leader in some person: revelations, heroism and others - charismatic domination as it is exercised by the prophet, or - in the field of the political - the elected prince-commander, or a plebiscitary ruler, an outstanding demagogue and a political party leader. Finally, dominance by virtue of "legality", by virtue of belief in the obligatory nature of legal establishment and business "competence", justified by rationally created rules, that is, orientation towards subordination in the implementation of established rules. These principles are universal, but due to the fact that, as mentioned above, they are ideal constructs, they cannot be implemented in their pure form. As the Spanish political scientist Sanisteban aptly puts it, Weber's foundations of legitimacy "form a 'magic formula' on which relations of power and subordination are based in any political system" . The government chooses one or another component of this "formula" or a combination of them, in accordance with the tasks facing it at the moment.

Reflecting in the mirror of its own representation, the authorities get the opportunity to control the level of legitimacy. The institution of public opinion can act as such a “mirror” in society. The ability of mass interested value judgments and the volitional manifestations caused by them, to a greater or lesser extent, to influence the state of affairs in the state is largely a function of the way power is structured and the nature of the political system. Accordingly, the role of public opinion as a factor in social dynamics can vary within a wide range - from negligible to decisive. The answer to the question, what is this role in relation to a specific situation in a particular state within the possible range, has both important scientific and no less significant political significance. After all, the measure of inclusion of assessments and judgments of the public in the practical decisions of authorities and administration is an indicator of the openness of society, the level of development of the most important rights and freedoms in it, and finally, one of the criteria for the democratic nature of the political structure of the state. Quite often, the answers to these questions determine the solution of important foreign policy and foreign economic problems for the country - joining or not joining international pacts and organizations, receiving or not receiving loans, credits, favorable trade regimes, etc. Therefore, any modern political regime, even the most repressive one, seeks to create the illusion that public opinion is involved in the real processes of making power decisions, tries to flirt with it. Accordingly, the problem arises of the most objective assessment of the nature of the relationship between the authorities and public opinion, the possibilities of the latter's participation in solving generally significant issues.

Modern scientific literature describes several models (modes) of the relationship between power and public opinion.

Mode suppression characterized by severe pressure from the institutions of power, including a repressive component in relation to all manifestations of mass interested value judgments about objects that have at least a minimal socio-political coloring. At the same time, public opinion is presented exclusively as a spiritual education and does not pass into a spiritual and practical form. There is no need to talk about the presence of any developed volitional and, even more so, its behavioral components.

Under the conditions of the regime ignoring the government seeks to minimize the socially transformative role of public opinion not by its harsh suppression, but by removing it from its assessments, excluding them from all spheres of decision-making. Mass interested value judgments and even the corresponding volitional manifestations are, as it were, “bracketed” by the political process and are doomed to exist on their own in a spiritual space that does not intersect with the space of state administration.

In mode paternalism power and public opinion are clearly unequal. The first takes precedence over the second. This is the domination of power, but domination in a mild form. Paternalism, therefore, is pressure, but not suppression, it is the relationship of the leader and the follower, the boss and the subordinate, in which certain rights are recognized for the follower, the subordinate, and he himself is considered, albeit a junior, but a participant in the dialogue. In contrast to the suppression or ignoring of public opinion, when the authorities consider themselves the only subject of the political and administrative process, in the regime under consideration, mass assessments and public opinion as a whole already act as a subject, although they are significantly limited by another subject in rights and opportunities. This regime already involves the use of the institution of public opinion to legitimize power. The latter needs to be recognized by society due to the fact that it is in a “social partnership” with it (which, by the way, can be unequal!).

The next on the scale of "democratic" is the regime mutual realization public opinion. Within its framework, the most complete realization of the essential potentialities of opinion takes place, it acts as a full-fledged subject of political life and a full-fledged participant in the process of managing the affairs of society.

A situation is possible when the power of public opinion puts pressure on the authorities (dictatorship is the ultimate expression of this). This situation can be compared with a kind of mirror image of the regime of paternalism of power in relation to public opinion, in which the subjects of interaction have changed roles.

Consideration of the above models of the relationship between power and public opinion allows us to conclude that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the ruling elites, in order to maintain political and social stability, maintain the necessary and sufficient level of legitimacy of the existing regime (although it should be noted that any government strives for its totality, completeness, integrity, authenticity, and therefore, as a rule, to absolute recognition) one has to react very sensitively to all processes, all disturbances that take place in the environment of public opinion.

