What is legitimacy. What does the concept of "Legitimacy in political power" and "Legitimacy" in a general sense mean?
from lat. "legitimus" - legal) - the legitimacy of political power, its public recognition, approval by the majority of the population and consent to obey the authorities.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
LEGITIMACY
from lat. Legitimus - agreeing with the laws, lawful, lawful). The meaning of the concept "L." translated into Russian. language as the legitimacy of power. The history of the concept of "L." goes back to the Middle Ages, when an understanding of L. is formed as an agreement with customs, traditions and established behavior. Mostly L. was interpreted as the right of supreme officials to act in accordance with customs, but already around the middle of the 14th century. begins to be used in the sense of the authority of elective power. This term was introduced into political science and developed in detail by M. Weber. German sociologist and political scientist pointed out that any government needs its own self-justification, recognition and support. It is the recognition of power, faith in its just character, agreement with the existing division of rights and duties that, according to Weber, constitutes the basis of L. The subordination of the main "mass" to the ruling groups is based on the predominantly emotional nature of the adoption of power. Thus, L. mainly reflects the subjective - irrational attitude of persons and structures subject to power itself. In the XX century, the category "L." actively used in Western political science. First of all, it is used to characterize political stability and analyze the effectiveness of political institutions. In Amer. political science, the concept of L. was intensively developed by S. Lipset (“Political Man”) and L. Binder (“Iran. Political Development in a Changing Society”), in French. political science M. Duverger. In the late 60s - early 70s. The problem of L. was studied in close connection with the theory of domination by representatives of the Frankfurt School, primarily by J. Habermas (“Problems of Legitimation of Late Capitalism”), as well as by K. Eder, K. Offe, and M. Foucault. L. is not only a theoretical problem of modern political science, but also the most acute practical problem of any power systems. The absence of broad L. institutions of power inevitably leads to the refusal of those subject to recognize any acts of power, regardless of their rationality, to political instability, tension, and intensification of conflicts. The most problematic is the provision of broad L. power during the period of transformation of social systems, the transition from one political regime to another, when the old ways of justifying power are destroyed and rejected by the majority, new ones have not yet been created and do not work. In such a situation, the authorities begin to "slip" - decisions are made, but not implemented. As experience shows, the legislative expansion of the executive branch of power does not contribute to its effectiveness, to overcoming the crisis of power institutions. A way out of the state of “anarchy” is possible on the path of seeking and creating broad democratic power, a necessary condition for which in a democratic society are free elections on a multi-party basis.
Literature: Ozhiganov EN The concept of "legitimation" in the theory of the political system // Development of political systems in the modern world. M., 1981; Ozhiganov EN Political theory of Max Weber. Riga, 1986; Shpakova R.P. Legitimacy of political power: Weber and modernity // Soviet state and law, 1990, No. 3.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
- (lat. legitimus, from lex, legis law). Law. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. LEGITIMA [lat. legitimus] legal, corresponding to the law. Dictionary of foreign words. Komlev N.G ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
legitimate- an authorized, legitimate, legal Dictionary of Russian synonyms. legitimate adj. legal corresponding to the law) Dictionary of Russian synonyms. Context 5.0 Informatics. 2012 ... Synonym dictionary
legitimate- oh, oh. legitim adj. 1. Consistent with the laws, lawful. Legitimate rights. ALS 1. However, her smirnova's trip abroad is probably a consequence of her extra-legal or lying position in order to stop rumors, if not with that ... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
LEGITIMATE- LEGITIMATE, oh, oh (special). Recognized by law, in accordance with the law. | noun legitimacy, and, wives. L. power. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov
legitimate- adj. Is in accordance with the law in force in the state; legal, legitimate. Explanatory Dictionary of Ephraim. T. F. Efremova. 2000... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Efremova
legitimate- legal name; briefly form of men, me ... Russian spelling dictionary
legitimate- kr.f. legity / man, legity / me, me, me ... Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language
legitimate- oh, oh; me, me, many. [from lat. legitimus lawful, lawful] Legal. L aya power ... encyclopedic Dictionary
legitimate- Something that is genuine, valid or legal. For example, a legal migrant enters with the legitimate intent to comply with immigration laws and presents legitimate travel documents. see also conscientious... International Migration Law: Glossary of Terms
legitimate- legal... Dictionary of foreign words edited by I. Mostitsky
Books
- Tiberius. The third Caesar, the second August, I. O. Knyazky. The monograph of the doctor of historical sciences, professor I.O. Knyazkoy is dedicated to the life and deeds of the Roman emperor Tiberius. Tiberius became the third Caesar to receive supreme power, he ... Buy for 754 rubles
- Tiberius. The third Caesar, the second August ..., I. O. Knyazky. The monograph of the doctor of historical sciences, professor I.O. Knyazkoy is dedicated to the life and deeds of the Roman emperor Tiberius. Tiberius became the third Caesar to receive supreme power, he is ...
