Political power - essence and forms. Big encyclopedia of oil and gas

While expressing and defending the interests of certain social strata, political power, at the same time, in one way or another organizes the political life of society as a whole. It “is formed as a system of functions from the modeling of one's own activity; analysis of the political and social situation and specific situations; defining your strategy and particular tactical tasks; supervision and suppression ... of deviant behavior; appropriation and disposal of the necessary resources (material and spiritual...); distribution 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 power in its interests and in the interests of its policy ”(Political Science: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1993. - P. 42).

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

Domination implies absolute or relative subordination of some people and their communities to the subjects of power and the social strata they represent (see: Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1983. - P. 85).

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 long-term goals, develops strategic and tactical tasks.

Management is manifested in the conscious, purposeful influence of the subject of power on various parts of the social system, on managed objects in order to implement the installations

guides. Management is carried out using various methods, which can be administrative, authoritarian, democratic, based on coercion, etc.

Political power comes in many forms. A meaningful typology of political power can be built “according to various criteria: according to the degree of institutionalization, government, city, school, etc.; according to the subject of power - class, party, people's, presidential, parliamentary, etc.; on a quantitative basis ... - sole (monocratic), oligarchic (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.; by social type - socialist, bourgeois, capitalist, etc. .... ”(Political Science: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1993. - P. 44)!

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 as a whole, 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 right to issue laws binding on the entire population, and relies on a special apparatus of coercion as one of the means to comply with laws and orders. State power equally means both a certain organization and practical activities to achieve the goals and objectives of this organization ”(Krasnov B.I. Power as a phenomenon of public life / / Socio-political spiders. - 1991. - No. 11. - P. 28 ).

When characterizing state power, two extremes should not be allowed. On the one hand, it is a mistake to consider this government ONLY as a government that is ONLY engaged in oppressing the people, and on the other hand, to characterize it only as a government that is completely absorbed in concerns about the well-being of the people. The state power constantly realizes both that and another. 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, there may be various systems of state power. All of them, however, come 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 of different levels. If there are intermediate bodies between central and local state authorities, which, in accordance with the constitution, are endowed with certain power functions, then the federal system of power operates. If there are no such intermediate authorities or they are completely dependent on the central authorities, then a unitary system of state power operates.

The state power performs legislative, executive and judicial functions. In this regard, the power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial.

In some countries, to these three powers, a fourth one is added - the electoral power, which is represented by electoral courts that decide questions about the correctness of the election of deputies. In the constitutions of individual countries, we are talking about five and even six powers. The fifth power is represented by the Comptroller General with the apparatus subordinate to him: 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 power; secondly, the need to prevent abuse of power, the establishment of dictatorship, totalitarianism, the usurpation of power; thirdly, the need for mutual control of the branches of government; fourthly, the need of society to combine such contradictory aspects of life as power and freedom, law and law. . state and society, command and submission; fifthly, the need to create checks and balances in the implementation of power functions (see: Krasnov B. I. Theory of power and power relations / / Socio-political journal. - 199.4. - No. 7-8. - P. 40).

Legislative power is based on the principles of constitutionality and the rule of law. It is formed through free elections. This power amends the constitution, determines the foundations of the domestic and foreign policy of the state, approves the state budget, adopts laws binding on all citizens and authorities, and controls their implementation. The supremacy of the legislature is limited by the principles of government, the constitution, human rights.

The executive-administrative power exercises direct state power. It not only executes laws, but also issues normative acts itself, and comes up with a legislative initiative. This power must be based on the law, act within the framework of the law. The right to control the activities of the executive power should belong to the representative bodies of state power.

A relatively independent structure of state power is represented by the judiciary. "In its actions, this power must be independent of the legislative and executive powers (see: Ibid. - pp. 43-44, 45).

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 Ch. judiciary (independent courts).

Subsequently, Montesquieu's ideas were developed in the works of other thinkers and legally enshrined in the constitutions of many countries. The US constitution, for example, which was adopted in 1787, states that the legislature in the country belongs to the Congress, the executive power is exercised by the president, the judicial power is exercised by the Supreme Court, and the pace by the lower courts, which are approved by the 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 one country. At the same time, in many countries, state power is based on the principle of uniqueness.