Public opinion management as one of the resources for legitimizing power has a certain degree of universality (that is, it is used with greater or lesser efficiency and effectiveness in various political systems). It (in one modification or another) works, relatively speaking, "always and everywhere." However, Russia is characterized by yet another non-traditional for science and at the same time, a mechanism that is firmly entrenched in practice to explain and justify the existing institutional order. This is corruption. Corruption as a way of legitimizing power, “fitting” it into “a symbolic universe, in the horizon of which both the history of society and the biography of an individual acquire meaningful value”, in our opinion, is one of the most interesting, ambiguous and somewhat paradoxical phenomena of Russian reality . It is impossible to understand it for a person who is a bearer of the Western type of thinking, which is focused on the ideas of the inviolability of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, respect for the norms of law and discipline, and finally, on free individual self-determination (and again, as I. A. Ilyin wrote, “not from law, but within the law”) in society through their socio-political and economic activity. This is a “very Russian” (Berdyaev) phenomenon. Its inescapable viability is ensured by being rooted in the fertile soil of Russian history and culture, the Russian world outlook, and the Russian attitude to power. It is constantly fueled not only by the conviction of society in the imperfection of the mechanism of public administration in the present, the unresolved many urgent problems, but also by the living, inexhaustible mental energies of the people formed over many centuries. As you know, ideas fixed at the level of archetypal representations are the most inert formations of consciousness that are difficult to change. They have a direct impact on the "life world" of a person, his value system, his behavior. Based on this idea, we will once again dwell on some features of the Russian mentality that deserve special attention.

Developing and popularizing the ideas of K.N. Leontiev, N.A. Berdyaev called the Russian people “the most stateless”, initially not accepting the state either as an “earthly mortal god” (Leviathan), or as a moral regulator, authorized by the Supreme Absolute Beginning (God) to be the guardian of Truth and ethically “legitimate” patterns of behavior. He is characterized by a fundamental alienation from the state, from the desire to exercise power, to the realization of legal rights and freedoms. The Russian people are religious. The ideas of Christian doctrine serve (served?) as the starting point of his judgments about Good and Evil. The state did not receive the moral and ethical sanction of the church, and, therefore, could not be the source of the true "Law" and "Grace". Power (which was associated with the state - a ruthless coercive machine) has always been presented not as the actual ability to perform certain management functions in the interests of “everyone”, secured and regulated by legal regulations, as an activity aimed at creating and improving social life, but as a sin, a burden, a temptation arbitrariness after receiving a position that provides greater opportunities and preferences. That is why in Rus', traditionally, this or that social community “seconded” far from its best representatives to power. Curious observations were recorded by M.M. Prishvin: “So Meshkov was chosen - a criminal, poor in mind, who has neither a stake nor a court, because he is impartial and stands for the truth - what truth? unknown; only what he lives by is not of this world. Power is not of this world." The above fragment of Prishvin's notes significantly clarifies the situation of the genesis of Russian legal consciousness and nihilism as one of its defining characteristics. ON THE. Berdyaev in his writings repeatedly points to the religious nature of this nihilism, calling the latter “Orthodox asceticism turned inside out.” The philosopher writes: “At the basis of Russian nihilism, taken in purity and depth, lies the Pro-Orthodox world-denial, the perception of the world lying in evil, the recognition of the sinfulness of all wealth and osh of life, of any creative excess in art, in thought ". Interpreted in this vein, state building, productive rule-making, security, economic growth, humanization of relations in the social sphere, that is, the main functions of public authority, expressing its mission, vocation and essential purpose, turn out to be unclaimed, to say the least - alien, not bringing any positive ideological and practical meaning in the range of interests of the individual existence of a person, because they were initially given over to the power of self-interest, money-grubbing and therefore excluded from the sphere of sacral-religious sanction and cultural-value regulation.

Power, devoid of divine blessing, seemed a priori vicious, prone to various kinds of dysfunctions and abuses. Therefore, corruption has always been perceived as its immanent property, as a kind of identification mark of a genuine earthly "Caesar" government. The temptations associated with the acquisition of a particular position had a detrimental effect on human nature. Staying in the bosom of a bureaucratic organizational culture led to the formation of specific values, morals, habits, styles of behavior and communication (that is, the corresponding type of personality) - “marks”, traces of “staining” with power. Paradoxical as it may seem, it was precisely this attitude towards the managers of the administrative resource that provided the justification for the existing order of management. An unspoken compromise was established in society: power is harmful and vicious, but at the same time it is the only means, a sufficiently organized force and will for the mass mobilization of the population in a situation of a serious external threat, the inspirer of all victories and accomplishments. Interaction with the authorities was random, episodic, forced. She had to very clearly define her boundaries, think through and structure her symbolic space in detail. The strict separation of the "kingdom of Caesar" and the "kingdom of God" (here - the original spiritual world, the sphere of personal freedom), public and individual-personal, "oprichnina" and "zemshchina", state and society, finally, served as one of the factors of the legitimacy of governance.