The term "legitimacy" (legitime) had several meanings. It originated at the beginning of the 19th century in France and was initially practically identified with the term "legalite" (legality). It was used to denote legally established power, as opposed to forcibly usurped power (legitimacy was originally reduced to its legality, i.e., to the presence of a legitimate source of power and a legal basis for possessing it).
Over time, the concepts of legitimacy and legality have been separated. Legitimacy - this is the legal formalization of power, the correspondence of this power to objective law. legitimacy(classical definition - M. Weber) - the moral justification of the existence of the state from the point of view of the majority of its citizens, expressed in the voluntary acceptance of state power by this majority.
However, the term "legitimacy" does not have a strictly legal content and is not fixed in constitutions. Unlike legality, which is a legal justification for power, its norms and laws, legitimacy reflects the degree to which power corresponds to the value ideas of the majority of citizens.
The legitimacy of state power this concept is legal, which means the legal justification of power and its compliance with legal norms. The form of legalization of power is legislative (the Constitution or, for example, the Act of Succession to the Throne).
For citizens, the legitimacy of state power consists in obedience to laws and their implementation. Any government that makes laws, even unpopular ones, but ensures their implementation, is legal. The legality of state power is the recognition of the legitimacy of its occurrence and the action of power within the framework of legality. The term "legality" makes it possible to distinguish legally established power (based on elections or succession to the throne) from usurper, i.e. forcibly seized as a result of a coup, riot, etc.
Legitimacy of state power- this is the quality of the relationship between power and subordinates, which is expressed in: 1) its basis on universal moral values; 2) voluntary recognition by the population of the right of the authorities to govern and psychological readiness to obey its orders and consent to the use of coercive measures by the authorities.
Therefore, legal power can be illegitimate at the same time. Legitimate power, in contrast to legal, is power that is accepted, approved by the population. Legality and legitimacy can diverge over time.
Legitimacy has no legal content and is not fixed in the Constitution. Legitimacy reflects the degree to which the authorities correspond to the value ideas of the majority of citizens, i.e. this is a special moral and psychological assessment.
Legitimacy can be true and false (social demagogy, deceit). The concept of legitimacy does not coincide with different segments of the population. Legitimacy must be constantly maintained, as it is a matter of consent, obedience and political participation without coercion. The legitimacy of state power is conducive to trust and authority, and hence the effectiveness of state power.
The question of legitimacy is a question of boundaries, of the legitimacy of coercion applied by the authorities to individuals and legal entities.
Political history shows that legal power can be illegitimate and vice versa.
Modern state power, which wants to be effective, must be both legal and legitimate, or simply legitimate, if this concept includes the legal aspect (legality) of the existence of state power.
Types of legitimacy (Max Weber).
Proceeding from the fact that different types of power achieve authority with the help of different resources, M. Weber proposed to distinguish three ideal types of legitimacy of power: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. He based this classification on the motive of subordination.
1. The traditional type of legitimacy. This type of legitimacy was historically the first. It is based on faith in the sacredness of customs and traditions, their steadfastness. The ideological form is a reference to the divine origin of power and the sacredness of the right of succession to the throne. Monarchs get their power from God. In this way, a conviction is created in the legitimacy, greatness of power and the need to obey customs and traditions. Customs and traditions must be obeyed not only by subjects, but also by holders of power. If the bearer of power allows a violation, then divine law allows rebellion and even regicide. Such power was called acquisitive, and hence it can be overthrown. Thus, the authority of leaders, monarchs, kings is based on the habit of obeying authority, faith in its divine character and the sacredness of the right of succession to the throne. The traditional type of legitimacy has survived to the present, although it has been noticeably transformed. It includes royal regimes in such countries as Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Kuwait.
2. Charismatic type of legitimacy. The basis of the charismatic type of legitimacy is "the authority of an extraordinary personal gift (charisma), complete personal devotion and personal trust caused by the presence of the qualities of a leader in some person." "Charisma" in Greek means "divine gift, grace." The personality cult of the leader or leader is charismatic. Submission and consent are emotional and personal. The effect and significance of legal norms have been weakened. The entourage of a charismatic leader, his army do not have a clearly defined legal status. The charismatic type of power is characterized by absolute legitimacy, since it is based on the belief of the population in the exceptional qualities of a politician. Often the image of such a leader is consciously formed in society on the basis of the desires and ideas that prevail among the majority of the population. A charismatic type of legitimacy is also attributed to Soviet political leaders (Stalin). The charismatic type of power prevails in economically and sociopolitically backward states. In modern conditions, the charismatic legitimacy of power is preserved mainly in African countries, where charisma is a form of organized political worship, i.e. a kind of political religion, deifying the personality of the leader.
3. Rational-bureaucratic type of legitimacy (legal). It is based on the belief in the legality and justice of the existing rules for the formation and functioning of institutions of political power. Belief in universal, equal, direct suffrage by secret ballot. Institutions of power in their activities are subject to the law. The motive for the subordination of the population to power is the rationally conscious interest of the voter, who expresses it in the elections, voting for one or another party, leader. The replacement of the leader is a consequence of distrust that he will not abuse power. The main sign of the justice of power is following the laws, but both citizens and holders of power must follow the laws. No subject (political, religious, etc.) should deviate from the implementation of laws. In order to realize its goals, such a power creates a rigid, ramified organization, i.e. bureaucracy.
(lat. legitimus agreeing with the laws, legal, lawful) - a certain historically established, socially significant order of the origin and functioning of power, which makes it possible to achieve agreement in power structures and in their interaction with society. The history of the concept "L." goes back to the Middle Ages, when an understanding of L. is formed as an agreement with customs, traditions and established behavior. L. was predominantly interpreted as the right of supreme officials. act according to customs, but already from the middle of the XIV century. begins to be used in the sense of the authority of elective power. In scientific use, the term "L." introduced M. Weber, who pointed out that any government needs self-justification, recognition and support. This term is often translated as "legality", which is not entirely accurate, because. Weber had in mind not legal, but sociological (behavioral) characteristics of domination (power) and attached primary importance to the factor of the monopoly use of violence. In contrast to the sociological approach of M. Weber, the system analysis of power proposed by the American school of political science made it possible to create a more functional concept of L. adapted to practical needs, which makes it possible to measure L. empirically. D. Easton and his followers argue that the condition for L. political power is certain socio-psychological relations, which are based on a minimum value consensus that ensures the acceptance and submission of power, agreement with its requirements and support for its actions. L. in their view is "the degree to which the members of the political system perceive it as worthy of their support." This value-normative approach allowed D. Easton to distinguish between the types of support both in terms of the object and content, and in terms of the time of its action, highlighting diffuse and specific L. Diffuse L., according to D. Easton, is a general (fundamental), long-term , predominantly affective (emotional) support for the ideas and principles of political power, regardless of the results of its activities. Specific L. is situational, short-term, result-oriented, and based on conscious support for authority and how it operates. In the 80s. In political science, along with diffuse and specific L., mixed types of support were introduced: diffuse-specific and specific-diffuse, with the help of which it is possible to more accurately measure the L. of power, the political regime, or its individual institution. In modern political science literature, there are other approaches to the typology of L. The French political scientist J. L. Chabot, emphasizing that there are two main factors in the structure of power relations - the ruled and the rulers, indicates that political power is legitimized, first of all, relative to them. Thus, it must correspond to the will of the governed (democratic L.) and conform to the abilities of the rulers (technocratic L.). Democratic L. is the transfer to the whole of society of the mechanism of making a decision by an individual: an expression of free will, but in the sense that this free collective will stems from the individual manifestation of free judgment. In political practice, to operationalize the transition from the individual to the