In our country, for many years it was believed that the idea of ​​separation of powers could not be put into practice in connection with the fact. that power is one and indivisible. In recent years, the situation has changed. 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 the 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 the optimal ratio between them as areas of a single state power, a clear definition of their functions and powers.

A relatively independent type of 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 either. 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 also been real subjects of political power in the industrialized countries of the West.

Political power performs various 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 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 law as the core of social relations and to be able to obey the law itself; 3) perform economic and creative functions” (Krasnov B. I. Power as a phenomenon of public life// Socio-political sciences. - 1991. - No. 11. - P. 31).

The fact that “the authorities should” ensure “the rights of citizens”, “their constitutional freedoms”, “perform creative 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 them; it not only creates, but also destroys, etc. Therefore, it seems that some foreign researchers give more objective characteristics of the functions of political power.

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

1) coercion;

2) luring;

3) "blocking the consequences" (i.e., an obstacle to a competitor and the struggle for power);

4) “creation of requirements” (artificial formation of needs that can only be satisfied by an agent of power, a kind of political marketing);

5) "stretching the network of power" (inclusion of additional sources of dependence on agents);

6) blackmail (threats in the present or promises of trouble from disobedience in the future);

7) hints;

8) informational direct and indirect control (with the help of warnings, recommendations, revenge, etc.) ”(Fundamentals of Political Science: A Course of Lectures. - Part 1. - M., 1991. - P. 244).

The political power carries out the functions by means of political institutes, establishments, the organizations making political systems.

Page 1

The organization of political power acquires in many respects its own logic, there is some rationalization of the normative regulation of this social institution. But ascriptivity, although weakening to some extent, does not disappear, dominating for many more centuries, both directly in a family-related form, and indirectly in the form of personal service and loyalty to the lord, and not to the cause.

The characterization of the state as an organization of political power (the dictatorship of the ruling class) reveals its essence and class nature. Other political organizations, in particular political parties and some public organizations, have the same class essence.

The state of the whole people is an organization of political power that expresses the will, interests and unity of all classes, strata, nations and nationalities of a developed socialist society. Under the conditions of developed socialism, the state reaches a stage of maturity when its properties, features, and main features become most definite. The more empirical material accumulates, the wider the experience of socialist state building, the deeper one can penetrate into its essence.

The socialist state, being the organization of the political power of the working people headed by the working class, is at the same time the main organizational form of the economic management of society.

The Conference considers the formation of a socialist rule of law state as a form of organization of political power completely corresponding to socialism to be a matter of fundamental importance. The solution of this task is inextricably linked with the maximum provision of the rights and freedoms of the Soviet person, the responsibility of the state to the citizen and the citizen to the state, with the elevation of the authority of the law and its strict observance by all party and state bodies, public organizations, collectives and citizens, with the effective work of law enforcement agencies. A fundamental restructuring of the activities of these bodies should become the core of the legal reform, which the conference considers expedient to carry out in a relatively short time.

STATE - 1) in the theory of law, a certain way of organizing society, the main element of the political system, the organization of public political power, extending to the whole society, acting as its official representative and relying on means and measures of coercion.

STATE - 1) In the theory of law - a certain way of organizing society, the main element of the political system, the organization of public political power; extending to the whole society, acting as its official representative and relying, where necessary, on the means and measures of coercion.

In its modern sound, democracy means power based on law, the rule of law, respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual. This is the most popular and promising form of organization of political power today.

The argument in favor of political reform rested on the fact that the previously proposed program of economic acceleration was not implemented, as it met with resistance in the system itself and in the ways in which political power was organized.

The Paris Commune lasted only 72 days, but its historical and political significance as a form of working-class dictatorship is enormous. Marx deeply analyzed all the activities of the Paris Commune, especially the organization of political power, and came to the conclusion that the future state of the working class should be built according to its type.

If we accept such a definition of the subject of political science, it is relatively easy to see what connection exists between the subject of political science (or politics as a science) and the subject of general sociology, and thereby find out how these sciences relate to each other. For if the political sciences study the organization of power, they study only one area of ​​the structure of global society, and they can study this area in strictly scientific ways only if they consider it in the context of its connection with the rest of this structure. And this means that the political sciences, in studying the political structure and political institutions, in studying the structure and characteristics of the organization of political power, must take into account the laws related to the structure of global society, which are discovered by general sociology. General sociology can also study political relations and the political structure of individual groups and society as a whole, but in order to clarify their essence as social phenomena. Political sciences study the programs of political parties, their ideas that they seek to implement, the behavior of their representatives in parliament, the attitude of political parties to government bodies and public opinion in order to assess the content and value of the ideas defended by certain parties. But when trying to establish the social prerequisites for the emergence of a particular political party, its connections with certain classes, its social role, then such research moves from the field of political science to the field of sociology. Therefore, politics as a social activity often becomes the subject of study of both political sciences and sociology. Thus, there is a close connection between the subjects of general sociology and political sciences, and the scientific knowledge given by one and the other should be the basis of practical social activity for the development of social relations.

Most of the old cities of North-Eastern Russia - Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir - fell into decay, losing their political supremacy to the outlying ones: Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow. The forcibly interrupted process of the development of the principalities took on new forms: the princely unions, which demanded voluntary unification under the rule of the Grand Duke, were replaced by a monarchy based on the enormous personal power of the prince and the service of feudal subjects to him alone. In the future, this form of organization of political power led to the liberation from the Horde yoke, but the increase in military potential turned out to be associated with an increase in the dependence of all segments of the population on power.

That is why the most advanced unions, which put forward the largest number of the most responsible workers for the entire Soviet country, and above all the union of metalworkers, are least of all inclined towards collegiality and most of all towards individualism. Ivanov, Petrov, Semyonov will pass before the eyes of the working class in the person of its representatives, progressive people. They will reveal, they will show their personality; whether they are fit or not, they are removed from their posts, sent either to more responsible ones, or to finish their studies - this is individualization, the isolation of the individual from the entire still loose mass of the working class, which stands above all the miserable phrases about amateur performance and collegiality that were treated to. For the management of industry, we do not need self-made elections at individual factories; We need such elections for the Soviets, for the organization of political power. Kamenev on the importance of collegiality in the management of the working class. These elections are necessary for administration, but in relation to the administration of industry we need not elections, but a systematic selection, through selected centers, of the most suitable comrades and keeping records.

Pages:      1

SEMINAR 2. POLITICAL POWER

1. Power as a backbone factor of the political system

2. Basic concepts of political power

3. Forms and mechanism of political power

4. The concept of legitimacy and the principle of division of power

1. Power as a backbone factor of the political system

Power is one of the fundamental principles of the political development of society. It has a legal, economic, spiritual and ideological character, it exists wherever there are any stable associations of people, it is closely connected with the political sphere, it is a means of implementing and a way of establishing a certain policy. Political power arose before state power and determines the real ability of a social group or individual to manifest their will. It is an integral part of the general definition of power as a form of social relations, which is characterized by a comprehensive character, the ability to penetrate into all spheres of human activity.

Any system has a backbone component. For the political system, they have political power. It integrates all elements of the system, the political struggle continues around it, it is the source of social control, which, in turn, is a means of exercising power. Consequently, power is a necessary regulator of the life of society, its development and unity.

The branch of political science that studies power is called cratology, and the scientists who analyze it are called cratologists. Political scientists interpret the concept of "power" in different ways. The most acceptable is the definition of it as the ability, right and opportunity to dispose of someone or something, to decisively influence the shares, behavior and activities of people with the help of authority, will, coercion, force, and the like.

Political power- the ability and ability to exercise a decisive influence on the activities, behavior of people and their associations with the help of will, authority, law, violence; organizational and managerial and regulatory and control mechanism for the implementation of the policy.

Most scientists believe that the source of power is political domination, which appears as the dominance of interest, has many forms, the main of which is power. In political practice, it is sometimes erroneously interpreted on the contrary, that power is the source of domination. The authors of such interpretations do not take into account that in order to gain power, one must first become a real political dominant force and win power, and then consolidate one's dominance.

The concept of "political power" is broader than the concept of "state power":

First, political power arose before state power.

Secondly, not every political power is state power (for example, the power of parties, movements, public organizations), although any state power is always political.

Thirdly, the state power is specific: only it has a monopoly on coercion, the right to issue laws, and the like. However, in addition to coercion, it uses other means of influence: persuasion, ideological, economic factors, etc.

Government- the highest form of political power, which is based on a special administrative and power apparatus, has a monopoly right to issue laws, other orders and acts binding on the entire population.

State power functions according to the political-territorial principle. This means that it does not recognize any generic differences, but fixes the population for a certain geographical territory and turns it into its subjects (monarchy) or into its citizens (republic). State power is sovereign, that is, supreme, independent, complete and indivisible within state borders and independent and equal in external relations.

In general, the problem of theoretical analysis of political power is to clarify three questions:

The essence of power (whom does it serve?);

The form of power (how it is organized, what is the apparatus and methods of its implementation).

The characterization of political power requires consideration of the question of its subject and object.

The subject of political power - they have a source of active subject-practical political activity directed at the object. There is an idea that the concepts of “subject of power” and “bearer of power” are not identical. The subject of power is social groups, primarily the ruling classes, political elites, individual leaders; bearers of power - state and other political organizations, bodies and institutions formed to implement the interests of the politically dominant social groups. This division is relative. There is another classification of power subjects. According to it, the subjects of power are conditionally divided into primary and secondary:

1. primary subject under republican, democratic rule, the people are the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the state. He exercises power directly and through state authorities and local self-government. The concept of the people is heterogeneous: the main subjects of power are large groups of the population, united by a commonality of fundamental interests and goals; not the main ones - small ethnic groups, religious societies and the like.

2. Secondary Subjects carriers of power - small groups, representative groups, parties, associated groups, groups of particular (private, unofficial) interests, and the like. The sovereign subject of political power is a citizen of the state, endowed with constitutional rights and duties. Political leaders play a significant role in power relations. The consequences of their policies, as you know, are different: progressive and regressive, fruitful and fruitless, prosperous and tragic. And, finally, the cumulative (collective) carrier of political power is the political system of society itself as a way of organizing and developing social communities and their relations.

Object of political power- these are the phenomena and processes of the political sphere, to which the action of the subjects of politics is directed. The understanding of the object of power must be approached dialectically, since certain subjects and objects of power can change places depending on the circumstances and role. For example, classes, social groups, ethnic communities, individual citizens, socio-political organizations are subjects or bearers of political power, at the same time they and the relations between them are objects of power influence. The objects of political power also include all spheres of public life - economic, spiritual, social, scientific and technical and society as a whole.

2. Basic concepts of political power

Today, there are over 300 definitions of power in the scientific literature. The existence of many concepts of power is evidence of creative searches and, at the same time, insufficient knowledge of the problem.

Normative-formalistic concept. According to it, the source and content of power is a system of norms, primarily legal ones. Sometimes this concept is called legitimistic (Latin legitimus - legal). It comes from the fact that the law acts both as a legal and as a moral factor that has legal force. The deep historical roots of this circumstance gave rise to legitimism as a political concept, the main idea of ​​which is to absolutize the legal norms of power. As a political doctrine, the doctrine appeared in the IX-III Art. BC. with an absolute monarchy. At that time, the state power exercised the absolute power of the ruler, acted arbitrarily, and was extremely bureaucratic in management. Currently, in democratic states, legitimism is based on the exaltation of the law - the main regulatory norm.

Organic concept. Its content is different versions of functionalism, structuralism and solidarism, which determine in general the social functions of power, which downplay or ignore its class character. For example, according to the structural-functionalist theory, power is a special kind of relationship between managers and subordinates. The role of the individual in the political system is clearly defined: support for the existing social system.

In line with the organic concept of power is and elite power theory. Its emergence is justified by the existence of an elite in society (French elite - better, selective, chosen), designed to control the masses of people of a non-elite state, all social processes in society. Regarding the understanding of the essence of the elite, there is currently no unanimity. Some refer to it as the most active in politics, others as highly professional or wealthy individuals. One way or another, this concept affirms the exclusivity of the holders of power, considering the elite as a purely political phenomenon, regardless of the sphere of influence. However, she considers historical progress as a set of cycles of change in the ruling elites (“circulation of elites”). This concept considers the idea of ​​popular sovereignty a utopian myth (one of its postulates says that the people are removed from power), claims that social inequality is the basis of life. The core of the theory of elites is the absolutization of the relations of domination by some and the subordination of others. Power arises as an immanent (internally predetermined) property of the elite that constantly exists in society. True, some Western researchers criticize this theory because it does not take into account the existence of a “middle class”, which makes up the majority of the population of developed societies, leveling their social polarization and eliteness.

The main forms of political power are domination, political leadership and management. . domination- this is the absolute or relative subordination of some people to others. Political leadership and management are realized through the adoption of strategic and tactical decisions to the objects of power, through the organization, regulation. Anna and control of their development.

Forms of political power are also distinguished according to the criterion of the main subject of government. These include:

1) monarchy - autocratic (absolute or limited) hereditary rule of one person - the head of state - the monarch;

2) tyranny (despotism) - sole unlimited autocracy, as a result of the violent seizure of power, which is characterized by the absolute arbitrariness of the ruler and the complete lack of rights of the people;

3) aristocracy - the power of a hereditary, noble, noble minority, a privileged estate;

4) oligarchy (plutocracy, timocracy) - the power of the rich, prosperous, unborn minority, which subjugates the state apparatus;

5) theocracy - the political power of the clergy, the head of the church in the state;

6) ochlocracy - the power of the crowd, is not based on laws, but on instant moods, the whims of the crowd, is often exposed to demagogues, becomes despotic and acts tyrannically;

7) democracy - the power of the people on the basis of law and guarantees of the rights and freedoms of citizens;

eight). PARTOcracy - the power of one party, the party nomenclature (top) in the state;

9) bureaucracy - the power of officials, administrators in the state; a hierarchically organized system of power and a state apparatus endowed with specific functions;

10) technocracy - the power of the scientific and technical elite (specialists), heads of enterprises, managers;

11) meritocracy - the power of the most gifted, worthy people, which is based on the principle of individual merits;

12) autocracy - unlimited and uncontrolled autocracy;

13) anarchy - anarchy of the state; self-government of communities, communes, families and other primary communities of people

Renowned political scientist and economist. B. Gavrylyshyn believes that at the present stage there are three types of power:

1. Power type counterweight. Such power is based on individualistic-competitive values ​​and exists in countries where such values ​​prevail (English speaking). The characteristic features of this type of power organization are є:

a) the existence of the ruling group and the opposition (counterweight), constantly competing with it (elite and counter-elite);

b) the distribution of power into legislative, executive and judicial;

c) building power institutions on the principle of control and balance;

d) the presence of periodic elections;

e) decision-making by majority principle

2. Collegial power (cooperation with power) is characterized by the following features:

a) separation of powers without the formation of an opposition;

b) collegiality in decision-making;

c) decentralization of power;

d) a high level of consensus (agreement);

e) use of means of direct democracy (for example, in. Switzerland,. Japan)

3. Unitary (undifferentiated, dictatorship, indivisible, integral) power, which is characterized by the following features: a) concentration of power in one hand b) absence of legal opposition or counterweight. Unitary power operates on the principle of minority rule and is always ideologically justified. It is possible to take away and transfer power to others only with the help of a revolution or a coup d'état. Unitary power is tested only during wars, economic difficulties, that is, in critical situations.

The political is embodied through the mechanism of power relations. Its structure, according to a Polish political scientist. Hedgehogs. Vyatr looks like this:

1. The presence of at least two partners in power relations

2. The will of the ruling is carried out through a certain act, which provides for sanctions for disobedience to his will

3 obligatory submission to the one who exercises power

4. Social norms that secure the right of some to issue acts, and others to obey them (legal support)

Such a mechanism of power relations, clearly working, ensures the efficiency and effectiveness of the relationship between the subject and the object, the implementation of the functions

The improvement and democratization of political management involves the search for new ways of exercising power and certain requirements for it. Given this, the Russian political scientist. Ivan. Ilyin (1882-1954) formulated. SIS in the axioms of state power.

