The essence of political power, its features, structure and means. Essence and main features of political power

sovereignty, which means independence and indivisibility of power.

the volitional nature of power presupposes the existence of a conscious political program, goals and readiness to fulfill it;

the coercive nature of power (persuasion, submission, command, domination, violence);

universality of power, which means the functioning of power in all spheres public relations and political processes.

Table 2.1

Resources of power - means, the use of which

provides influence on the object of power in accordance

with the goals of the subject

Economic:

Material values necessary for public

production and consumption;

fertile lands;

Minerals, etc.

Socio-political:

Population size, its quality;

social unity;

Social stability and order;

Democracy of public relations;

Participation of the population in politics;

Patriotism of civil society, etc.

Moral and ideological:

Ideals, interests, beliefs of people;

Ideology, faith, trust, public mood;

Feelings (patriotic, national, religious),

people's emotions, etc.

Information and cultural:

Knowledge and information;

Institutes of Science and Education;

Propaganda in all its forms;

Mass media, etc.

Weapons and apparatus of physical coercion (army, military

police, security services, court, prosecutor's office)

MECHANISM OF EXERCISE OF POWER

INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING POINTS

Dominance, i.e. subjugation of some social groups

others, which is enshrined in state regulations

legal acts

Leadership, i.e. definition and legislative consolidation

development of the society development strategy, political system,

choice of means for the implementation of the main tasks and goals

Management and organization, i.e. adoption of specific

equal decisions, coordination, ordering

activities of various social groups, individuals, activities

political and non-political organizations and members

decisions

Control like Feedback, through which the power

monitors the results of certain management

lazy decisions

Representatives of these two major theoretical approaches, emphasizing the real-life sides and aspects of power as a social phenomenon, proceed from opposite principles in explaining its essence. Recognition of the reality of those aspects of power that are used as the basis for its conceptual interpretation does not eliminate the need to choose between these approaches.

When determining the essence of political power as the starting point, its instrumental interpretation should be recognized as the most legitimate, revealing the attitude towards it as a certain means that a person uses in certain situations to achieve his own goals. In principle, power can also be regarded as the goal of individual (group) activity. But in this case, special, as yet lacking evidence is needed that such a desire is present, if not in all, then in most people. It is in this sense that power can be recognized as a functionally necessary phenomenon in society, which is generated by relations of social dependence and exchange of activities (P. Blau, X. Kelly, R. Emerson) and serves as a kind of asymmetric connection of subjects (D. Cartwright, R. Dahl, E. Kaplan).

As a means of regulating social relationships, power can arise only in those types of human communication that exclude cooperation, partnership and similar ways of communication that devalue the very attitude towards the superiority of one subject over another. Moreover, in a competitive environment, power can also arise only in cases where actors are interconnected by a rigid interdependence that prevents one side from achieving its goals without the other. This rigid functional interdependence of the parties is a direct prerequisite for the formation of power. Otherwise, when in politics, let’s say, subjects that are weakly dependent on each other (for example, parties of different states) interact, not power relations develop between them, but other asymmetric relations, revealing an imbalance in their material resources, which does not allow for the dominance of one of them.

When the dominance of one of the subjects begins to grow out of mutual competition by imposing its goals and interests on another subject, then a new type of interaction arises in which one side dominates and the other submits to it. In other words, power arises as a result of the transformation of the influence of one side into a form of dominance over the other. Therefore, when one or another side manages to impose its own intentions, goals and desires on a competitor, and power is formed, which marks the asymmetry of the situation, in which the dominant side acquires additional opportunities to achieve its own goals.

Thus, power can be considered as a kind of causal relations or, according to T. Hobbes, relations in which "one is the cause of a change in the actions of another." Therefore, power expresses the position of subjective dominance, arising from the real predominance of certain properties (goals, methods of activity) of the subject. Consequently, power is based not on the potential capabilities of this or that subject or its formal statuses, but on its actual use of means and resources that ensure its practical dominance over the other side. In politics, submission is not to someone with a higher formal status, but to someone who can use their resources for practical submission. It is no coincidence that M. Weber believed that power means "any opportunity to carry out one's own will, even in spite of resistance, regardless of what such an opportunity is based on."

At the same time, the methods of coercion of the subject party can be very different, these are persuasion, control, encouragement, sanctioning, violence, financial incentives, etc. A special place among them is occupied by violence, which, according to F. Neumann, “is the most effective method in the short term, but it is ineffective over a long period, since it forces (especially in modern conditions) to tighten the methods of ruling and to their ever wider distribution." Therefore, "the most effective method the conviction remains.

Thus, power comes from the practical ability of the subject to realize his potential. Therefore, the essence of power is inextricably linked with the will of the subject, which contributes to the transfer of intentions from the sphere of consciousness to the field of practice, and its power, which ensures the imposition of one's positions or subordination necessary for domination. Both the strength and the will of the subject are equally its invariable attributes.

Therefore, even having taken an advantageous position, the subject must be able to use his chance, to realize new opportunities. Thus, political power, as a relatively socially stable phenomenon, necessarily implies the presence of a subject endowed not with formal status prerogatives, but with skills and real abilities to establish and maintain relations of its power domination (on the part of a party, lobby, corporation, etc.) in conditions of continuous competition.

Depending on how effective the means used by the subject to maintain his dominance are, his power can be preserved, strengthened, or, balanced by the activity of the other side, achieve a balance of mutual influences (a state of anarchy). Achieving such a balance of power (equilibrium) will stimulate to re-raise the question of either the transition of the parties to forms of cooperation, cooperation, or their involvement in new round competition to gain new positions of dominance.

In order to make the retention of power longer and more stable, the dominant party, as a rule, tries to institutionalize its position of dominance and superiority, to turn it into a system of domination. As an independent and stable political phenomenon, power is a system of interconnected and (partially or completely) institutionalized connections and relations, role structures, functions and behavioral styles. Therefore, it cannot be identified either with individual institutions (the state), or with specific means (violence), or with certain actions of the dominant subject (leadership).

According to this interpretation of power, it is not capable of spreading throughout the entire social (political) space. Power is a kind of cluster of sociality that is formed only in certain parts of society (political space) and is used by people, along with other means of achieving their goals, only to regulate specific conflicts and contradictions. Its source is a person with his inherent skills and properties, competing with other people and using various means to ensure his dominance over others.

Considering that in the political sphere the group is the main subject of power, political power can be defined as a system of institutionally (normatively) fixed social relations that have developed on the basis of the real dominance of a particular group in the use of state prerogatives for the distribution of various public resources in the interests and at will. its members.

In political life, power relations are a complex process of interaction of various structures, persons, mechanisms involved in them, which express the different nature of domination / subordination of various social groups. At the same time, power relationships, regardless of the type of political system, always have some ability to influence the behavior of citizens. In political science, they are usually called "faces of power."

The “first person” of power means its ability to induce people to certain actions, to force them to act in line with those interests and goals that come from the dominant subject. So, the ruling parties, controlling the main state structures, encourage citizens to adhere to the laws and rules established by them, force them to act in the direction of solving the tasks set.

The "second face" of power demonstrates its ability to prevent unwanted actions of people. In particular, the ruling circles can ban extremist and radical organizations, push unwanted parties to the periphery of political life, and prevent contacts between citizens and the population of other states. The authorities can artificially limit the field of political discussion by banning the media they control from addressing certain topics or by imposing strict censorship on the press and television. The prohibitive nature of power is especially clearly manifested in a state of emergency or the conduct of hostilities by the country, as well as under totalitarian and despotic regimes.