collective, a simple arithmetic mechanism is used - the majority principle (the majority principle). Its application in democratic regimes is universal - both for choosing representatives of the people, and for pushing laws or making decisions within the framework of executive collegiate structures. However, there are many cases in history when democratic mechanisms in certain historical circumstances contributed to the confirmation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Technocratic L. is associated with the ability to rule, and the latter is due to two parameters: the methods of access to power and the content of the process of its implementation. In the early stages of the history of human society, when force was the predominant way to achieve power, the possession of weapons, armies and people was valued above all. In modern conditions, knowledge is called such a predominant way. However, this type of L. can also have its "perversions" when "a competent elite, cultivating a taste for mystery and belief in their own superiority," comes to power. In addition, according to J. L. Chabot, political power can legitimize itself in relation to subjective ideas about the desired social order (ideological L.) or in accordance with the cosmic order, which also includes the social order (ontological L.). Ideological socialism is based on certain ideas about social reality and methods and projects for changing it. Ontological L. is the correspondence of political power to the universal principles of human and social existence. It is measured by the level of compliance with "that deep order of being that a person feels innately, but which he can resist." In the political science literature, there are also three levels of L. power: 1) ideological: power is recognized as justified by virtue of inner conviction or belief in the correctness of those ideological values that it proclaims; the source of legitimacy is ideological values; 2) structural: the legitimacy of power follows from the belief in the legitimacy and value of established structures and norms that regulate political relations; the source of legitimacy is specific political structures; 3) personal: based on the approval of this ruling person; the source of legitimation is the personal authority of the ruler. To maintain L. power, many means are used: changes in legislation and the mechanism of state administration in accordance with new requirements; the desire to use the traditions of the population in lawmaking and in the conduct of practical politics; implementation of legal precautions against a possible decrease in L. power; the maintenance of law and order in society, and so on. The indicators of the law of power are: the level of coercion used to implement the policy; the presence of attempts to overthrow the government or leader; the force of manifestation of civil disobedience; results of elections, referendums; mass demonstrations in support of the authorities (opposition), etc. L. a political phenomenon does not mean its legality. L. does not have legal functions and is not a legal process.
legitimacy
– Philosophical Dictionary(lat. legitimus - legal) - in a broad sense - recognition, explanation and justification of the social order, action, actor or event. In jurisprudence, it is opposed to legality (actual legality) as having not a legal, but a moral function of justification, first of all, power according to the criteria of authority and goals. M. Weber introduced the concept of "recognition" into sociology, transforming it into the category of "orientation to the other", thus recognition turned out to be a constitutive moment of social action as such. "Orientation on the other" as the basis of social action understands and accepts the "universal" of the social order only in so far as the "universal" is recognized by individual individuals and orients their real behavior. The concept of L. turns out to be necessary for the sociological study of society and is used by Weber in establishing the types of legitimate domination, such as is recognized by controlled individuals. L., therefore, is not a property of the social order, but a property of a certain conception of it. The process of legitimation reveals itself as a component of a representative culture (in the definition of F. Tenbrook), contributing to the perception of the world and social reality as "due". Legitimation explains social order by giving cognitive validity to objectified meanings; legitimation justifies the social order by giving a normative character to its practical imperatives, that is, it includes cognitive and normative aspects. The problem of L. is not only a problem of value, it necessarily includes knowledge as well, namely the knowledge of what and how can be said and done in a culture or community. The function of legitimation or the rules of recognition is assumed by the social universe, which has absorbed various areas of meanings and theoretical constructions, including the institutional order in all its symbolic integrity and suggesting the possibility of the existence of a different understanding of its meaning, each of which is socially significant, and, therefore, seems legitimate to certain social groups. guided by it in real behavior. S.A. Radionova
(lat. Legitimus - legal) - recognition by the people and political forces of the legitimacy, legitimacy of political power, its tools, mechanisms of activity, as well as the methods of its election. Legitimacy is not a legal process, therefore, from a political science point of view, it does not have legal functions. It fixes the fact of recognition by the people, and therefore, is empowered to prescribe norms of behavior for people. Legitimate power is therefore mutually trusting. The people trust the government to carry out certain functions, and the government undertakes to fulfill them using a variety of mechanisms and methods. The most effective way to legitimize political power is to involve citizens in the management of society and the state, to control the activities of officials. At the same time, the level of legitimacy increases. Another trend shows that the lower the level of legitimacy, the stronger the coercion, and power, based not only on force, is "naked power" (B. Russell). The state of full legitimacy is a very difficult process to achieve and maintain. Only in a society with well-established norms of behavior, a developed culture of power and the culture of the people, a high level of socio-economic and political development, can we seriously talk about the legitimacy of political power, its individual bodies. Since the time of M. Weber, three models of legitimacy have been distinguished. Traditional legitimacy is based on customs, strength and loyalty to the traditions that have developed in a particular society. Charismatic legitimacy is characterized by personal devotion to the leader, the leader due to his extraordinary qualities. Rational legitimacy is based on the rationality principle by which political power is established. There are three levels of legitimacy of power: ideological, structural and personalistic. The ideological level is based on the correspondence of power to a certain ideology. The structural level characterizes the stability of the political system of society, in which the mechanisms for the formation of its institutions have been worked out. Personalist legitimacy is the approval by the population of a particular ruling person. The decisive lever of legitimacy, capable power, its strength and authority is law, legal culture. If there is no legality as an independent mechanism and regulator of public and private life, then this vacuum is filled by the authorities and it acquires the function of "legal" activity, i.e. becomes an institution of "law power". "The right of power" preserves the alienation of the authorities and the people, the illegitimacy of relations between them and creates a field of impunity, illegal actions of the authorities, gives rise to legal nihilism among citizens. In the situation of "the right of power" it is impossible to achieve a conscious motivation for the activities of people, since they are not free, crumpled by the "right power", which is absolute and does not change, improve, etc. General non-compliance with the law can lead to the process of desocialization of society and the state. In society and the state, the rule of law, based on freedom, culture and the interests of the people, the individual, should prevail. – sociological dictionary
English legitimacy, charismatic; German Legitimitat, charismatische. According to M. Weber - the legitimacy of domination, based on the recognition of the outstanding personal qualities of the leader. See CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY, CHARISMATIC lordship.
The term Legitimacy has been constantly on the ear lately, you can hear it on famous talk shows on TV or read it on the Internet. Many people understand what it is about, but few citizens have thought about the meaning and origin of this word.In colloquial speech, few people use this term. This concept is in wide use in politics, meaning by it the legality of solving certain situations or issues.
The history of the term "Legitimacy"
The concept of "Legitimacy" was borrowed from the Latin language "legitimus" and is translated into Russian as "lawful", "lawful". Politicians pronouncing this word mean that the majority of the country's citizens support the existing government and accept all its decisions regarding the rule of law.In simple words, "Legitimacy" is when people trust the management of their country, either a city or a separate entity, obey this authority, fully agree with its decisions.
If we look into the depths of history, we will notice that it is full of cases when a group of people overthrows the current government and begins to rule the state, such power was rejected by the people and could not be considered legitimate because the people did not elect it and, accordingly, cannot trust it.
Subsequent laws, decisions and treaties are usually called illegitimate.
We won’t go far for an example, but let’s turn our inquisitive gaze to our neighbor Ukraine. In this country, a coup d’état initiated by Western intelligence services, namely German and American ones, took place. After a bunch of people seized power, which everyone began to call the Junta. All its decisions are not considered legitimate, in fact, like the government itself.
What is the difference between legitimate and legal power?
Do not confuse such terms as legitimacy and legality. These are two completely different concepts.Legality is a legalized activity that is based on generally accepted norms and documents, and legitimacy is the legitimacy of the authorities in the country, its leaders and politicians, which reflect the qualities not from formal decrees and laws, but from social harmony.
In the image below you can see the concepts of legality and legitimacy
What is the difference between legitimacy and legality?