1. State power cannot belong to anyone except those who have legal powers

2. State power within each political union must be one

3 branches of power should be carried out by people who meet a high moral and political qualification (power without authority is worse than obvious anarchy)

4 the political program of the rulers can only provide for events that are of common interest

5 the political program of the authorities should cover measures and reforms that can really be implemented

6. State power is fundamentally connected with distributive justice

The practice of political life shows that ignoring these axioms leads to a crisis of state power, destabilization of society, conflict situations that can even develop into civil wars.

The main forms of political power are state power, political influence and the formation of political consciousness.

Government. Although there is relative unity among political scientists in understanding the distinctive features of the state, the concept of "state power" needs to be clarified. Following M. Weber, who defined the state as a social institution that successfully exercises a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a certain territory, several main features of the state are usually distinguished, which in fact have already been listed earlier as the main parameters of political (state) power. The state is a unique set of institutions that have legal means of violence and coercion and create a sphere of "public" politics. These institutions operate in a certain territory, the population of which forms a society; they have a monopoly on making decisions on his behalf that are binding on citizens. The state has supremacy over any other public institutions, its laws and power cannot be limited by them, which is reflected in the concept of "state sovereignty".

In accordance with this, state power is distinguished by two mandatory features: (1) only civil servants and state bodies are subjects of state power, and (2) they exercise their power on the basis of the resources that they legally possess as representatives of the state. The need to highlight the second feature is due to the fact that in certain situations people performing public functions may resort to the realization of their political goals with the help of power resources that they were not endowed with (for example, a bribe, illegal use of public funds or abuse of power). In this case, power is not state in its source (base); it can be considered state only on the subject.

If we consider as state power only those forms of power where the subject uses the resources with which he was legally endowed, then there are only two “pure” types of state power: (1) power in the form of force and coercion, which is exercised by civil servants or structural units in in the case of disobedience of the object, and (2) power in the form of legal authority, where the source of the voluntary submission of the object is the belief that the subject has the legal right to command, and the object is obliged to obey him.

Forms of state power can be classified on other grounds. For example, in accordance with certain functions of individual state structures, there are legislative, executive and judicial forms of state power; Depending on the level of government decision-making, state power can be central, regional and local. By the nature of the relationship between the branches of state power (forms of government), monarchies, presidential and parliamentary republics are distinguished; according to the forms of government - a unitary state, federation, confederation, empire.

Political influence is the ability of political actors to have a targeted impact (direct or indirect) on the behavior of civil servants and the government decisions they make. The subjects of political influence can be both ordinary citizens, organizations and institutions (including foreign and international ones), as well as state structures and employees with certain legal powers. But the state does not necessarily empower the latter to exercise these forms of power (an influential state official may lobby the interests of some group in a completely different departmental structure).

If until the middle of the XX century. The greatest attention of political scientists was attracted by legal authority (the legislative foundations of the state, constitutional aspects, the mechanism of separation of powers, administrative structure, etc. were studied), but starting from the 50s, the study of political influence gradually comes to the fore. This was reflected in discussions about the nature of the distribution of political influence in society, which received empirical verification in numerous studies of power both at the societal level and in territorial communities (F. Hunter, R. Dahl, R. Prestus, C.R. Mills , K. Clark, W. Domhoff and others). Interest in the study of this form of political power is due to the fact that it is associated with the central question of political science: "Who rules?". To answer it, it is not enough to analyze the distribution of key posts in the state; it is necessary, first of all, to identify which particular groups of people have a dominant influence on formal state structures, on whom these structures are most dependent. The degree of influence on the choice of a political course and the solution of the most important social problems is not always proportional to the rank of the public office held; at the same time, many key political actors (for example, business leaders, the military, clan leaders, religious leaders, etc.) may be “in the shadows” and not have significant legal resources.