The "third person" of power characterizes its ability to exercise the dominance of certain forces in the absence of visible and even semantic contact between the ruling and the ruled. For example, the authority of a political leader can stimulate the actions of his supporters in the spirit of certain covenants even after his death or when he is imprisoned and no one sees him.

The invisible impact of power also takes place when manipulating public (group) opinion. This happens when people become participants in the processes initiated by the authorities, not clearly realizing the true goals and intentions of the ruling circles. For example, the authorities may conduct certain experiments on groups of military personnel or residents of the country, without informing them of the danger of these actions to human health. In other words, manipulation is a short-term form of domination, which ends as soon as the object of power acquires the information it needs.

The “fourth face” of power demonstrates its totality, i.e. the ability to exist in the form of ubiquitous coercion, emanating from everywhere and not reducible to the actions of any particular person. Power acts here as a kind of matrix prescribing people's behavior and even demonic power, which "never is in someone's hands, is never appropriated." * In this case, people do not perceive power as someone's personal domination. Most often, this form of coercion reflects the dominance of laws, norms, rules, and traditions in force in the country. There are very common methods of symbolic coercion, habits, stereotypes, prejudices, and so on.

As a relatively independent and qualitatively defined phenomenon, political power has a whole set of inherent properties and characteristics. Among them, one can single out a number of universal features that unite political power with other varieties of social power - economic, moral, legal, informational, etc., as well as specific features inherent exclusively to it as a proper political phenomenon.

Among the universal, basic, primary properties of political power, one should first of all note the property of asymmetry, which not only characterizes the dominance of the will of the ruler and the inequality of his status with the statuses of those subject to him, but also reflects the qualitative differences in their capabilities, resources, rights, powers and other parameters of life. In fact, this property shows that in politics the struggle for the possession of power and its retention is motivated not so much by considerations of prestige, ideas, values and other ideal entities, but by the desire of specific people to possess the resources and rights they need, which expand their social opportunities.

Such an initial imbalance of dominance-subordination relations turns political power into an internally non-equilibrium phenomenon. In this sense, political power has the property of inversion, which indicates that the position of those in power is constantly undermined by the activity of those who are subject, as a result of which their statuses can dynamically change and even turn into opposite ones. This means that with the resistance of the subordinates more intense than the influence of those in power, the subject and object of power can change places.

This ever-existing possibility of reversibility of power shows that power interaction has a combined character, i.e. power is formed at the intersection of efforts, wills not only of the dominant, but also of the subordinate side. The relations between those who rule and those who are subject extend over a wide range: from fierce resistance and readiness to die, but not to surrender to the mercy of the conqueror, to voluntary, joyfully perceived obedience. However, with all that, power always represents a certain arithmetic mean combination of the influence of the subject and the resistance force of the object of power.

A fundamentally important property of power is its resourcefulness. In the very general view a resource is a certain basis of power or all those means that allow the subject to achieve dominance. Such resources can be knowledge and information, material values(money, land, technology, etc.), utilitarian means (social benefits used to meet the current needs of a person), legal norms and laws (implying judicial sanctions, administrative measures, etc.), organizational, coercive means (military and physical force or the threat of their use), territorial (certain territories at the disposal of the subject of power), demographic (people with their certain qualities) means, etc.

Depending on the nature of the political system or the current situation, certain resources become either effective or dysfunctional. For example, in today's democracies it is impossible to force the population to submit to authority or, say, to a state that has power by force alone. large territories, to resolve in their favor the conflict with neighboring country with a significant economic advantage. American futurist O. Toffler predicts that in early XXI in. information will be the most important resource. It will lead to a "shift of power", which will predetermine the formation of a "mosaic democracy", where the main subject will be "a free and autonomous individual."

Power also has the property of cumulativeness, which means that in the sphere of power relations, any subject focuses primarily on its own interests (and not on the needs of a partner), trying to expand the zone of its own influence and control. This proves not only the acuteness and conflict nature of power relations, but also the fact that from within, i.e. on the part of the acting subject (and subject to the immutability of his aspirations), power essentially has no restrictions. Therefore, it seeks to constantly expand its area of distribution, to involve in relations of domination / subordination all the subjects and connections available in politics.

From a purely practical point of view, the recognition of this kind of property shows that the power claims and ambitions of certain individuals (groups) can only be prevented from the outside. In other words, power can only be limited from the outside - from the side of the object. That is why, for example, citizens who vote for a contender for some state post who has charmed them should rely more not on the merits of the leader, but on the creation of a system of checks and balances capable of controlling and, in certain cases, preventing his actions aimed at exceeding powers given to him.

Power also has constructive abilities. In other words, it is the source (if not all, then most) of social transformations, conscious design and adjustment of social relations. In this sense, power is not just a regulator, but also a constructor of sociality, a means of transforming the social (political) space.

The specific properties of political power reveal its special dimension. In this sense, first of all, it should be taken into account that political power is formed in the conditions of competition of group subjects. True, supporters of post-structuralist approaches believe that there are no fundamental differences between how individuals interact and how groups interact (M. Foucault). However, this provision can hardly be recognized as legitimate, given that groups cannot, as individuals, directly exercise their political dominance or, like them, compete with each other.

A group cannot become a participant in the competition for power if it fails to organize a system for representing the interests of its citizens. Its dominance is inextricably linked with the creation of certain structures and institutions, with the formation of a well-known system of laws, norms and rules of action imposed on society. At the same time, in the structure of the group subject, individuals are distinguished who interpret socially significant categories (for example, “the interests of the people”), publicly voice them, formulate assessments of phenomena and relations, ensure the choice of the necessary means of political struggle, in a word, speak on behalf of the group.

In general, the dominance of the group is expressed in the creation of a system of relations, fixed by the relevant structures and institutions. These latter in the aggregate are for the individual that objectively established system of power that dominates him. Thus, the political domination of the group inevitably takes the form of supra-personal pressure, behind which it is difficult to discern the interests of the really dominant subject. Therefore, this property of political power characterizes a certain removal of the system of established domination from a specific group subject, an external “separation” of the normative system from its creators, which creates difficulties for establishing specific ruling forces.

Political power is a system of relations that are formed on the basis of group communities' claims to the powers of the most powerful social institution - the state. In this sense, various groups (parties, movements, pressure groups, political associations representing their interests) may have enough own capabilities control over higher authorities government controlled(for example, in the form of political domination) or behind its individual (central, regional or local) structures that manage partial (material, informational, organizational, etc.) resources. As a result, multidimensional hierarchies of power political relations are built in society, which are especially complicated in the framework of transitional processes that contribute to the emergence of various centers of influence and power.

It is the state that gives political power the legality of the use of force in a certain territory, gives it a public and universal character, enabling the victorious groups to speak on behalf of the whole society. The state personifies the monocentricity of political power, i.e. the presence of a decision-making center that forms goals for the entire population.

However, political power is by no means identical with state power, which is, albeit the most powerful, but nevertheless only one of its forms. The fact is that not all actions of the state and not all decisions made at the state level can be of a political nature. There are other forms of political power, for example, party power, which fixes the dominance of the party apparatus and leaders over party members, etc.

Political power also has the multi-resource property, which indicates that political structures, and above all the state, have access to virtually all resources at the disposal of society. Political power also has an additional source of social energy, embedded in the ambitious aspirations of elite circles. As practice shows, it is they who are organically inherent in an innate, withering human desire for power, that “imperious instinct” (M. Bakunin), which is present in this group of people. Political history is replete with examples of how selfishness, ambitions, irrepressible ambition of leaders became the causes of major political events that influenced the history of entire states and peoples.

Ideology is also of fundamental importance for the attributive characteristics of political power. It essentially symbolizes the role of all information and spiritual components of political power, turning all the ideological considerations, emotional reactions, glorification or cynical conjuncture used in it into a form of systematic substantiation of one or another method of coercion.

In the real political space, power is expressed in various forms of ensuring group domination. In this regard, the Italian scientist N. Bobbio singled out three forms of political power, which, to one degree or another, are inherent in all political regimes.

Thus, power in the form of visible, explicit government is a form of activity of structures and institutions focused on public interaction with the population or other political entities. Power in this form is exercised in the form of actions of state bodies that develop and, in full view of the whole society, apply certain procedures for making and coordinating decisions; political leaders who discuss with the public the measures taken; opposition parties and media that criticize government actions, etc. Thus, political power publicly demonstrates its interest in public support for its own decisions, it fundamentally turns to society, demonstrating that political decisions are made in the name of the interests of the population and under its control. The public form of ruling characterizes politics as the interaction of those in power (managers) and subordinates (managed), they have certain mutual obligations, the operation of mutually developed norms and rules of participation of elites and non-elites in the management of the state and society.

Along with this, forms of semi-hidden (shadow) government are also taking shape in the political space. They characterize either the priority influence on the formation of political goals of any structures (individual state bodies, lobbies) that formally do not have such rights and privileges, or the dominance of various informal elite groups in the decision-making process. The presence of this kind of power processes shows not only that the interpretation of state tasks or the development of government decisions is in fact a process much less formalized than it is officially announced or seen from the outside. The shadowy nature of this professional process is also demonstrated by the fact that it is open to the influence of various centers of power (resources) and often, in principle, is oriented towards removing the public from discussing subtle and delicate problems that do not need wide publicity.

The third form of political power is designated by the Italian scientist Bobbio as hidden rule, or crypto-government. It demonstrates the methods of power that are practiced either by secret political police, or by army groups and other similar structures, which de facto dominate in determining the political goals of individual states. The same type of dominance can be attributed to the activities of criminal communities that put themselves at the service of state institutions and turned them into a kind of mafia associations. These examples show that the political power structure of individual states may include institutions and centers of influence that act against the state itself.

abstract

The essence of political power, its legitimation and legitimacy

Introduction

political power state legitimacy

Legitimation is one of the most important aspects of the system of political power. Power asserts itself only by force (dictatorship) relatively rarely and not for long. Therefore, the rulers have always tried to create a more or less solid and vital voluntary basis, support, and social base for it. Even N. Machiavelli, who believed that the people should be a passive mass, conjured the rulers not to incur the dislikes of their subjects: “The contempt and hatred of subjects is the very thing that the sovereign should be most afraid of.” His task is to win the favor of the people. One of the ways is to arouse love for the sovereign. Plato attached great importance to the spread among the population of a “noble fiction” that God mixed gold with them at the birth of rulers. “The bearer of legitimate authority,” wrote K. Jaspers, “can rule fearlessly, relying on the consent of the people. The ruler, not relying on the rule of law, is afraid of the people; the violence he carries out breeds the violence of others, from fear he is forced to resort to ever-increasing terror, and this, in turn, leads to the fact that fear becomes the predominant feeling in a given society. Legitimacy is like a magician who ceaselessly creates the necessary order with the help of trust, illegitimacy is violence that everywhere breeds violence based on distrust and fear.

1. Political power

So what is political power? Let's talk about power first.

The concept of "power" is one of the fundamental categories of political science. It provides the key to understanding political institutions, politics itself, and the state. The inseparability of power and politics is recognized as a matter of course in all political theories of the past and present. Politics as a phenomenon is characterized by a direct or indirect connection with power and activities for the exercise of power. Social communities and individuals enter into various relationships: economic, social, spiritual, political. Politics, on the other hand, is a sphere of relations between social groups, layers, personalities, which deals mainly with the problems of power and control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. Legitimacy and legitimation of political power

After we understand what political power is, we can understand the concept of the legitimacy of political power and the legitimation of political power.

According to J. Friedrich and K. Deutsch, legitimacy is the compatibility of political actions with the system of values prevailing in a given community. The basis of legitimacy is the voluntary obedience to laws, the distribution of power as an authority authoritative for the individual. According to M. Weber, people for whom she is authoritative, to whom they voluntarily transferred part of their power, accept all laws emanating from her, including those with which they do not agree.

The German political scientist M. Hettich writes that legitimation is the legitimate recognition of political domination by society.Righteousness here is about conviction, not normativity. It's about about a certain political consensus in society, when the masses show commitment to political power, to a political system with the basic political values achieved here.

Modern typology of legitimacy originates from Max Weber. He proposed to distinguish three of its types.

The first type of legitimacy traditional, that is, based on the unwritten laws of traditions and customs. The second kind - charismatic, emotional-volitional, based on faith in the special, outstanding, supernatural qualities of a leader, a leader. The third kind - rationalbased on the laws and procedures adopted in the state, reasonable judgments.

These types of legitimacy, named by Max Weber, are ideal in nature, that is, they are, to a certain extent, abstractions that do not exist in political reality in a “pure form”. In specific political systems, these three types are intertwined with the dominance of one of them, which makes it possible to characterize legitimacy as either traditional, or charismatic, or rational. In other words, this classification serves as a tool for analyzing the legitimacy of power in each particular political system.

Traditional type of legitimacyis based on the habit of obeying authority, faith in its sacredness. Monarchies are an example of the traditional type of domination.

Rational legal legitimacycharacterized by people's faith in the justice of the existing rules for the formation of power. The motive for submission is the rationally conscious interest of the voter. Democracies are an example of this type of legitimacy.

Charismatic type of political dominationis based on the belief of the population in the exceptional, unique qualities of a political leader. The charismatic type of power is most often observed in transforming societies. The functional role of the charismatic type of power organization is to stimulate and accelerate historical progress.
The indicators of the legitimacy of power are:the level of enforcement used to enforce the policy; the presence / absence of attempts to overthrow the government or leader; measure of manifestation of civil disobedience; as well as the results of elections, referendums, mass demonstrations in support of the government (opposition).

. Legitimation of political power

Having dealt with the concepts of legitimation and legitimacy, we can talk about the legitimation of political power as such, what legitimation is and how this process occurs.

Legitimation often has nothing to do with the law, and sometimes even contradicts it. “This process is not necessarily formal and even more often informal, through which state power acquires the property of legitimacy, i.e. a state expressing the correctness, justification, expediency, legality and other aspects of the conformity of a particular state power to the attitudes, expectations of the individual, social and other groups, society as a whole. The recognition of state power, its actions as legitimate, is formed on the basis of sensory perception, experience, and rational assessment. It relies not on external signs(although, for example, the oratorical skills of leaders can have a significant impact on the public, contributing to the establishment of charismatic power), but on internal motives, internal incentives. “The legitimization of state power is not connected with the issuance of a law, the adoption of a constitution (although this may also be part of the process of legitimation), but with a complex of experiences and internal attitudes of people, with the ideas of various segments of the population about compliance with state power; its bodies of norms social justice, human rights, their protection.

Non-legitimate power relies on violence, other forms of coercion, including mental influence, but legitimation cannot be imposed on people from the outside, for example, by force of arms or by opening a “good” constitution by a monarch to his people. It is created by people's devotion to a certain social system (sometimes a certain personality), which expresses the immutable values of being. At the basis of this kind of devotion is the belief of people that their goods depend on

from the preservation and support of this order, this state power, the conviction that. That they express the interests of the people. Therefore, the legitimization of state power is always associated with the interests of people, various segments of the population. And since the interests and needs of various groups, due to limited / resources and other circumstances, can only be partially satisfied or only the needs of some groups are fully satisfied, the legitimation of state power in society, with rare exceptions, cannot have a comprehensive, universal character: what is legitimate for some, appears as not legitimate for others. The total “expropriation of expropriators” is a phenomenon that does not have legality, because modern constitutions provide for the possibility of nationalizing only certain objects only on the basis of the law and with mandatory compensation, the amount of which in disputed cases is established by the court), and extremely illegitimate, not only from the point of view of the owners of the means of production but also other segments of the population. In the views of the lumpen proletariat, general expropriation has the highest degree of legitimacy. Many other examples can be cited of the different interests of various sections of the population and their unequal, often opposite attitude towards the activities of state power and towards power itself. Therefore, its legitimation is not associated with the approval of the whole society (this is an extremely rare option), but with the acceptance of it by the majority of the population while respecting and protecting the rights of the minority. It is this, and not the dictatorship of the class, that makes state power legitimate. - The legitimization of state power gives it the necessary authority in society. The majority of the population voluntarily and consciously submits to it, to the legitimate demands of its bodies and representatives, which gives it stability, stability, and the necessary degree of freedom in the implementation of state policy. The higher the level of legitimization of state power, the wider the possibilities of managing society with minimal "power" costs and the cost of "managerial energy", with greater freedom for self-regulation of social processes. At the same time, the legitimate authorities have the right and obligation, in the interests of society, to apply coercive measures provided for by law, if other ways to stop anti-social actions do not work.

But the arithmetic majority cannot always serve as the basis for genuine legitimation of state power. Most of the Germans under the Hitler regime adopted a policy of "purification of the race" and with regard to territorial claims, which ultimately led to great disasters for the German people. Consequently, not all assessments of the majority make state power truly legitimate. The decisive criterion is its compliance with universal human values.

The legitimation of state power is assessed not by the words of its representatives (although this is important), not by the texts of the programs and laws adopted by it (although this is important), but by practical activities, by the ways in which it solves the fundamental issues of society and each individual. The population sees a difference between slogans about reforms and democracy, on the one hand, and authoritarian methods of making decisions that are important for the fate of the country and the people, on the other. From here, as evidenced by systematic surveys of the population, the erosion of the legitimacy of state power in Russia (legitimacy was high after August 1991) results, while maintaining its legalization: all the highest bodies of the state were created according to the Constitution of 1993 and act in principle in accordance with it, but according to polls organized at the end of March 1995 on the instructions of the NTV channel, 6% of the respondents trust the President of Russia, 78% do not trust, 10% both trust and do not trust, 6% found it difficult to answer. Of course, polling data does not always paint the right picture, but these data should not be underestimated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about legitimation in Russia. Elections have become one of the main forms of legitimation of political power in Russia.

Russia has already accumulated a certain experience of election campaigns, which clearly shows that this very form of legitimization of power has taken root, rooted in our lives. It is already obvious today that the elections have become one of the important values for the citizens of Russia - the assurances of those sociologists and political scientists who stubbornly imposed on us the image of an apathetic and irrational mass that votes because the candidate "likes" or "does not like" did not come true or generally indifferent to politics.
To understand the scale of the shift in the socio-political consciousness, one should remember that less than a decade ago, the very idea of elections on an alternative basis was perceived as an incredible innovation. Elections have ceased to be a symbolic problem, but have become a common everyday practice. For the first time in thousand years of history Russia held general, secret and democratic presidential elections.
Voters will have their say, on whose civil position, in the end, the future face of the country depends, because power is legitimate and stable only when it enjoys the support of the majority. This is the hope of Russia and the main lesson of the first experiments in holding large-scale democratic election campaigns.

Bibliographic list

1. Ilyin V.V. Philosophy of power. Moscow State University 1993.

Polunina G.V. Political science. - M .: "Akalis" 1996.

Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I. Introduction to political science.

Radugin A.A. Political science. - M.: Center 1996.

6. Legitimacy of political power. Access mode:

#"justify">7. Concepts of legitimacy and legitimization of power. Access mode:

#"justify">8. legitimacy of political power. Essence and modern forms.

Access mode: http://www.rusnauka.com/2_ANR_2010/Politologia/1_57494.doc.htm

Belgorod Law Institute

Department of Humanities and Socio-Economic Disciplines

ESSAY

Topic: Politics and power. Essence of political power

PREPARED:

STUDENT 454 GROUP

Okunev A.A.

CHECKED:

Department Lecturer

Putilov P.D.

Belgorod - 2008

Literature:

Main literature:

*Perevalov V.D. Political science. Textbook for high schools. - M., 2001. - Chapter 4.

* Gadzhiev K. S. Introduction to political science - M., 1997. - Chapter 3.

*Lobanov K.N. Political science. - Belgorod, 2000. - Lectures 5.6.

Additional literature:

* Ledyaev V. G. Power - a conceptual analysis / / Polis. - 2000. - No. 1.

*Kurskova G.A. The political phenomenon of power//SGZ. - 2000. - No. 1.

*Karpukhin O. I., Makarevich E. F. Manipulation of the masses as a tool of PR revolutions in the era of globalization and export of democracy//SGZ. - 2005. - No. 5.

*Smolkov V.G. Encyclopedia of knowledge about power. - M., 2005.

* Shabrov O. F. Public administration in Russia: problems of efficiency / / SGZ. - 2005. - No. 2.

Introduction

Power is one of the fundamental principles of human society. It exists wherever there are stable associations of people: in the family, production teams, various organizations and institutions, throughout the state. In the generally accepted understanding, power appears as the interaction of its subject and object, in which the subject, with the help of certain means, controls the object and achieves its fulfillment of its volitional attitudes. This understanding of power allows us to reveal its structure.

1. The essence of power, its structure. The nature of submission

The main components of power are its subject, object, means (resources) and the process that sets in motion all its elements. The subject of power embodies its active, guiding principle. It can be an individual, an organization, a community of people, for example, a people, or even global community united in the UN.

For the emergence of power relations, it is necessary that the subject possess a number of qualities. First of all, it is the desire to rule, the will to power. In addition to the desire to lead, the subject of power must be competent, know the essence of the matter, the state and mood of subordinates, be able to use resources, and have authority. Of course, in real life, those in power are endowed with these qualities to varying degrees.

The subject determines the content of a power relationship through an order (instruction, command). The order prescribes the behavior of the object of power, indicates (or implies) the sanctions that the execution or non-performance of the order entails. The attitude of the object to it, that is, the performer, the second most important element of power, largely depends on the order, the nature of the requirements contained in it,

Power is possible only under the condition of subordination of the object to the subject. If there is no such subordination, then there is no power, despite the fact that the subject striving for it has powerful means of coercion. Ultimately, the object of the powerful if there is a choice, albeit an extreme one - to die, but not to obey, which found, in particular, its expression in the freedom-loving slogan "it is better to die fighting than to live on your knees."

However, the scale of the relationship of the object to the subject of domination extends from fierce resistance, struggle to destruction voluntarily, with joy perceived obedience. In principle, subordination is just as appropriately inherent in human society as is leadership. Readiness for submission depends on a number of factors: on the object’s own qualities, on the nature of the requirements placed on it, on the situation and the means of influence that the subject has, etc.

At the same time, the motivation of submission is rather complicated.

It may be based on fear of sanctions; on a long habit of obedience; on interest in the execution of orders; on the conviction of the need for submission; on the authority caused by the bearer of power from subordinates. All these motives significantly affect the strength of power, that is, the ability of its subject to influence the object.

The strength of power based on the fear caused by the threat of punishment, as a rule, tends to weaken due to the natural desire of people to get rid of this unpleasant emotional state.

Relatively painlessly perceived by people is power based on habit, the custom of obeying. Habit is a reliable factor in the stability of power until it comes into conflict with the requirements of real life.

The most stable is power built on interest. Personal interest encourages subordinates to voluntarily carry out orders, makes control superfluous, etc.

Conclusion: One of the most favorable subordination motivations for power is authority. Authority is the highly valued qualities that subordinates bestow on a leader and which ensure their obedience without the threat of sanctions or persuasion. Depending on the qualities that underlie it, authority can be scientific (the quality of learning), business (competence, experience), moral (high moral qualities), religious (holiness), status (respect for the position), etc. Without authority, power cannot be strong and effective.

2. Resources, process and types of authority

The most important social reason for the subordination of some people to others is the uneven distribution of power resources.

Power resources can be interpreted as a set of means, the use of which provides influence on the object of power in accordance with the goals of the subject. Resources are either values that are important for the object (money, consumer goods), or means that can affect the inner world, a person’s motivation (television, the press), or tools (tools) that can be used to deprive a person of certain values, the highest of which is life (weapons, punitive organs in general).

Resources, along with the subject and object, are one of the most important foundations of power. They can be used as positive (provision of benefits) and negative (deprivation of benefits) sanctions. In the process of their mobilization by the subject, they are transformed into power, which is the ability to turn certain resources into influence in the system of power relationships.

The resources of power are as diverse as the means of satisfying the various needs and interests of people. As a rule, the resources of power are divided into:

1) economic (material values necessary for production and consumption, money, fertile land, minerals, food, etc.);

2) social (the ability to increase or decrease social status or rank. Social resources also act as indicators such as position, prestige, education, medical care, social security, etc.);

3) cultural and informational (knowledge and information, as well as the means of obtaining and disseminating them: institutes of science and education, the media, etc.):

4) power (weapons, apparatus of physical coercion, in the state it is: the army, police, security services, court and prosecutor's office);

5) demographic (people as a universal, multifunctional resource that creates other resources).

The use of power resources sets in motion its pseudo-components, makes its process a reality, which is characterized by the ways and mechanisms of domination.

Ways of ruling can be different: democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, constitutional, despotic, liberal and others.

The process of domination is ordered and regulated with the help of special mechanism authorities - systems of organizations and norms of their structure and activities. With regard to such a complex subject as society (people), the mechanism of power is government bodies, law, the political system as a whole.

Features of various elements of power - subject, object, resources - can be used as the basis for its typology. One of the most meaningful classifications of power is its division in accordance with the resources on which it is based, into economic, social, informational, political (which is often called coercive).

Economic power is control over economic resources, ownership of various kinds of material values. As a rule, during normal, relatively calm periods community development economic power dominates other types of power.

Social power is closely related to economic power. If economic power involves the distribution of material goods, then social power implies the distribution of position in social structure, statuses, positions, benefits and privileges. Modern states (welfare states) via social policy can influence the status of the general population, thereby causing their Loyalty and support.

Information power is power over people, exercised with the help of scientific knowledge and information. In modern conditions, without relying on knowledge, power in society cannot be effective. Knowledge is used both to prepare government decisions and to directly influence the minds of people to ensure their loyalty and support for the authorities. Such influence is carried out through the school and educational institutions, educational societies and the media.

Conclusion: Information power can serve different purposes: not only dissemination of objective information about power, but also manipulation based on special methods deceit, on the control of the consciousness and behavior of people contrary to their interests, and often to their will.

3. political power as special kind authorities

A special and most famous type of power is political power. It is often identified with coercive power, since it is expressed in the real ability of a social group or individual to carry out their will with the help of a special system of means of state-legal influence or coercion, basically regardless of whether the mass of people like it or not.

Political power is characterized by a number of hallmarks:

1. An essential feature of political power is its reliance on the state, which allows it to legally use force within the territory of this state. But at the same time, political power is by no means limited to the use or threat of use of force. Violence, physical coercion in general can be used by non-political structures (family, criminal gangs etc.). As for political power, it includes practically all known resources of power: both material coercion or stimulation, and ideological manipulation, traditional justification and consecration.

2. Supremacy, binding decisions for any other power. Political power can limit the influence of powerful corporations, the media, and other institutions, or even eliminate them altogether.

3. Publicity, that is, universality and impersonality. This means that political power, in contrast to personal power, which exists in small groups, on behalf of the whole society, appeals with the help of law to all citizens.

4. Monocentricity, the presence of a single decision-making center. Unlike political power, economic, social, informational power is polycentric. In a market democratic society, as you know, there are many independent owners, media, social funds, etc.

Political power is in a complex relationship with other forms of public power. Political power is strongly influenced by economic power. In a market society where almost everything has a price, money has a strong influence on the conduct of election campaigns and election results, and is widely used to bribe politicians. The concentration of economic power among large owners creates the danger of establishing a plutocracy - the direct political rule of a small group of moneybags. In modern Western democracies, the omnipotence of big capital is constrained by competition between owners, the political influence of the middle class, the democratic state and the public.

Under certain conditions, information power can exert a dominant influence on society. Its monopolization by a certain political group can ensure its victory in elections and long-term preservation of dominance in society.

In the interaction of various authorities in society, there is a so-called. the cumulative effect is the increasing accumulation of power. It manifests itself in the fact that wealth increases the chances of entering the political elite and access to the media; high political position contributes to the accumulation of wealth, access to information influence; the latter improves the possibility of occupying leading political positions, etc.

Conclusion: The merger of political, economic, social and informational authorities with the command role of politics is observed in totalitarian states. The democratic system presupposes the separation of both these authorities themselves and each of them: in the economy - the presence of many competing centers, in politics - the division of power between the state, parties, as well as the state power itself into three branches, in the spiritual sphere - the availability of education , cultural and information pluralism.

4. Political legitimacy

Historical analysis shows that political power can function effectively only when the majority of members of society voluntarily, without visible external coercion, carry out its orders. Here, perhaps, the central problem of the activity of political power arises - its legitimization.

Legitimacy in political science is understood as the recognition of the legitimacy of power by the masses, voluntary obedience to the prescriptions of political power, when the majority of citizens, without external coercion, carry out power orders in their daily activities.

What makes people voluntarily obey the instructions of the political authorities, even in cases where this is contrary to their fundamental interests?

First, it is necessary to recognize the unconscious, instinctive commitment of most people to power. Since the time of primitive society, man has realized that without a system of organized power, he simply could not survive in an endless string of bloody wars and conflicts.

Secondly, people are subject to authority due to the fact that it ensures the realization of their common interests, because they are interested in maintaining a certain social order.

Thirdly, a special role in the subordination of the individual to power is played by the so-called. charismatic legitimacy. For the most part, people tend to perceive power as some kind of irrational force, all-seeing and all-pervading. This is especially true for a society with an authoritarian tradition. Here there is a reckless trust in the leader, in whose personality this system of power is personified. This type of legitimacy is very typical for Russia. It is embodied in loyalty to the kings, the greatness of V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, etc.

Conclusion: Thus, two main types of legitimacy can be distinguished:

Emotional, including charismatic, built on the unconscious-sensory perception of power;

Rational, proceeding from a conscious understanding of the necessity and expediency of a particular system of political structure.

Conclusion

The criterion of the legitimacy of power is the fear of openly violating its prescriptions. If perpetrators are forced to hide their misdeeds or crimes, this indicates sufficient legitimacy of the system of political power. If the laws and regulations of the government are openly violated, this indicates its lack of authority and insufficient capacity. In fact, the loss of legitimacy means a crisis of power, its serious deformation.

List of used literature

1. Vitchenko A.S. Theoretical problems government research. - M., 1982.

2. Zalysin I. K. Political violence in the system of power // SGZ. - 2005. - No. 3.

3. Kurskova G. The political phenomenon of power// SGZ. - 2000. - No. 1.

4. Pushkareva G. V. Power as a social institution // SGZ. - 2005. - No. 2.

5. Fetisov A. S. Political power: problems of legitimacy // Sots.-polit. Journal. - 1995. - No. 3.

6. Tsyganov A.P. Political regime // Sots.-polit. Journal. - 1996. - No. 1.

Political power is a special social institution that streamlines the social. attitudes and behavior of the individual. Political power is the determining influence on the behavior of the masses, groups, organizations with the help of the means possessed by the state.

Already in ancient China, Confucius and Mo-Tzu, paying attention to the divine and natural sides of the origin of power, substantiated the need for its existence as a mechanism for maintaining order in communication between people, regulating the relationship between the rulers and the ruled. Confucius (551-479 BC) recognized the divine nature of the origin of power. Following its patriarchal understanding, he likened the hierarchical power of the emperor over his subjects to the paternal power of the senior head of the family or clan over his younger members.

Mo-Tzu (479-400 BC) adhered to a more rationalistic conception of the nature of power, being perhaps the first thinker to express the idea of \u200b\u200bits "natural origin" in the most general form through some kind of "social contract". Aristotle also proceeded from a view close to Mo-Tzu on the essence of political power, who argued in his work “Politics” that the power mechanism is necessary for organizing and regulating “communication between people”, since “supreme power is everywhere connected with the order of state administration ...” . In the same treatise, Aristotle (unlike Confucius) separated the master and family power from the concept of public or political power. But already in the early era of the history of political thought, the reverse side of the phenomenon of power was also noticed. The same Aristotle (and later Montesquieu) pointed out the danger of abuse of power by persons endowed with it, their use of power opportunities for their own private benefit, and not for the common good. “Recipes for overcoming power alienation were proposed very different: from projects of “mixed power” (Polybius, Machiavelli), “separation of powers” (Locke, Montesquieu), “checks and balances” (Jefferson, Hamilton) to the idea complete elimination systems of state-public power together with the state itself (Godwin and Stirner, Bakunin and Kropotkin). 11 Radugin A.A. Political science. - M .: Center 1996., p. 115 F. Hegel, defining state power as "universal substantial will." At the same time, for the benefit of civil society and the optimization of management, he considered it necessary to have a certain specialization of power, dividing it into legislative, reflecting common interests, governmental, linking the general with individual, special cases, and, finally, princely power, uniting everything in single system state mechanism. Also in modern times, the understanding of state power as an expedient mechanism found a detailed justification in the theory of "social contract". For example, T. Hobbes wrote about the need to organize a common power through an agreement "each person with each other" to overcome the natural state of "war of all against all." According to Hobbes, general authority“can be erected in only one way, namely, by concentrating all power and strength in one person or in an assembly of people, which, by a majority of votes, could reduce all the wills of citizens into a single will.” T. Hobbes defined power as a means to achieve good in the future and therefore put in the first place such a tendency of the entire human race as "the eternal and unceasing desire for more and more power, a desire that stops only with death."

Nietzsche said that life is the will to power. The idea of a “social contract” was also accepted by J.-J. Rousseau, endowing, however, with power not the sole sovereign-sovereign, but a people's association expressing the general will of the whole people as the resultant of the private wills of people. There are many approaches to the interpretation of power and the reasons for its emergence in society. This fact itself indicates the fact that, apparently, each of them fixes only one of the many aspects of power that interact with each other in the real process of its genesis. Thus, within the framework of the biological interpretation of power, it is considered as a mechanism for curbing, binding human aggressiveness, rooted in the deepest, fundamental instincts of a person as a biosocial being. Aggression itself, notes A. Silin, is considered as a fight instinct directed against fellow species, existing both in animals and in humans. For Nietzsche, power is the will and the ability to assert itself. Representatives of the Freudian tradition speak of the instinctive, psychological nature of the desire for power and obedience. They find their sources in the structure of the unconscious, formed under the influence of social conditions associated with early childhood, sexual repression, education, cultivating fear, servility and obedience. FROM social factors, but of a different, not cultural, but more economic nature, the Marxist tradition connects the genesis of power. Seeing its main cause in socio-economic inequality and the split of society into warring classes, in the need to ensure the management of social integrity in the face of growing social differentiation and struggle.

The genesis of power is associated with the specifics of the economic organization of society, within which "combined" activities, the complication of processes that depend on each other, take the place of independent activities of individuals. But combined activity means organization, and is organization possible without authority? The tradition of considering power as a product of the very nature of man, inherent in him an ineradicable craving for dominance, subordination, both of the world around him and his own kind (and his own kind) is very stable and peculiar: “In the essence of power there is nothing material, it is nothing else as a way of thinking." M. Weber saw the main aspect of politics in the desire to participate in power and in the distribution of power. If we formalize the understanding of politics, then its content can be reduced to the struggle for power and resistance to it. In world political science, the modern understanding of power in general, political in particular, is the result of using different conceptual approaches.

According to the Western tradition, the primary type of power is individual power, as arbitrary from the natural right to freedom of action, disposal of oneself, things, everything that is available. Therefore, common models of power are interpersonal constructions, relationships between two or more subjects. According to the positivist approach, the basis for the definition of power is the recognition of the asymmetry of relations between subjects, the existing in connection with this possibility of one subject to influence or influence another subject. The variety of definitions of power The definition of the concept of power, its essence and nature has essential to understand the nature of politics and the state, allows you to highlight politics and political relations from the total amount of social relations. In the scientific literature, there are various definitions of power, which reflects the complexity and multidimensionality of this phenomenon.

The following important aspects of the interpretation of power can be singled out. Teleological (from the point of view of the goal) definitions characterize power as the ability to achieve the set goals, to obtain the intended results. Teleological definitions interpret power quite broadly, extending it not only to relations between people, but also to the interaction of a person with the outside world in this sense, for example, they talk about power over nature.

Behavioral interpretations consider power as a special type of behavior in which some people command and others obey. This approach individualizes the understanding of power, reduces it to the interaction of real personalities, Special attention on the subjective motivation of power. According to a typical behaviorist interpretation proposed by G. Lasswell, a person sees in power a means of improving life: acquiring wealth, prestige, freedom, etc. At the same time, power is an end in itself, allowing you to enjoy its possession.

Psychological interpretations of power try to reveal the subjective motivation of this behavior, the origins of power rooted in people's minds. One of the most prominent areas of this kind of psychoanalysis. Various psychoanalysts differ in explaining the causes of psychological submission. Some (S. Moskovisi, B. Edelman) see them in a kind of hypnotic suggestion that exists in the relationship between the leader and the crowd, others (J. Lacan) in the special susceptibility of the human subconscious to the symbols expressed in the language. In general, the psychological approach helps to identify the mechanisms of motivation of power as a relationship: command subordination.

The system approach proceeds from the derivative of power not from individual relations, but from the social system, considers power as “the ability to ensure the fulfillment of its obligations by its elements” aimed at realizing its collective goals. Some representatives of the systems approach (K.Deutch, N.Luhmann) interpret power as a means of social communication (communication), which allows regulating group conflicts and ensuring the integration of society. The systemic nature of power determines its relativity, i.e. prevalence on certain systems.

Structural-functionalist interpretations of power consider it as a property of social organization, as a way of self-organization of the human community, based on the expediency of separating the functions of management and execution. Power property social statuses, roles, allowing you to control resources, means of influence. In other words, power is associated with occupying leadership positions that allow you to influence people through positive and negative sanctions, rewards and punishments.

Relational definitions view power as a relationship between two partners, agents, one of which has a decisive influence on the other. In this case, power appears as the interaction of its subject and object, in which the subject controls the object with the help of certain means.

Political power, like any other power, means the ability and right of some to exercise their will in relation to others, to command and control others. But at the same time, it has its own specifics, unlike other forms of power. Its distinguishing features are: *supremacy, the binding nature of its decisions for the whole society and, accordingly, for all other types of power. It can limit the influence of other forms of power, putting them within reasonable limits, or eliminate them altogether; * universality, i.e. publicity. This means that political power acts on the basis of law on behalf of the whole society; * legality in the use of force and other means of power within the country; *monocentricity, i.e. the existence of a nationwide center (system of authorities) decision-making; * the widest range of means used to gain, retain and exercise power. Political power as one of the most important manifestations of power is characterized by the real ability of a given class, group, individual to carry out his will expressed in politics.

The concept of political power is broader than the concept of state power. It is known that political activity is carried out not only within the framework of the state, but also in other components of the socio-political system: within the framework of parties, trade unions, international organizations, etc. Political power arises in a society where people are divided by different interests, unequal positions. In a primitive society, power is limited by tribal kinship. Political power is defined by spatial, territorial boundaries. It provides order based on the belonging of a person, group to a given territory, social category, commitment to an idea. Under non-political power, there are no hard and fast distinctions between the rulers and the ruled. Political power is always exercised by a minority, an elite. This type of power arises on the basis of the combination of the process of concentration of the will of the multitude and the functioning of structures (institutions, organizations, institutions), the relationship of two components: people who concentrate power in themselves, and organizations through which power is concentrated and implemented.

Unlike moral and family power, political power is not personal-direct, but socially mediated. Political power is manifested in common decisions and decisions for all, in the functioning of institutions (president, government, parliament, court). In contrast to the legal power that regulates relations between specific subjects, political power mobilizes large masses of people to achieve goals, regulates relations between groups in a time of stability and general agreement.

The will to power for some is complemented by the need for others to join the will of power, to identify with it, to obey it.

The main components of power are: its subject, object. means (resources) and a process that sets in motion all its elements and is characterized by the mechanism and methods of interaction between the subject and the object. The subject of power embodies its active, guiding principle. It can be an individual, an organization, a community of people, for example, a people, or even the world community united in the UN.

The subjects of political power have a complex, multi-level nature: its primary subjects are individuals, secondary - political organizations, the subjects of the most high level directly representing various social groups and the entire people, political elites and leaders in power relations. Communication between these levels can be broken. Thus, for example, leaders often break away from the masses and even from the parties that brought them to power.

The subject is determined by the content of the power relationship through the order (instruction, command). The order prescribes the behavior of the object of power, indicates (or implies) the sanctions that the execution or non-performance of the order entails. The attitude of the object, the executors, the second most important element of power, largely depends on the order, the nature of the requirements contained in it.

The object of power. Power is always bilateral, asymmetric, with the dominance of the will of the ruler, the interaction of its subject and object. It is impossible without subjection of the object. If there is no such subordination, then there is no power, despite the fact that the subject striving for it has a pronounced will to rule and even powerful means of coercion. Ultimately, the object of the imperious will always has an extreme, but still choice - to die, but not to obey, which found, in particular, its expression in the freedom-loving slogan “it is better to die fighting than to live on your knees.”

The scale of the relationship between the object and the subject of domination ranges from fierce resistance, the struggle for destruction to voluntary, joyfully perceived obedience. The qualities of the object of political domination are determined primarily by the political culture of the population.

Types of power. Features of various elements of power - subject, object, resources - can be used as the basis for its typologies. One of the most meaningful classifications of power is its division in accordance with the resources on which it is based, into economic, social, spiritual and informational, coercive (which is often called political in the narrow sense of the word, although this is not entirely accurate) and political in the broadest sense. , the proper meaning of the word.

Depending on the subjects, power is divided into state, party, trade union, army, family, etc. According to the breadth of distribution, a mega-level is distinguished - international. organizations, N: UN, NATO, etc.; macro level - the central bodies of the state; the meso level - organizations subordinate to the center (regional, district, etc.) and the micro level - power in primary organizations and small groups. It is possible to classify power according to the functions of its bodies: for example, the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the state; according to the ways of interaction between the subject and the object of power - democratic, authoritarian, etc. authorities.

Interaction of political and other authorities.

Political power is characterized by a number of distinctive features:

legality in the use of force within the state;

supremacy, binding decisions for any other power. P. V. can limit the influence of powerful corporations, media and other institutions, or even eliminate them altogether;

publicity, i.e. universality and impersonality. This means that political power, in contrast to the private, personal power that exists in small groups, on behalf of the whole society, appeals with the help of law to all citizens;

monocentricity, the presence of a single decision-making center. Unlike political power, economic, social and spiritual-informational power is polycentric. In a market democratic society, as is well known, there are many independent proprietors, social funds, etc.;

variety of resources. POLITICAL POWER, and especially the state, uses not only coercion, but also ek-kie, social and cultural-information resources.

The merging of political, economic, social and spiritual-informational authorities with the command role of politics is observed in totalitarian states. “The democratic system presupposes the separation of both these authorities themselves and each of them: in the economy - the presence of many competing centers of influence, in politics - the division of power between the state, parties and interest groups, as well as the state power itself into legislative, executive and judicial , in the spiritual sphere - the availability of education, cultural and informational pluralism” 11 Ilyin V.V. Philosophy of power. Moscow State University 1993, p. 154.