Another important point of corruption, which is in accordance with the law in force in the state, is its ability to reproduce the primitive archetype of power that preceded civilization and statehood, which still remains within the era of barbarism (a bribe in this sense appears as an act of realizing a specific power relationship). This archetype is associated with the action of the communal beginning of history. It is characterized by elements of broad spontaneous, direct and representative democracy, a combination of local self-government and emerging state institutions, regulation of social relations through customary law, "in truth".

The ancient archetype of power "gives rise to a communal principle, embodying the cult of strength, leader, clan, paternalistic psychology, a tendency to sacrifice" . Its structure is formed by the images of the leader and the squad, the subject population and territory, as well as the law based on force and custom. It is the last two elements in the absence of conditions for self-expression, creative self-realization of the individual, a developed system of legal regulation that ensure the legitimacy of power.

The revival of the communal principle and the primitive archetype of power is most acutely manifested, as a rule, in the transitional periods of Russian history, when tension in the problem areas of the political and administrative process reaches its climax, and the old, primordial, habitual and seemingly even “ineradicable” diseases of the state mechanism with new force declare themselves and require qualified surgical intervention.

Corruption is a companion of the entire history of Russian statehood. It is an inalienable systemic quality, "an objective and universal law of development" of society and the state (V. Loskutov). It is based on contractual relations pursuing the maximization of the economic (and not only) benefits of the parties. V. Mostovshchikov very accurately noted that “it is the ability of citizens and their homeland to properly agree on the rules of cohabitation that brings good results to civilization” .

Features of the Russian historical process (in particular, the lack of cultural influence of the European Renaissance with its ideals of anthropocentrism, autonomy of the individual, free, determined mainly by internal motivating attitudes of “existence in-itself-and-for-itself” (Hegel), as well as weak penetration into the fabric social life and consciousness of the advanced intellectual achievements of the Enlightenment), Russian legal and political mentality, amorphousness, social and political passivity of the population - all this was combined with imperfection, and sometimes outright dysfunctionality of the institutional environment, inconsistency, inadequacy to the requirements of the historical moment of the legal framework, the underdevelopment of the prerequisites for civil society, the lack of professional competent managers, the lack of a unified, deeply thought-out, systemic state personnel policy. Under such conditions, a bribe was (and still often remains) a means of achieving mutual understanding between society and the authorities, a Russian modification of the “social contract”. “According to the order that has been in force for centuries, the “social contract” is not concluded at a time and not between two parties - the state and society, but daily and hourly between millions of their representatives: between officials and entrepreneurs, between motorists and traffic police inspectors, between judges and “parties on the case” and so on for each specific occasion.

Corruption turns into a kind of ritual action that replaces the legal forms of social and political activity of citizens. “Contributing to the formation of political parties, consolidation based on the participation in the electoral processes of various interest groups, corruption for many representatives of the class of “political have-nots” is almost the only way to influence real changes in society” . The legitimation potential of this unconditionally negative social phenomenon is actualized in the effect of personifying power, giving it a living human appearance (always opposed to the soulless bureaucratic machine), in ensuring its own accessibility, understandability, the possibility to be "appropriated" to some extent as a result of a situational "social contract". ”, an economic “deal” concluded in accordance with the principles of private (and not public!) Law. Corruption is a traditional mechanism for legitimizing power in Russia. The inescapable vitality of its legitimation energy is rooted in the peculiarities of national psychology and is supported by the ways in which the authorities, society and the individual interact.

In the modernity of post-industrialism and postmodernism, which has survived the era of the “mass uprising”, when parliamentary forms of representation of interests have been approved in most states, fundamentally different legitimizing resources of power come to the fore, the use of which is focused on maintaining stability in the realities of mass society, on maintaining the dynamic balance of the system by creating the necessary socio-political climate for the development of healthy competitive principles of human “amateur activity”. The institution of elections is one of the main instruments for ensuring mutual recognition of society and power. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every citizen has the right to take part in the government of his state directly and through freely chosen representatives. At the same time, the will of the people is periodically expressed in elections held on the basis of principles that are now universally recognized. These principles include, first of all, universal suffrage, which is enjoyed by all citizens who have reached a certain age, as well as secret ballot. This, it is believed, should ensure the honesty and non-falsification of the choice made by the people.