Unlike previous forms of political power, the definition and empirical fixation of political influence raises a number of complex conceptual and methodological problems. In Western literature, the main debate revolves around the so-called "faces" or "dimensions" of political power. Traditionally, power in the form of political influence was assessed by the ability of certain groups of people to achieve success in decision-making: those who manage to initiate and successfully “push through” political decisions that are beneficial to them rule. This approach was most consistently implemented by R. Dahl in the study of the distribution of political influence in New Haven, USA. In the 1960s, American researchers P. Bakhrakh and M. Baratz emphasized the need to take into account the “second person of power”, which manifests itself in the ability of the subject to prevent the adoption of political decisions that are unfavorable for him by not including “dangerous” problems on the agenda and / or the formation or strengthening structural constraints and procedural barriers (the concept of "non-decision making"). Political influence began to be seen in a broader context; it is no longer limited to situations of open conflict when making a decision, but also takes place in the absence of externally observable actions on the part of the subject.

Political influence in the form of non-decision-making is widespread in political practice. The consequence of the no-decision strategy was, for example, the absence of important environmental laws in those cities where large and influential economic concerns (the main culprits of environmental pollution) prevented any attempts to pass these laws, since it was not economically profitable for them. In totalitarian regimes, entire blocks of problems were considered non-negotiable on ideological grounds (the leading role of the Communist Party, the right of citizens to dissent, the possibility of organizing alternative political structures, etc.), which allowed the ruling elite to maintain the foundations of their dominance.

In the 1970s, following S. Lux, many researchers (mainly of Marxist and radical orientation) considered that the "two-dimensional" concept did not exhaust the entire spectrum of political influence. From their point of view, political power also has a “third dimension”, which is manifested in the ability of the subject to form a certain system of political values ​​and beliefs in the object that are beneficial to the subject, but contrary to the “real” interests of the object. In fact, we are talking about manipulation, with the help of which the ruling classes impose their ideas about the ideal (optimal) social structure on the rest of society and get support from it even for those political decisions that are clearly unfavorable to it. This form of political power, like manipulation in general, is considered the most insidious way of subjugation and, at the same time, the most effective, since it prevents potential discontent of people and is carried out in the absence of conflict between subject and object. Either it seems to people that they are acting in their own interests, or they do not see a real alternative to the established order.

It seems to us that Lux's "third person of power" refers to the next form of political power - the formation of political consciousness. The latter includes not only manipulation, but also persuasion. Unlike manipulation, persuasion is the successful targeted influence on political views, values, and behavior that relies on rational arguments. Like manipulation, persuasion is an effective tool for the formation of political consciousness: a teacher may not veil his political views and openly express a desire to instill certain values ​​in his students; achieving his goal, he exercises power. Public politicians, political scientists, propagandists, religious figures, etc., have the power to shape political consciousness. As in the case of political influence, ordinary citizens, groups, organizations, and state structures, employees with legal powers, can be its subjects. But again, the state does not necessarily endow them with the right to exercise this form of power.

Although the connection between the formation of political consciousness and state decisions is only indirect, this does not mean that it plays a secondary role compared to other forms of political power: in the strategic plan, instilling stable political values ​​in the population may be more important than the tactical benefits derived from the decision of current questions. The formation of a certain political consciousness actually means the production and reproduction of structural factors favorable for the subject of power (acting independently of the subjects of politics) factors that at a certain moment will work in his favor relatively regardless of specific actions and the specifics of the situation. At the same time, the political effect of this form of power in many cases can be achieved relatively quickly. In particular, under the influence of some special events, during periods of revolutions and a sharp aggravation of the political struggle, the impact on the minds of people with the aim of their political mobilization can lead to almost instantaneous involvement in politics of significant groups of the population, who previously did not realize the need for their political participation. This is due to the fact that the critical nature of the situation significantly increases people's interest in politics and thus prepares them for the adoption of new political attitudes and orientations.

At present, there is a trend towards an increase in the political effect of this form of power. This is connected not only with the improvement of the technical possibilities of influencing the consciousness of people (new psycho-technologies, changes in the information infrastructure, etc.), but also with the development of democratic institutions. Democracy presupposes the existence of channels for the direct influence of citizens on the adoption of political decisions and the dependence of decisions on public opinion: the ruling elites cannot ignore the opinion of large groups of people, if only because otherwise their current position in the political system will be threatened. The dependence of specific political decisions on public opinion can be difficult to fix empirically, but its presence in liberal democratic systems seems to be quite obvious.