Political power is a specific form of social relations between large groups of people, the real ability of a certain class, social group, organization and individual to carry out their will in politics. Political power means the social dominance of certain subjects of politics in society.

The conquest of power and its use is one of the main aspects of the political life of society. This is essentially the struggle of political subjects for the possession of an instrument for the implementation of their will, the realization of their interests and goals. The political forces that come to power form its specific materialized structures of various scales, political institutions of power, which themselves develop and implement their own policy, which becomes a means of this power. Thus, politics is the cause of the emergence and functioning of power, and power is the cause of the existence of politics, i.e. power and politics are tightly linked by a circular cause-and-effect relationship.

Describing political power, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that it is always very closely connected with state power. This is due to the fact that political power, first of all, comes from the state and is implemented in practice only with its direct or indirect participation. At the same time, political power as a phenomenon is wider than state power, since its subjects are not only the state, but also other political institutions: political parties, organizations and movements, as well as political leaders, the elite, bureaucracy, lobbies (pressure groups), individual individuals, social groups and communities, etc. However, state power is always the core of political power, its main content.

Political power is the totality hallmarks which concretize and deepen the idea of it as a social phenomenon.

Firstly, political power is the political domination in society of any class, socio-political grouping, political party, and even an individual, for example, a dictator, which is realized through the system of government authorities of the state, which is a means of exercising the political will of the subject of power, in all spheres of public life.

Secondly, political power is the most important factor in the regulation of political and social processes in the interests of certain social strata or society as a whole, involving the legal use of resources of coercion and social violence.

Thirdly, political power is directly related to the ideological regulation and organization of the life of society and the state. The ideological existence of political power has always been of paramount importance, because any social, class characteristic of political power also means its ideological characteristic. The struggle for power and its retention inevitably turns into a struggle of ideologies. The political power itself can completely merge with the ideology that it supports and relies on.

Fourth, publicity of political power, i.e. generality and impersonality. This means that political power, in contrast to the private personal power that exists in small groups, acts on behalf of the whole society, extends its imperious leadership and control to the entire population of the country.

Fifth, political power is monocentric, it has a single decision-making center. Other varieties of public power (for example, economic, social, spiritual and informational) are polycentric. In a market democratic society, as you know, there are many independent owners, mass media, social funds that have their own direct power.

At sixth, political power is characterized by an exceptional variety of resources used. In the process of its functioning, it applies not only measures of coercion and persuasion, but also relies on moral standards, on the interests and traditions of people, their feelings, on numerous economic, social, cultural and information resources.

Political power performs in society certain functions. The most important of them are: the formation of the political system of society and its improvement; organization of political life, political relations, which include relations between the state, society and the individual, various subjects of politics, social groups, classes, associations, political institutions, parties, citizens, etc.; managing the affairs of society and the state at different levels; control and regulation of political and other relations and, ultimately, the creation of a certain type of government characteristic of a particular society, political regime and state structure. In addition, political power is called upon to ensure the legitimate rights of citizens, their constitutional freedoms, to resolve emerging social contradictions, to maintain the unity and stability of society, to establish the rule of law as the core of social relations and to be able to obey it itself.

As already noted, the core of political power is state power. Government- a form of implementation of the political will of a certain class, social stratum or the entire population (in a democratic society) using economic, political, social, spiritual and organizational and legal mechanisms in order to ensure the effective functioning of society. Without state power, it is impossible to maintain the unity and stability of society. It regulates the relationship between people, resolves the contradictions and conflicts that arise in society, regulates social life and human activity in all its manifestations.

State power equally means both a certain organization and practical activities to implement the goals and objectives of this organization. The essence of state power is the relationship of domination and subordination, leadership and management, organization and control.

To characteristic featured government authorities include the following. First of all, this sovereignty, dominance throughout the country and independence in international relations. In any society there are many different kinds of authorities, but the highest, dominant authority, the decisions of which are binding on all citizens, organizations and institutions, is the state power.

In addition, the government is acting as a force that symbolizes society as a whole. It is she who performs the tasks necessary to maintain the normal functioning of any human community: the defense of the Fatherland; ensuring the security, rights and freedoms of citizens, the inviolability of their property; implementation of law and order and legality; security environment and much more.

An essential feature of government monopoly on the legal use of force, physical coercion. The range of actions of state power extends from the restriction of freedom to the physical destruction of a person who has committed a serious crime against society. The ability to deprive citizens of the highest values, which are life and freedom, determines the special effectiveness of state power. To perform the function of coercion, the state authorities have special means (bodies): the army, the police (police), the security service, the court, the prosecutor's office, etc.

State power is also characterized by the presence of a special apparatus for managing society. It is a set of various organs and material means necessary to perform certain tasks and functions. The work of this apparatus necessarily presupposes the presence of a special layer of people - civil servants, whose main purpose is to govern. It is no coincidence that the Russian Federation adopted the “Regulations on the Federal Public Service”. According to him, the complex, multi-tiered and branched apparatus of government of the country was revived, the basis of which is various categories of civil servants.

The most important feature of state power is its the exclusive right to regulate the life of the whole society, the right to issue laws and regulations binding on the entire population. Rule-making is the exclusive prerogative of the state power. Participation in the rule-making process of non-governmental public organizations in one form or another, ultimately, is always associated with state power, because, one way or another, it passes through it. Law is a specific, objectively necessary and effective means of state power, its functioning, fulfillment of its social purpose.

A special feature of government the right to collect taxes and various kinds of fees and payments from citizens and legal entities. Taxes are "blood", "life-giving moisture" that feed the state and society. The state authorities constantly take care of their receipt. The tax service is the most important element of state power, and the taxes themselves are indicators of the relationship between the state and society. Taxes are necessary for the maintenance of numerous civil servants, the army, the militia (police), security services and other bodies, as well as for material support state policy: economic, social, cultural, educational, military, scientific and technical, food, environmental, etc.

State power is an extremely complex phenomenon. So, in modern philosophical, sociological, political science and cratological literature, taking into account the scale, functions and means of power, the nature and properties of its subject and objects, the relationship between them, they distinguish four levels state authority: macro level– central (highest) bodies (institutions) of state power; mesolevel- organizations subordinate to the center (republican, regional, district, district, etc.); microlevel- power in primary organizations and small groups; mega level- the spread of macro-power and macro-procedural relations outside, power in international organizations and relations.

In government, traditionally allocate its three branches: legislative, executive and judicial– represented in different countries by different formal bodies. In Russia, for example, the legislative power is represented by the Federal Assembly (consists of two chambers - the Federation Council and the State Duma), the executive - by the Government of the Russian Federation, the judiciary - by the courts of the Russian Federation: constitutional, arbitration and general jurisdiction. Each of these authorities should be relatively independent and balance each other, and in general, state power should be balanced, active and capable. This is how the principle of separation of powers was originally interpreted, formulated by the French thinker C. Montesquieu and for the first time enshrined in the US Constitution of 1787, which is still in force. Today, the principle of separation of powers in one form or another is enshrined in most constitutions of the countries of the world. This was also done in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Article 10 defines: “State power in the Russian Federation is exercised on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative, executive and judicial authorities are independent”.

The division of state power into three branches does not exclude, but presupposes the unity of their actions on the basis of the procedures provided for by the constitution of the state, as well as a certain supremacy of the legislative power, the decisions of which are binding on all varieties of power.