It is assumed that it is elections that most likely bring the best representatives of society to political power. History clearly demonstrates that as a result of coups or internal intrigues, not the best rulers come to power, if only because, as a rule, they do not enjoy the support of the majority, but, relying only on their retinue, are forced to resort to violence, trying to implement their programs. . From this point of view, it is elections that make it possible not only to select the most worthy candidates, but also to ensure support for the corresponding course from the majority of citizens. I.A. Ilyin at one time emphasized that not every nation is always able to single out the best to power with the help of popular elections. He wrote that the introduction of broad democratic rights should be approached with extreme caution (first of all, his reasoning in this aspect concerned, of course, the electoral rights of citizens) and called with respect and reverence for "small freedom, honored and served by all," opposing her “great freedom, not observed or respected by anyone, for such a “great freedom” is an imaginary value that deserves neither the name “freedom” nor the name “right”.

The electoral process is most closely and directly connected with the problem of the legitimacy of power. Legitimacy means the public acceptance of something - an actor, a political institution, a procedure, or a fact. Unlike legality as a legal formalization of legality, legitimacy does not have legal functions. It only justifies and explains political decisions, reflects consent, political participation without coercion, justifies the actions of the authorities. Legitimate politics and power are authoritative; legitimizing power through elections, citizens seem to recognize its legitimacy, express their confidence in it, and sanction its further activities “from below”.

The normative prerequisites of modernity - individualism and rationalism - being transferred to the political plane, were transformed into prerequisites for democracy as a form of government. They are the products of a long European development and presuppose only those forms of domination that stand the test of individual reasonable judgment. In other words, power is forced to constantly relate itself to individual rationality. Hence the need for the joint recognition by many people of an appropriate political order. If power is forced to justify its actions before individual reasonable judgment, then such power can exist only on the basis of the consent of the governed, that is, some form of social contract. Moreover, the legitimacy of power is not postulated, by definition, once and for all, or at least for a long time, but is in a situation of constant coordination, as we noted earlier.

Based on Weber's three options for the emergence of legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal legitimacy), the English political scientist D. Held proposed a more detailed model of the political behavior of citizens and forms of exercise of power. His scheme includes seven main cases: consent under the threat of violence; traditional legitimacy; legitimacy due to the political apathy of citizens; pragmatic subordination (in terms of maximizing benefits for the majority of citizens); instrumental consent (from the point of view of an instrument for the implementation of some important goal related to the common good); regulatory consent; perfect normative agreement. According to Held, only the last two options - normative and ideal normative agreement - correspond to full democratic legitimacy. The difficulty lies in the fact that in the situation of transition periods, as a rule, there are practically all options for legitimation, the only question is their relationship to the general trend of further development.

From the outside, the democratic principle of legitimation is not much different from the others, proclaiming the rule of the people in almost the same words in which the divine power of the monarch was proclaimed before. However, in fact, we are by no means talking about a simple replacement of one authority with another. The principle of democratic legitimation has fundamental differences from religious or traditional. The people are an imaginary sovereign, their function is to be the starting point for constant changes in the power itself, since government powers are given only for a limited and clearly fixed time in the Constitution. This creates a regulated instability in power relations, which opens up great opportunities for permanent change. Totalitarian regimes largely failed because of their internal rigidity, since their immanent quality was the desire to stabilize relations of power, and by no means to constantly adapt them to changing conditions. However, the recognition and dissemination of the democratic principle of legitimacy does not mean the victory of democracy itself as a form of government. And although the processes of modernization seem to call into question the stability of non-democratic forms of government, primarily due to the weakness of their foundation, this question is far from simple, and there is no automatism here. The universality of the democratic idea is not identical with the universality of democratic practice. The times of non-democratic form of government seem to be a thing of the past, but the stability of democratic regimes, at least on a fairly large scale outside the European-North American region, has not yet been realized. Power at the beginning of the new century continues to reveal the features of the "two-faced Janus".

Power is a problematic, initially deeply contradictory public entity. Its immanent asymmetry, which implies that some social subjects have a relatively larger amount of material, technical, administrative resources, a higher level of concentration of knowledge, social, intellectual and symbolic capital (in a word, a more advantageous social position), always needs to be explained and justified. Such a situation of inequality, as a rule, actualizes the resistance energy of other social agents, in the zone of whose aspirations there is what the authorities dispose of. That is why, having barely arisen, it needs legitimation, and this is precisely what determines one of the aspects of the “problem” of the phenomenon of power.

