Types of political power. Types of power

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

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

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

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

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

Sociological studies of the three branches of government show significant differences between them, as well as the assessment of their activities by the population. For example, in everyday consciousness (both in Soviet times and in the present period), the conviction continues to exist that the main person in the judicial system is the prosecutor. According to an analysis of relevant documents, in the mid-90s the number of appeals (letters) from citizens to the prosecutor's office was tens of times higher than the number of similar appeals to the court.

At the same time, the entire judicial system is still rated very low or a huge number of people cannot say anything definite about it. The most visible for most people remain the executive authorities, and then the legislative ones, with almost complete ignorance of the activities of the judicial authorities. But despite all the seeming paradox (after all, the corresponding acts have been adopted for a long time), the population’s assessment of all branches of government reflects their real situation, which cannot be changed by any decrees, decrees, resolutions and other official instructions.

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

In this regard, we should dwell on the famous Roman legal maxim: rule by dividing. This provision was and is now interpreted in the sense that successful governance presupposes violence (i.e. “Ruler - divide, set off the ruled”). In fact, what is meant is completely the opposite: successful management is based on distinction (“divide” - court, distinction) and only in this sense the division of those whom you govern (i.e. “Ruler - know, harmonize the interests of his subjects; know, distinguish your own power abilities and functions”).

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

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

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

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

We would like to draw attention to one more division that can be made by analyzing the structure and activities of the ruling entity. This typology is based on an assessment of the nature and quality of power, the degree of participation of the population in its implementation, and the complete representation of the interests of the most diverse social groups.

Based on this, we can name the following types of power.

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

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

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

Oligarchy represents the power of a few individuals or groups in the state, sharply limiting the rights and powers of other entities wishing to participate in political life and seeking to come to power. The oligarchy usually does not allow its replacement even on the basis of procedures approved by law, and rejects any attempts to limit its power. Therefore, the redistribution of power can only occur within this group, for which “palace” coups and various kinds of secret agreements are used. The oligarchy is ready to move to forms such as totalitarianism rather than democracy in order to preserve the possibility of continued political dominance.

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

This type of power as ethnocracy is becoming increasingly widespread, although it usually appears in a camouflaged form. Its manifestations – ethno-limitedness, ethno-egoism and ethnophobia – actually exist in a number of countries around the world, including in one form or another in the CIS countries. The danger of this form of power is manifested not so much in the fact that all key positions in politics and economics are concentrated in the hands of people of the same nationality, but in the fact that tension between peoples increases, which leads to hidden or open confrontation, increased migration, and growing mistrust along ethnic lines. grounds and a serious and sometimes sharp deterioration of the situation in the region.

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

A form of power such as technocracy is also becoming widespread, when the functions of the state are carried out from the standpoint of production and economics, without due consideration of political and social requirements. One of the miscalculations of the ideologists of perestroika and the neoliberals who replaced them was that specialists in the national economy came to all levels of state and socio-political power, who, knowing a lot about the organization of production, as a rule, did not know how to be guided by the needs of social development, had little knowledge of human psychology, performed their functions out of duty, and sometimes careerism, due to a given assignment, and not a personal understanding of the meaning of political work.

The technocrats quite consistently put into practice their conviction that institutions and governing bodies involved in economic affairs should not participate in or influence political work. They ignored the fact that any form of power is in one way or another connected with influencing a person’s consciousness, subordinating him to a certain order and the desire to achieve a specific result. They did not understand that these functions would not be fully or partially implemented if people's attitudes to various political actions were not taken into account.

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

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

Political power manifests itself in a variety of forms, the main ones being domination, leadership, organization, control .

Domination presupposes the 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).

Management is expressed in the ability of the subject of power to carry out his will by developing programs, concepts, guidelines, determining the prospects for the development of the social system as a whole and its various links. Management determines current and long-term goals, develops strategic and tactical tasks.

Control manifests itself in the conscious, purposeful influence of the subject of power on various parts of the social system, on controlled objects in order to implement installations

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

Political power manifests itself in various forms. A meaningful typology of political power can be built “according to various criteria:

• according to the degree of institutionalization: government, city, school, etc.;
• by subject of power - class, party, people's, presidential, parliamentary, etc.;
• on a quantitative basis... - individual (monocratic), oligarchic (power of a cohesive group), polyarchic (multiple power of a number of institutions or individuals);
• by social type of government - monarchical, republican; by mode 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 government . The concept of state power is much narrower compared to the concept "political power" . In this regard, the use of these concepts as identical is incorrect.

State power, like political power in general, can achieve its goals through political education, ideological influence, dissemination of necessary information, etc. However, this does not express its essence. “State power is a form of political power that has the monopoly right to make laws binding on the entire population, and relies on a special apparatus of coercion as one of the means for complying with laws and orders. State power equally means both a specific organization and practical activities to implement the goals and objectives of this organization" (Krasnov B.I. Power as a phenomenon of social life // Socio-political spiders. - 1991. - No. 11. - P. 28 ).

When characterizing state power, two extremes cannot be allowed. On the one hand, it is a mistake to consider this power ONLY as a power that is engaged ONLY in oppressing the people, and on the other hand, to characterize it only as a power that is completely absorbed in concerns about the well-being of the people. State power constantly implements both. Moreover, by oppressing the people, the state government 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; By showing concern for the welfare of the people, it ensures the realization not so much of their interests as of its own, for only by satisfying the needs of the majority of the population, to a certain extent, can it preserve its privileges, ensure the realization of its interests, its well-being.

In reality, there may be different systems of government. 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 at different levels. If between the central and local government bodies there are intermediate bodies that, in accordance with the constitution, are endowed with certain power functions, then a 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.

State power performs legislative, executive and judicial functions. In this regard, they are divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers.

In some countries, to the above three powers, a fourth 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 or even six powers. The fifth power is represented by the Comptroller General with the apparatus subordinate to him: the sixth is the constituent power to adopt the constitution.

The expediency of the separation of powers is determined, firstly, by the need to clearly define the functions, competence and responsibilities of each branch of government; secondly, the need to prevent abuse of power, the establishment of dictatorship, totalitarianism, usurpation of power; thirdly, the need to exercise mutual control over the branches of government; fourthly, the need of society to combine such contradictory aspects of life as power and freedom, law and justice. . 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 fundamentals of the state's domestic and foreign policy, approves the state budget, adopts laws binding on all citizens and authorities, and controls their implementation. The supremacy of the legislative branch is limited by the principles of government, the constitution, and human rights.

Executive-administrative power exercises direct state power. It not only implements laws, but also issues regulations and takes legislative initiatives. This power must be based on the law and act within the framework of the law. The right to control the activities of the executive branch should belong to representative bodies of state power.

The judicial power represents a relatively independent structure of state power. “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 separation of powers is associated with the name of the French philosopher and historian S. L. Montesquieu, who, as already noted when considering the stages of development of political thought, proposed dividing power into legislative (a representative body elected by the people), executive power (the power of the monarch) and judiciary (independent courts).

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

In our country, for many years it was believed that the idea of ​​separation of powers could not be realized in practice due to the fact that power is united 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 legislative, executive and judicial powers is often replaced by opposition between these powers.

The solution to the problem of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers lies in finding the optimal relationship between them as directions of a single state power, clearly defining 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 the 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. Reality has long refuted this point of view. It is known, for example, that for many decades in our country the subject of political power was the CPSU. Parties have been the real subjects of political power for many years 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, formation of 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 government must: 1) ensure the legal rights of citizens, their constitutional freedoms always and in everything; 2) affirm the law as the core of social relations and be able to obey the law; 3) perform economic and creative functions” (Krasnov B.I. Power as a phenomenon of social life // Socio-political sciences. - 1991. - No. 11. - P. 31).

The fact that “the government 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:

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

The main forms of manifestation of political power include domination, leadership and management.

Political power manifests itself most clearly in domination. Domination is a mechanism for the exercise of power, which takes institutional forms and involves the division of society into dominant and subordinate groups, hierarchy and social distance between them, the allocation and isolation of a special management apparatus.

The most developed theory of domination belongs to M. Weber. He gave a typology of forms of legitimate domination, which still remains dominant in modern Western sociology and political science.

According to M. Weber’s definition, domination means the likelihood that orders will be obeyed by a certain group of people; legitimate domination cannot be limited to the fact of the political exercise of power, it requires faith in its legitimacy and is associated with the separation of powers, with the isolation of a special administrative apparatus of management, ensuring the execution of instructions and orders. Otherwise, domination rests mainly on violence, which is what happens in despotism.

M. Weber distinguishes three types of legitimate domination (according to their source).

Firstly, it is traditional, based on the habitual, most often unreflected conviction in the sanctity of long-accepted traditions and the legitimacy of the power rights they provide. These norms of power relations, sanctified by tradition, indicate who has the right to power and who is obliged to obey it; they are the basis for the controllability of society and the obedience of its citizens. This type of power relations is most clearly seen in the example of a hereditary monarchy.

Secondly, this is a charismatic type of power relationship, which is rooted in personal devotion to a person, on whose initiative an order is established, based on faith in his special relationship with God and a great historical destiny. This type of power relations is based not on established laws and not on the order sanctified by centuries-old tradition, but on the charisma of the leader, who is considered a prophet, a giant historical figure, a demigod carrying out a “great mission.” “Devotion to the charisma of a prophet or a leader in war, or an outstanding demagogue in a national assembly ... or in parliament,” writes M. Weber, “precisely means that a person of this type is considered to be an internally “called” leader of people, that the latter do not obey him by custom or institution, but because they believe in it."

The charismatic type of power, in contrast to the rational-legal type, is authoritarian. A variation of this type in our country was the system of power during the period of Stalinism. That power was based not only on force, but also on the unquestioned authority of Stalin, the party among the majority of the population of the USSR. While emphasizing the predominantly authoritarian, despotic nature of the power relations of the Stalinist era, one should not deny the presence, even in those conditions, of elements of democracy, but, of course, mostly formal ones.

M. Weber saw images of charismatic leaders in Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, as well as Solomon, Pericles, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon. The 20th century saw the emergence of its own galaxy of charismatic leaders. This type of leader includes Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, Roosevelt, Nehru, and Mao Zedong.

The charismatic type of power is more characteristic of a society experiencing an era of radical changes and revolutionary upheavals. The name of the leader of the masses is associated with the possibility of making favorable changes in their lives and in the life of society. The leader’s word is surrounded by an aura of infallibility, his works are elevated to the rank of “sacred books”, the truth of which cannot be questioned, but the leader’s charisma, although connected with his ideas, depends primarily on the emotional commitment of the masses. Paying attention to this, it should be borne in mind that the masses are constantly waiting for confirmation from the leader of his special, exceptional leadership qualities. Repeated failures can lead to a leader losing his image as an outstanding personality. Therefore, charismatic power is less stable compared to traditional and rational-legal power. This is evidenced by our modern political life. It is enough to recall the beginning of M. Gorbachev’s political activity as the political leader of the USSR and the last months of his tenure as President of the USSR to see the contrast between his image in 1985-1987 and December 1991. It can be argued that something similar happened with the image of Boris Yeltsin, if we compare his image in August-September 1991 and his perception by the masses in 1999.

Thirdly, a rational-legal type of domination, based on a conscious belief in the legality of the established order and in the competence of certain bodies designed to exercise power. The most developed form of this type of government is the constitutional state, in which everyone is subject to a system of laws established and applied in accordance with certain principles. In a modern state, the Constitution is the basic law on which other, less significant laws, decisions, and regulations are based. It is the Constitution that establishes the rules that are binding on both those who govern and the governed. This type of power relations is based on the free expression of the will of the people, the election of all central authorities, the constitutional limitation of the scope of state activity, and the equality of all political forces operating within the framework of the law. The rational-legal type of power is the result of a fairly long evolution of society along the path of civilization.

This is the modern understanding of the main types of legitimate domination, put forward in his time by M. Weber. In order to compare the analysis carried out with the original source, we cite the core position on this problem from the work of M. Weber: “In principle, there are three types of internal justifications, that is, grounds of legitimacy... Firstly, this is the authority of the “eternally yesterday”: the authority of morals, sanctified primordial significance and habitual orientation towards their observance - "traditional" domination, as exercised by the patriarch and patrimonial prince of the old type. Further, authority is beyond the usual personal gift ... (charisma), complete personal devotion and personal trust, caused by the presence of the qualities of a leader in some kind of person: revelations, heroism and others, charismatic domination, as it is exercised by a prophet, or - in the political sphere - by an elected military prince, or a plebiscitary ruler, an outstanding demagogue and political party leader. Finally, domination by virtue of “legality”, due to the belief in the obligatory nature of legal establishment... and business “competence”, justified by rationally created rules, that is, an orientation towards submission in the implementation of established rules - domination in the form in which it is exercised by the modern “civil servant” and all those bearers of power who are like him in this respect." And further M. Weber notes that, of course, pure types of domination are rarely encountered in life.

In fact, M. Weber in his classification gave ideal types of legitimate government, which should not be confused with the specific political reality of a particular society. The types of power considered can manifest themselves only partially and in combination with each other. No system of power relations is only traditional, rational or charismatic. We can only talk about which of the listed types is the main, leading one. M. Weber's classification provides a working tool for understanding the complex and diverse political life of society, and this is its cognitive, heuristic value.

In characterizing dominance, we noted that a sign of dominance is hierarchy and social distance between the dominant and the subordinate. Hierarchy and social distance are expressed in differences in rank, power, prestige, in strict rules of etiquette and treatment of each other. Perhaps the most striking illustration of these features of dominance is the table of ranks that has existed since the time of Peter the Great in Imperial Russia. The table of ranks was a universal system that permeated the entire Russian statehood, covering everyone: from an army officer to a consistory official, from a teacher to a policeman, from a diplomat to a bank employee. It also included a title system, i.e. special appeal to persons with the appropriate rank. The ranks of the 1st and 2nd classes had the title “Excellency”, the 3rd and 4th “Excellency”, the 5th “Highness”, the 6th-8th - “High Nobility”, the 9th-14th - “Highness” nobility."

If we take an example from our recent history, we can cite clearly expressed hierarchical relationships using the example of the Secretariat of the CPSU Central Committee and the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, which former member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee N.I. describes in his memoirs. Ryzhkov: “Persons... who occupied the three highest steps of the hierarchical ladder were the elite... it was their location, that is, the mentioned steps, that made them the elite, and not their personal qualities. Although often it was their personal qualities that brought them to these steps... but not always... Members of the Politburo lived on the top floor. Candidate members lived on the middle floor. And secretaries on the third floor. Everything was laid out for them once and for all: who sits next to whom in different presidiums, who follows whom to the podium of the Mausoleum, who holds what meeting and who has the right to appear in what photograph. Not to mention who has what dacha, how many bodyguards and what brand of car. Who and when established this iron order is unknown, but it is not violated even now after the death of the party: he cleverly crawled from the Central Committee to other “corridors of power”.

The normative, etiquette side of hierarchical relationships should not be seen only as a negative side. In a democratic state, intelligently thought-out rituals, codes of conduct and other etiquette principles introduce hierarchical relationships into a civilized framework, allowing them to better and more effectively solve the problems of power and management. The best minds of humanity understood this long ago. For example, as the Chinese philosopher Confucius taught 2.5 thousand years ago: “Reverence without ritual leads to fussiness; caution without ritual leads to timidity; courage without rituals leads to unrest; straightforwardness without ritual leads to rudeness.”

The form of manifestation of power is leadership and management. Leadership is expressed in the ability of the subject of power to exercise his will through direct and indirect influence on the objects being managed. It can be based solely on authority, on the recognition by those in charge of the corresponding powers of the leaders with minimal exercise of power-coercive functions. Political leadership is manifested in determining the main goals of social systems and institutions, as well as ways to achieve them. Schematically, it can be defined by three main provisions:

1. Political leadership includes setting fundamental objectives, determining long-term as well as immediate goals that must be achieved within a certain period of time.

2. It involves the development of methods and means of achieving the goals.

3. Political leadership also consists of selecting and placing personnel capable of understanding and fulfilling the assigned tasks. For example, Barack Obama, who came in January 2009. to the White House, made about three thousand appointments to posts of various ranks in various administrative departments, from which the “appointees” of D. Bush (junior) were forced to leave.

The concept of “political leadership” is usually distinguished from the concept of “political management”. The latter is expressed in the functions of direct influence, which are performed by the administrative apparatus, by certain officials who are not at the top of the pyramid of power. It is precisely because of the significant difference between the leadership and management of V.I. Lenin considered it possible to attract bourgeois specialists to carry out management functions in the first years after the October Revolution. “We,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “must ensure the Constitution won by the revolution, but for governance, for the state structure, we must have people who possess management techniques, who have government and economic experience, and we have nowhere to get such people from.” only from the previous class."

In a word, management activities are subordinated to the goals put forward by the political leadership; they are aimed at choosing ways and mechanisms to achieve their goals.

It is possible to show what lies behind the distinction between the concepts of leadership and management based on the memoirs of former US President R. Reagan. Thus, he writes: “The president is not able to exercise daily control over the activities of all his subordinates. His task is to set the tone, indicate the main directions, outline the general contours of the policy and select capable people to implement this policy.” And further, concretizing his understanding of his role as a political leader, a leader elected for a second presidential term, he says the following: “... in the field of domestic policy, I will direct my efforts to reduce federal spending and overcome the budget deficit, try to implement tax reform and continue modernization of our armed forces; internationally, my main goals are to conclude an agreement with the Soviet Union on significant arms reductions, improve relations with our Latin American neighbors while continuing to fight the penetration of communism into Central America, and try to unravel the tangle of contradictions in the Middle East." And one more important remark by R. Reagan: “I carried out general management of politics, but left specific day-to-day work to specialists.”

These are the main forms of manifestation of political power

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” requires clarification. 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 identified, 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 the sphere of “public” politics. These institutions operate in a certain territory, the population of which forms the society; they have a monopoly on making decisions on his behalf that are binding on citizens. The state has supremacy over any other social 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) the subjects of state power are only civil servants and state bodies and (2) they exercise their power on the basis of resources that they legally possess as representatives of the state. The need to highlight the second characteristic is due to the fact that in certain situations people performing public functions may resort to realizing their political goals with the help of power resources that they were not allocated (for example, a bribe, illegal use of public funds or abuse of official authority). In this case, power is not state in its source (basis); it can be considered state only by 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 case of disobedience of the object, and (2) power in the form of legal authority, where the source of the voluntary obedience 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 government power can be classified on other grounds. For example, in accordance with the specific functions of individual government structures, legislative, executive and judicial forms of government are distinguished; Depending on the level of government decision-making, government power can be central, regional and local. According to the nature of the relationship between the branches of government (forms of government), monarchies, presidential and parliamentary republics differ; by forms of government - unitary state, federation, confederation, empire.

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

If until the middle of the 20th 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), then starting from the 50s, the study of political influence gradually came to the fore. This was reflected in discussions regarding 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, etc.). 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 positions in the state; It is necessary, first of all, to identify exactly which 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 political course and the solution of major 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, military officers, clan leaders, religious leaders, etc.) may be “in the shadows” and do not have significant legal resources.

Unlike previous forms of political power, defining and empirically recording political influence raises a number of complex conceptual and methodological issues. In Western literature, the main debate is 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 are in power. This approach was most consistently implemented by R. Dahl in his study of the distribution of political influence in New Haven, USA. In the 60s, American researchers P. Bachrach and M. Baratz emphasized the need to take into account the “second face of power,” which manifests itself in the subject’s ability to prevent unfavorable political decisions from being made by not including “dangerous” problems on the agenda and/or forming 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 implementation of the strategy of non-decision-making was, for example, the absence of important laws on environmental protection 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 economically unprofitable for them. In totalitarian regimes, entire blocks of problems were considered undiscussable 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 70s, following S. Luks, 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”, manifested in the ability of the subject to form in the object a certain system of political values ​​and beliefs 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 obtain their support even for those political decisions that are clearly unfavorable to them. This form of political power, like manipulation in general, is considered the most insidious way of subordination 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. People either feel 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 Luks’s “third face 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 purposeful influence on political views, values ​​and behavior, which is based 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; in achieving his goal, he exercises power. The power to shape political consciousness belongs to public politicians, political scientists, propagandists, religious figures, etc. As in the case of political influence, its subjects can be ordinary citizens, groups, organizations, and government agencies, employees with legal powers. But again, the state does not necessarily grant them the right to exercise this form of power.

Although the connection between the formation of political consciousness and government decisions is only indirect, this does not mean that it plays a secondary role compared to other forms of political power: in strategic terms, instilling stable political values ​​in the population may be more important than the tactical benefits obtained as a result of current decisions 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), which at a certain moment will work in his favor relatively independently of specific actions and the specifics of the situation. Moreover, 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 intensification of political struggle, influencing the consciousness of people with the aim of their political mobilization can lead to almost instantaneous involvement in the sphere of politics of significant groups of the population who had not previously realized the need for their political participation. This occurs due to the fact that the turning point nature of the situation significantly increases people's interest in politics and thereby prepares them to accept new political attitudes and orientations.

Currently, there is a tendency for the political effect of this form of power to increase. This is due not only to the improvement of technical capabilities to influence people’s consciousness (new psychotechnologies, changes in information infrastructure, etc.), but also to the development of democratic institutions. Democracy presupposes the existence of channels for the direct influence of citizens on political decision-making and the dependence of decisions on public opinion: the ruling elites cannot ignore the opinions 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 establish empirically, but its presence in liberal democratic systems seems quite obvious.

The subject of study of political science is political power.

Political power- a concept denoting the real ability of a certain class, social group or public associations, as well as the individuals representing them, to carry out their will, to achieve common interests and goals by violent and non-violent means.

In other words, political power- this is the real ability of a given class, social stratum, group or elite to carry out its will through the distribution of power relations. Political power has a number of features. Its distinctive features are:

· Supremacy, the binding nature of its decisions for the whole society, and all other types of power;

· Sovereignty, which means independence and indivisibility of power.

· Universality, that is, publicity. This means that political power acts on the basis of law on behalf of the entire society and it functions in all spheres of social relations and political processes.

· Legality in the use of force and other means of power within the country;

· Monocentricity, that is, the existence of a common state center (system of government bodies) for decision-making;

· The widest range of means used to gain, retain and exercise power.

· Strong-willed character power, which presupposes the presence of a conscious political program, goals and readiness to implement it.

· Coercive nature power (subordination, command, domination, violence).

Classification of political power:

1. By subject - presidential, monarchical, state, party, church, army, family.

2. By spheres of functioning – legislative, executive and judicial.

3. According to the methods of interaction between the object and the subject of power, according to the mode of government - authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic.

The main elements of power are its subject, object, means (resources). Subject and object– direct carriers, agents of power. The subject embodies the active, directing principle of power. It can be an individual, an organization, a community of people, such as a nation, or even the world community united in the UN.

Subjects are divided into:

· primary – large social groups with their own interests;

· secondary – government bodies, political parties and organizations, leaders, political elite.

The object of power is individuals, their associations, layers and communities, classes, society. Power is, as a rule, a mutually conditioned two-way relationship: the interaction of subject and object.

Analyzing this issue, it is necessary to highlight the social reason for the subordination of some people to others, which is based on the uneven distribution of power resources. Resources are either values ​​that are important for an object (money, consumer goods, etc.), or means that can influence the inner world, the motivation of a person (television, the press), or tools with which one can deprive a person of certain values, in including life (weapons, punitive authorities in general).

The specificity of political power is that it interacts with the economy, social, military and other forms of power. Politics is a regulator of other spheres of public life, and the effectiveness of its implementation is related to the level of development of these spheres of public life.

Political power on a national scale exists and functions not only in different spheres of society, but also at three levels of its social structure: public covering the most complex social and political relations; public or associative, uniting groups and relationships within them (public organizations, unions, production and other groups), and personal(private, private), in small groups. The totality of all these levels and forms of power forms the general structure of political power, which has a pyramidal structure. At its base is society as a whole, closer to the base are the dominant forces (classes, parties or simply groups of like-minded people) that determine politics and the formation of power. At the top is real or formal power: the president, government, parliament (smaller leadership).

There are four main levels in the functioning of political power on a global scale, characterized by various political institutions and systems of power relations:

1. Megapower– global level of political power, i.e. power that goes beyond the boundaries of one country and seeks to spread its influence and influence on the world community.

2. Macro power– the highest level of functioning of central state institutions and the political relations that develop between them and society.

3. Mesogovernment- an average, intermediate level of political power, connecting two extreme and different levels of political and power relations.

4. Micropower– power relations in interpersonal relationships, within small groups, etc.

Here we should also consider the issue of political legitimacy (from the Latin “legitimacy”) of power.

Legitimacy of political power- this is public recognition, trust and support that society and people give her. The concept of “legitimacy of power” was first introduced into science by Max Weber. He identified three main sources (foundations) of legality, legitimacy of political power:

1. traditional type (monarchy);

2. charismatic type (due to the enormous popularity and cult of personality of a politician);

3. rational-legal type - this power is recognized by the people because it is based on rational laws recognized by them.

Legitimacy is based on the recognition of the right of holders of power to prescribe norms of behavior for other individuals, for the entire society, and means support for power by the absolute majority of the people. Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. Legitimacy is associated with the presence of authority in power, the belief of the vast majority of the population that there is an order that is best for a given country, with consensus on fundamental political values. Power gains legitimacy in three ways: a) according to tradition; b) due to the recognition of the legitimacy of the system of laws; c) based on charisma, faith in the leader. Belief in the legitimacy of the regime ensures the stability of the political system.

Further, it should be noted that legitimacy affirms politics and power, explains and justifies political decisions, the creation of political structures, their change, renewal, etc. It is designed to ensure obedience, consent, political participation without coercion, and if this is not achieved, the justification of such coercion, the use of force and other means at the disposal of power. Indicators of the legitimacy of political power are the level of coercion used to implement policies, the presence of attempts to overthrow the government or leader, the strength of civil disobedience, the results of elections, referendums, and the mass of demonstrations in support of the government (opposition). The means and methods of maintaining the legitimacy of power are timely changes in legislation and public administration, the creation of a political system whose legitimacy is based on tradition, the promotion of charismatic leaders, the successful implementation of public policy, and the maintenance of law and order in the country.

Being an instrument of political power, legitimacy also serves as an instrument of its social control and one of the most effective means of political organization of society.

Particular attention should be paid to the principle of separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial). The purpose of the separation of powers is to guarantee the safety of citizens from arbitrariness and abuse of power, to ensure the political freedom of citizens, and to make law the regulator of relations between citizens and the government. The mechanism of separation of powers is associated with the organizational independence of three levels of government, each of which is formed independently, through elections; as well as the delimitation of power functions between them.

With the separation of powers, a system of “checks and balances” is formed, which does not allow the interests of one branch of government, one government body to prevail over others, monopolize power, suppress individual freedom, or deform civil society. At the same time, each of the authorities must skillfully implement the functions clearly defined by law, but at the same time be sovereign, serve as a complementary, restraining factor for the other authorities in the sense of preventing the absolutization of its functions both at the vertical and horizontal levels.

The management function is the essence of politics, in which the conscious implementation of the goals of the state and society is manifested. It is impossible outside the leadership function, which expresses the definition of the main tasks, the most important principles and ways of their implementation. Management determines priority goals for the development of society and selects mechanisms for their implementation. In managing society, administrative, authoritarian and democratic methods of leadership are distinguished. They are interconnected and condition each other. The development and functioning of any state and civil society is impossible without centralization and at the same time widespread democratization of all social relations. Therefore, we should not talk about the denial of administrative methods, but about the extent to which they are combined with democratic ones. In an emerging democratic state and society, the tendency towards the growth of democratic methods of governance will gradually be fundamental. It will displace not administrative methods, but the command-administrative system with its maximum centralization, strict regulation of all public life, nationalization of public property, and alienation of the individual from power.

In a democratic society, adherence to the norms that implement relations of political power is ensured by the process of political socialization: a person becomes familiar with and gets used to following certain norms from childhood, their observance becomes a social tradition, a kind of habit. At the same time, the institution of political power is acquiring an extensive network of organizations that monitor individuals’ compliance with norms, and also have the right to apply various sanctions to violators.

Resources of political power:

Economic resources are needed to gain power, to realize its goals, and to maintain it.

Power resources perform the function of ensuring the defense of the country, protecting internal order, including ensuring the security of political power, and preventing any encroachments on power in order to overthrow it.

Social resources. Social policy in large modern Western countries is structured in such a way that the majority of the population is interested in maintaining the existing political power: there is a wide insurance system, a high level of pensions, a widely developed system of charitable organizations, etc.

Information resources are the media.

Power resources are anything that an individual or group can use to influence others.

Control questions(Feedback)

1. What is the essence and content of power?

2. How does the concept of “power” differ from the concept of “political power”?

3. How does political power differ from political management?

4. List the main features of political power.

5. What resources of political power exist?

Literature:

1. Balgimbaev A.S. Sayasattana. Political science. – Almaty., 2004.

2. B. Otemisov, K. Karabala. Sayashi bilimder. Oku kuraly. Aktobe: 2010.

3. Kamenskaya E.N. Political science. Tutorial. – M. 2009.

4. Gorelov A.A. Political science. In questions and answers. Tutorial. – M. 2007.

5. Romanov N.V. Fundamentals of ethnopolitical science. Uch. Manual, Almaty, 2001

6. Khan I.G. Political Science: Academic. Benefit. – A., 2000.

7. Panarin A.S. "Political Science" M., 2005

8. Demidov A.I., Fedoseev A.A. “Fundamentals of Political Science” Moscow 2003

9. Pugachev V.P. “Introduction to Political Science” Moscow 2001