In order to achieve a certain level of efficiency, effectiveness, as well as for the purposes of elementary self-preservation and reproduction, the government is faced with the need to ensure public consensus on its acceptance as such. To accomplish this task, it seeks to take into account the specifics of a particular moment, as well as rely on historically proven norms, rules, stereotypes and traditions of the political process, taking into account the peculiarities of legal consciousness and the general political and legal culture of the population. Power does not just explain, encourages action or abstaining from it, convinces, or sometimes rigidly prescribes following quite certain patterns of behavior. It integrates itself into existing systems of ideals and values, into pictures of the world, transforms them in accordance with its interests and forms new ones. It establishes a connection with the "eternal", "enduring", "existing from time immemorial" existential foundations of society and man.

Constructive self-reflection is one of the main, in our opinion, conditions for the preservation and qualitative renewal of power, its improvement. Denis Diderot, in his famous Paradox of the Actor, argued that in the process of playing a role, he should not merge with the image of the hero, succumb to the passions that overwhelm him, but, on the contrary, be alienated from him if possible. The actor needs to be a cold reflective spectator for the reason that such a spectator is minimally involved in the spectacle. The actor from the outside watches his mimetic shell, constantly evaluates himself, listens to himself, achieves a filigree embodiment of the stage role, directing all his efforts not to feel. "Distancing must be introduced not only into the theatrical performance, into the process of mimesis, but also into the structure of power." It is the distancing mechanism that provides the latter with the opportunity to implement a kind of “monitoring” that allows you to track the transformations of its visible represented image and, if necessary, correct it, based on the nature and direction of the processes taking place in society.

Literature

1. Weber M. Selected works. Politics as a vocation and profession. - M., 1990. - 710 p.
2. Sanisteban L.S. Fundamentals of political science. / Translated from Spanish by V.L. Zabolotny. - M.: MP "Vladan", 1992. - 258 p.
3. Skorobogatsky V.V. Sociocultural analysis of power. - Ekaterinburg. 2002. - 288 p.
4. Leontiev K.N. Byzantism and Slavism / Byzantism and Slavism: Sat. Art. - M.: AST, 2007. - 571 p.
5. Kara-Murza S. Mind manipulation. - M.: AST, 2004. - 389 p.
6. Berdyaev N.A. The origins and meaning of Russian communism. - M., 1990. - 152 p.
7. Mostovshchikov V. My meetings with the state // Expert. - 2000. - No. 1 - 2. - S. 88.
8. Prokhorov A.P. Russian management model: a compromise between the system and the population. // Questions of Philosophy. - 2003. - No. 2. - S. 49.
9. Loskutov V.A. Post-Soviet totalitarianism - Yekaterinburg, 2006. - 688 p.
10. Ilyin I.A. The path of spiritual renewal. - M.: AST, 2003. - 366 p.
11. Didro D. Ramo's nephew. Actor Paradox. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Azbuka-Classika", 2007. - 224 p.
12. Yampolsky M. B. Physiology of the symbolic. Book. 1. Leviathan Returns: Political Theology, Representation of Power, and the End of the Old Regime. - M.: New Literary Review, 2004. - 800 p.

Bibliography

1. Weber M. selective works. Politics as vocation and profession. M.1990. p.710.
2. Sanisteban L.S. The basic of political science. Translation from Spanish V.l. Zabolotny M. : MP "Vladan", 1992. p.258.
3. Skorobogatsky V.V. Sociocultural analysis of power. Ekateringurg. 2002.p.288.
4. Leontev K.N. Vizantism and Slavs. articles. M.: ACT Moscow; Guardian, 2007. p. 571.
5. Kara Murza S. Manipulation of Mind. M.: ACT, 2004. p.389.
6. Bergyaev N.A. Resources and sense of the Russian communism. M., 1990. p.152.
7. Mostovshikov V. My meetings with the state. expert. 200. No. 1 - 2 p.88.
8. Prohorov A.P. The Russian model of decision: compromise between the system and the population. Voprosy philosophii. 2003. No. 2. p. 49.
9. Loskutov V.A. The postsoviet totalitarian regime. Yekaterinburg, 2006. p. 688.
10. Ilyin I.A. The Way of Mental Renewal. M. AST, 2003. p.366.
11. Didro D. Nephew Ramo. Paradox about an actor. Publishing House Azbuka Classica, 2007. p. 224.
12. Yampolsky M.B. Physiology of symbolic. Book 1. Returning of Leviathan. Political theology, representation of power and the end of the Old Regime. M.: Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye. 2004. p. 800.

Legitimation of Power: Morphology of a Resource Potential

The article is about legitimation of political power. The author emphasizes the specific character of different legitimation resources of power and also the possibilities of their use in cultural - historic context of Russian civilization.

key words: