There are three distinguished types of political power. Types of power

political society ideological power

Expressing and protecting the interests of certain social strata, political power, at the same time, one way or another, is engaged in organizing the political life of society as a whole. It “adds up as a system of functions from the simulation own activities; analysis of the political and social situation and specific situations; determining your strategy and private tactical objectives; supervision and suppression of... deviating behavior; appropriation and disposal of necessary resources (material and spiritual...); distribution of policy resources - confidence measures, agreements, exchange of concessions and advantages, awards and rewards, etc.; transformation of the political and public (social, economic, legal, cultural, moral) environment of power in its interests and in the interests of its policies.”

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

Dominance presupposes the absolute or relative subordination of some people and their communities to the subjects of power and the social strata that they represent.

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

Management is manifested in the conscious, purposeful influence of the subject of power on various parts of the social system, on controlled objects in order to implement management guidelines. Control is carried out using various methods, which can be administrative, authoritarian, democratic, based on coercion, etc.

Political power manifests itself in various forms. Content typology political power can be built according to various criteria:

• - according to the degree of institutionalization - government, city, school, etc.
• - by subject of power - class, party, people's, presidential, parliamentary, etc.;
• - on a quantitative basis - individual (monocratic), oligarchic (power of a cohesive group), polyarchic (multiple power of a number of institutions or individuals);
• - according to the social type of government - monarchical, republican;
• - according to the regime of government - democratic, authoritarian, despotic, totalitarian, bureaucratic, etc.;
• - by social type - socialist, bourgeois, capitalist, etc...."

An important type of political power is state power. Concept state power is much narrower than the concept of “political power”. In this regard, the use of these concepts as identical is incorrect.

State power, like political power in general, can achieve its goals through political education, ideological influence, dissemination of necessary information, etc. However, this does not express its essence. “State power is a form of political power that has a monopoly right to make laws binding on the entire population, and is based on special apparatus coercion, as one of the means to comply with laws and orders. State power equally means both a specific organization and practical activities to implement the goals and objectives of this organization.”

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

In reality, there may be different systems of government. All of them, however, come down to two main ones - federal and unitary. The essence of these systems of power is determined by the nature of the existing division of state power between its subjects at different levels. If between the central and local government bodies there are intermediate bodies that, in accordance with the constitution, are endowed with certain power functions, then a federal system of power operates. If there are no such intermediate authorities or they are completely dependent on the central authorities, then a unitary system of state power operates. State power performs legislative, executive and judicial functions. In this regard, it is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers.

In some countries, to the above three powers, a fourth is added - the electoral power, which is represented by electoral courts that decide questions about the correctness of the election of deputies. In constitutions individual countries We are talking about five and even six powers. The fifth power is represented by the Comptroller General with the apparatus subordinate to him: the sixth is the constituent power to adopt the constitution.

The expediency of the separation of powers is determined, firstly, by the need to clearly define the functions, competence and responsibilities of each branch of government; secondly, the need to prevent abuse of power, the establishment of dictatorship, totalitarianism, usurpation of power; thirdly, the need to exercise mutual control over the branches of government; fourthly, the need of society to combine such contradictory aspects of life as power and freedom, law and justice, state and society, command and submission; fifthly, the need to create checks and balances in the exercise of power functions.

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

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

The judicial branch represents a relatively independent structure of state power. In its actions, this power must be independent of the legislative and executive powers.

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

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

In our country, for many years it was believed that the idea of ​​separation of powers cannot be implemented in practice due to the fact that power is united and indivisible. In recent years the situation has changed. Now everyone is talking about the need for separation of powers. However, the problem of separation has not yet been resolved in practice due to the fact that the separation of legislative, executive and judicial authorities is often replaced by opposition between these authorities.

The solution to the problem of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers lies in finding the optimal relationship between them as directions of a single state power, clearly defining their functions and powers.

A relatively independent type of political power is party power. As a type of political power, this power is not recognized by all researchers. In the domestic scientific, educational, educational and methodological literature, the point of view continues to dominate, according to which a party can be a link in the system of political power, but not a subject of power. Many foreign researchers do not recognize the party as a subject of power. Reality has long refuted this point of view. It is known, for example, that for many decades in our country the subject of political power was the CPSU. Parties have been the real subjects of political power for many years in industrial developed countries West.

Political power performs various functions. It implements general organizational, regulatory, control functions, organizes the political life of society, regulates political relations, structuring the political organization of society, formation of public consciousness, etc.

In domestic scientific, educational, educational and methodological literature, the functions of political power are often characterized with a “plus” sign. For example, B.I. Krasnov writes: “The government must: 1) ensure the legal rights of citizens, their constitutional freedoms always and in everything; 2) affirm the law as the core of social relations and be able to obey the law; 3) perform economic and creative functions...".

Power as a phenomenon public life

The fact that “the government should” ensure “the rights of citizens,” “their constitutional freedoms,” “perform creative functions,” etc. is certainly a good wish. The only bad thing is that it is often not implemented in practice. In reality, the government not only ensures the rights and constitutional freedoms of citizens, but also tramples them; it not only creates, but also destroys, etc. Therefore, it seems that some foreign researchers give more objective characteristics of the functions of political power.

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

• - coercion;
• - luring;
• - “blocking consequences” (i.e., hindering a competitor and the struggle for power);
• - “creation of demands” (artificial formation of needs that can only be satisfied by an agent of power, a kind of political marketing);
• - “stretching the network of power” (inclusion additional sources depending on agents);
• - blackmail (threats in the present or promises of troubles from disobedience in the future);
• - tips;
• - informational direct and indirect control (using warnings, recommendations, revenge, etc.)

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

The subject of study of political science is political power.

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

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

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

· Sovereignty, which means independence and indivisibility of power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classification of political power:

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

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

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

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

Subjects are divided into:

· primary – large social groups with their own interests;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we should also consider the question of political legitimacy(from Latin "legality") power.

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

1. traditional type (monarchy);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources of political power:

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

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

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

Information resources are means mass media.

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

Control questions(Feedback)

1. What is the essence and content of power?

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

3. How does political power differ from political management?

4. List the main features of political power.

5. What resources of political power exist?

Literature:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power in the sphere of politics is the subject of special attention of researchers, since its results and consequences influence the life activity of large groups of people, the development of the basic principles of the organization of society and the choice of paths for its development.

Like most other concepts in political science, the concept of political power remains controversial, and its interpretation largely depends on an understanding of the basic categories of politics and power. Many researchers (G. Lasswell, R. Dahl, T. Parsons, X. Arendt, etc.) determine policy as a sphere of power. In accordance with this, any power is political by definition, and the terms “power” and “political power” turn out to be identical. However, with this understanding of politics, the boundaries between politics and other spheres of public life are actually blurred. Therefore, it seems appropriate to classify as political power only those power relations that take place at the level of society or large social communities , are associated with the functioning public institutions and provide essential impact on the situation large groups of people.

Forms of political power

The main forms of political power are government , political influence And formation political consciousness.

Political power arises with the emergence of special institutions designed to manage society and coordinate the joint activities of its members. In early (pre-state) societies, a significant part of the functions of social management was performed by the family-tribal collectives themselves. At that time there was still no clear division into those in power and those ruled; elders and leaders did not stand above ordinary community members, but rather were performers of public duties. In contrast to pre-state institutions of power, the state is a group of people isolated from society that has received the right to manage society and the corresponding resources. Subjects state power are government bodies (government, parliament, courts, law enforcement agencies of the state, regional and local government bodies) and civil servants representing them, vested with legal powers. The exclusive role of state power in society is due to the fact that it extends to the entire territory of the country, if necessary, it is carried out in the form of force and coercion on legal grounds, and decisions made by state bodies are binding on all citizens and cannot be canceled by non-state organizations. Because of this, state power ensures order and stability in society, determines its integrity, despite significant differences (social, economic, national, religious, regional, etc.) between people.

State power is exercised in the process of making and implementing government decisions in the form of laws, decrees, regulations, directives, etc. According to the functions performed by certain government agencies, they differ legislative , executive And court forms state power; depending on the level of decision-making, government power can be central , regional And local. The nature of the relationship between the branches of government (forms of government) differs monarchy , presidential And parliamentary republic ; by form of government - unitary states, federations , confederation , empires.

Not all decisions and actions of the state, its structures and representatives are the exercise of political power, but only those that relate to important political problems affecting the interests of large groups of people and causing open or hidden conflicts between different political forces; it does not include the routine administrative activities of the state apparatus, or the social and cultural functions of the state. Political power is not possessed by the executors of state decisions, but by those who initiate them and ensure their passage in state structures, thereby realizing their political will.

For this reason, political power is not limited to the power of the state, and its subjects can be other political organizations and groups (political parties, business organizations, trade unions, churches, civil society organizations, etc.), which, due to the power resources they have, (money, social status, information, expert knowledge, charisma, etc.) can influence state policy, adoption or blocking of the most important government decisions. Currently, supranational, international structures of political power are emerging (the United Nations (UN), the European Parliament, commissions European Union, European Court etc.), whose powers extend to the territory of many countries.

Political influence what form of power is the ability of political actors to exert a targeted influence (direct or indirect) on the activities of civil servants and the government decisions they make. Subjects of political influence can be both ordinary citizens, organizations and institutions (including foreign and international), and government agencies and employees with certain legal powers. But the state does not necessarily grant the latter the authority to carry out data forms of power (influential government official may lobby the interests of some group in a completely different departmental structure).

If until the middle of the 20th century. The greatest attention of political scientists was attracted by state power (the legislative foundations of the state, constitutional aspects, the mechanism of separation of powers, administrative structure etc.), then starting from the 1950s. The study of political influence is gradually coming to the fore. This was reflected in discussions regarding the nature of the distribution of political influence in society, which received empirical verification in numerous studies of power both at the societal level and in territorial communities (F. Hunter, R. Dahl, T. Clark, W. Domhoff (USA)) . Interest in the study of this form of political power is due to the fact that it is associated with the central question of political science: “Who rules?” To answer it, it is not enough to analyze the distribution of key positions in the state; it is necessary to identify which groups of people have a dominant influence on formal government structures, on whom these structures are most dependent. Degree of influence on choice political course and the solution to the most important social problems is not always proportional to the rank of the public office held; At the same time, many key political actors (for example, business leaders, military officers, clan leaders, religious leaders, etc.) may be “in the shadows” and do not have significant legal resources.

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

Political influence in the form of non-decision making is widespread in political practice. A consequence of the implementation of a strategy of non-decision-making was, for example, the absence of important laws on the protection environment in those cities where large and influential economic concerns (the main culprits of environmental pollution) prevented any attempts to pass these laws, since it was economically unprofitable for them. In totalitarian regimes, entire blocks of problems were considered undiscussable on ideological grounds (the leading role of the Communist Party, the right of citizens to dissent, the possibility of organizing alternative political structures, etc.), which allowed the ruling elite to maintain the foundations of their dominance.

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

It seems to us that Luks’s “third party of power” refers to the following form of political power – formation of political consciousness. The latter includes not only manipulation , but also belief. Unlike manipulation, persuasion is a successful, targeted influence on political views, values ​​and behavior, which is based on rational arguments. Like manipulation, persuasion is an effective tool for the formation of political consciousness: a teacher may not veil his political views and openly express a desire to instill certain values ​​in his students; in achieving his goal, he exercises power. The power to shape political consciousness belongs to public politicians, political scientists, propagandists, religious figures, etc. As in the case of political influence, its subjects can be ordinary citizens, groups, organizations, and government agencies, employees with legal powers. But, again, the state does not necessarily give them the right to exercise given form of power.

Although the connection between the formation of political consciousness and government decisions is only indirect, this does not mean that it plays a secondary role compared to other forms of political power: in strategic terms, instilling stable political values ​​in the population may be more important than the tactical benefits obtained as a result of current decisions questions. The formation of a certain political consciousness actually means the production and reproduction of structural factors (acting independently of political subjects) that are favorable for the subject of power, which certain moment will work in his favor relatively independently of specific actions and the specifics of the situation. Moreover, the political effect of this form of power in many cases can be achieved relatively quickly. In particular, under the influence of some special events, during periods of revolutions and a sharp aggravation of political struggle, influencing the consciousness of people with the aim of their political mobilization can lead to almost instantaneous involvement in the sphere of politics of significant groups of the population who had not previously realized the need for their political participation. This occurs due to the fact that the turning point nature of the situation significantly increases people’s interest in politics and thereby prepares them to accept new political attitudes and orientations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concept of power and types of power

Depending on the resources on which subordination is based, the main types of power are distinguished. Thus, H. Heckhausen identifies six types of power.

1. Rewarding power. Its strength is determined by B's expectation of the extent to which A will be able to satisfy one of his (B's) motives and the extent to which A will make this satisfaction dependent on B's desired behavior.

2. Coercive power. Its strength is determined by B's expectation, firstly, of the extent to which A is able to punish him for actions undesirable for A, and, secondly, the extent to which A will make the dissatisfaction of B's ​​motive dependent on his undesirable behavior. The constraint here is that space possible actions As a result, the threat of punishment is narrowed. In the extreme case, coercive power can be exercised directly physically.

3. Normative power. We are talking about internalized B norms, according to which A has the right to control compliance with certain rules of behavior and, if necessary, insist on them.

4. Referent power. It is based on B's identification with A and B's desire to be like A.

5. Expert power. It depends on the amount of special knowledge, intuition or skills attributed to A by B that relate to the sphere of the behavior in question.

6. Information power. This power occurs when A has information that can cause B to see the consequences of his behavior in a new light.

Spanish political scientist F. Lorda y Alais in his work analyzes economic, military, informational power and the power of fear (phobocracy). When characterizing economic power (plutocracy), he notes that it represents wealth transformed into an instrument of domination in society. Economic power is power based on wealth. Her main means is money. At present, the author notes, economic power has achieved exceptional consolidation power. Economic power as such does not resort to violence in itself, but it is capable of shamelessly trampling all divine and human norms. She seems to remain behind the curtain, but to a large extent dictates behavior characters on the public stage.

Political science primarily studies political power.

“Power” and “political power” are not synonymous. Political power is a type of power. It covers all types of power relations in the political sphere. It expresses the ability of the subject to ensure the subordination of the object in the sphere of politics. Political power is a specialized, organizational-legal, institutionalized type of power. As the French political scientist J.M. Denken writes, this power carries out specialized functions that are political in nature: it makes political choices and reveals a collective will, which is opposed to individual wills. Political power is the real ability of some social groups to carry out their will in politics and legal norms.

The specificity of political power is expressed in the following:

• it is formed by delegating part of the rights and powers both “up” and “down”;
• always mobilizes to achieve some goals;
• solves the problem of consent, taking into account the fact that society is divided by different interests;
• based on maneuver, the range of which is determined by agreement or struggle;
• requires the concentration of people's rights and wills in government agencies, political parties, etc., i.e. in the subjects of political power, through which it is realized.

In modern political science one can find another list of features of political power: the ability and willingness of the subject of political life to express political will; coverage of the entire field of political spaces; Availability organizational structures, through which the subject of political will carries out political activity; the influence of subjects of political activity on the formation of law, the implementation of the rule of law; ensuring social dominance in society of the subject of political power.

The question of the relationship between political and state power is quite acute in science.

We do not agree with K. S. Gadzhiev that “the state is the main and only bearer of political power.” Firstly, because the subjects (actors) of political power can be: the state; political parties and organizations; ruling elites, bureaucracy, lobbies (pressure groups); group and individual leadership; personal power; individuals (citizens) in the context of elections, referendums and even the crowd (ohlos). The multitude of subjects of power allows us to talk about at least two types of political power: state and public.

Secondly, in the conditions of the primitive communal system, political power (prince, elders) already existed, but there was no state power, the implementation of which presupposes a special apparatus, isolated from society.

Polish political scientist E. Wiatr highlights the characteristic features of state power: “This power is exercised with the help of a separate apparatus in a certain territory over which state sovereignty extends, and has the ability to resort to the means of organized legislative institutional violence. State power represents the highest, most complete expression of political power - it is political power in its most developed form.”

Traditionally, the following are distinguished: distinctive features state power:

• legality in the use of force and other means of power within the country;
• supremacy, binding decisions for the whole society and, accordingly, for other types of power;
• publicity, i.e. universality and impersonality, which means an appeal to all citizens on behalf of the entire society with the help of law (law);
• monocentricity, i.e. the presence of one decision-making center;
• possession of all resources of power at the same time and the ability to use them to varying degrees, depending on the current situation in power relations.

A special form of power is public power. It is formed by party structures, public organizations, independent media, public opinion.

M. Duverger identifies three stages in the evolution of forms of power:

Stage 1: Power is anonymous, that is, distributed among members of the clan and tribe; manifests itself in a set of beliefs and customs that strictly regulate individual behavior; has no political character.

Stage 2: Power is individualized, i.e. power is concentrated in the hands of leaders, groups (the power of leaders, elders, emperors).

Stage 3: Power is institutionalized, that is, it relies on special institutions that perform a number of functions: expression of common interests; control; security social world and order, etc.

Complementing the typology of M. Duverger, we can talk about the fourth stage, which is taking place in our time - “supranational” power, represented by legislative (European Parliament) and executive (Commission of the European Communities) institutions, whose powers extend to the territory and population of a dozen European countries.

Power as a social phenomenon performs a number of functions. The main functions of political power in a social system arise and are formed in the process of realizing the need for management and regulation of social relations.

One of the most important functions of political power is to maintain social integrity through setting priorities consistent with the values ​​of a given culture and strictly following them; through the implementation of the needs and interests of social groups exercising power functions.

Another function is to regulate social relations, maintaining the stability of the functioning of the social organism.

The first two functions are closely interrelated, which allowed the French political scientist F. Brau to argue that any political power has as its task “to ensure order... to maintain the status quo of society, to reform it or revolutionize it.”

French political scientist A. Touraine noted that the accumulation and concentration of national resources is also a function of power. He noted that: “Political power is a means from the “spontaneity” of consumption to the “artificiality” of accumulation.”

One of the parameters for assessing power is its effectiveness. The effectiveness of government is judged by the extent to which it carries out its functions. We can formulate the following definition of government efficiency: this is the ability to perform its tasks and functions with the least cost and expense in the shortest possible time.

In modern political science literature, the following criteria for the effectiveness of government are distinguished:

• sufficiency of the bases of power and optimal use of its resources;
• the presence of national agreement on the goals and ways of development of a given society;
• cohesion and stability of the ruling elite;
• the rationality of “vertical” and “horizontal” power structures;
• effectiveness and timeliness of control over the implementation of its orders;
• organizational, technical and personnel support for accounting and analysis of government orders;
• the presence of an effective system of sanctions in case of failure to comply with the orders of the authorities;
• the effectiveness of the system of self-control of power, one of the indicators of which is its authority;
• adequate reflection of the interests of those social groups on which the government relies, together with linking them with the interests of society as a whole.

The strength of political power and its authority depends on how successfully it copes with the task of regulating social relations in society. Political power is built into the system of government. Social management is the purposeful impact of the political system on the development of society. It consists of two parts: self-government, when the regulation of the system is carried out without outside interference, and authoritative management, when the regulation of the system is carried out through coercion and subordination. We see the differences between management and power in the fact that management, using the power mechanism, is process-oriented, and power is result-oriented.

The most frequently used is the division of forms of exercise of power: legislative, executive and judicial.

Depending on the breadth of power relations, we can distinguish:

• mega level - international organizations endowed with authority (UN, NATO, etc.);
• macro level – central authorities states;
• meso level – lower state authorities;
• micro level – power in primary bodies of self-government, etc.

Another basis for typologizing political power is M. Weber’s position on three types of domination: traditional, legitimate, charismatic.

Traditional power is based on the belief in the sacred, indisputable nature of traditions, the violation of which leads to serious magical-religious consequences. All human activity is aimed at the reproduction of community, at ensuring a stable order that eliminates chaos and instability. Power is personalized and implies personal devotion of subjects and servants to the ruler.

Charismatic power is based on belief in the “supernatural”, “extra-behavioural” abilities of the leader. His authority is based on faith in the ability of this person to take responsibility and solve all issues in a miraculous way.

Legal authority is based on laws, rules and norms; management here is conditioned by knowledge and strict adherence to the norms regulating government activities, their active use to achieve your goals.

Zh. T. Toshchenko offers his approach to the classification of forms of political power. The specificity of his approach lies in the fact that an analysis is carried out of real specific characteristics that quite clearly express the features of this form of power; the subject of power is clearly identified; the basic ideological attitudes, goals and intentions of representatives of one or another form of power are characterized, which allows, through the prism of ideology, to identify political orientation, the possibility of maintaining the relevant power structures, their viability and resistance to any shocks and trends of disorganization; the political structure of state and other bodies is revealed; describes the features of the relationship between rulers and ruled; allows us to determine the state, trends and problems of political consciousness and behavior, to understand their essential and specific forms of expression.

He identifies “eternal” and specific forms of power. He classifies democracy and oligarchy as the former, and ochlocracy, militocracy, ideocracy, aristocracy, monarchy, ethnocracy, theocracy, and technocracy as the latter. Let us consider in more detail each of these forms.

Democracy is one of the main forms of socio-political governance, state organization and political movements(See Chapter 9 for more details).

Oligarchy. Its main characteristics: the exercise by a small group (social stratum) of political and economic dominance in society, the manifestation of corporatism to the highest degree, direct or indirect obstruction of the elections of government bodies and their replacement with appointments, the formation of monopoly rights and powers belonging only to this social group, sponsorship , privatization, purchase of the state apparatus. Oligarchic tendencies are characteristic of almost all modern states.

Ochlocracy (mob rule). At its core, this form of power means:

1) The power of socio-political groups that use populist sentiments and orientations of the population in extremely primitive forms, which creates conditions for arbitrariness and lawlessness in all spheres of public life.

2) Ochlocracy creates a situation of unrest, riots, pogroms, awakening base aspirations, senseless destruction, reckless murders and tyranny, trampling on all guarantees of human life. Ochlocracy often comes into its own in transition period, during critical periods for society.

Militocracy. One of modern forms Militocracy is a junta. This is a form of power when power belongs to the military, special paramilitary associations and organizations exercising power in the country. The main features of the junta are: mass political terror, violent methods of governing the country and society.

Ideocracy. A form of power in which theories and concepts play a decisive role, justifying pre-proposed ideas and conclusions. The Soviet Union was an ideocratic state.

Aristocracy. The interpretation of aristocracy has changed as humanity has developed. It was understood as: 1) a form of government, which meant the power of privileged groups of society; 2) part of the social structure of society, which included people occupying an authoritative position in society, possessing power, wealth, influence; 3) people characterized by stable, highly moral attitudes and goals, brought up in a strictly defined algorithm of moral norms and prescribed rules. Currently, aristocracy as a form of power has become identified with conservatism.

Monarchy is one of ancient forms control when absolute power concentrated in the hands of one person, whose power is inherited. The monarchy changed its forms at various stages. In general, all monarchies turned out to be quite unstable formations that disintegrated under the blows of both internal and external forces.

Ethnocracy is a form of political power in which economic, political, social and spiritual processes are managed from the standpoint of the primacy of the interests of the dominant ethnic group to the detriment of the interests of other nations, nationalities, nationalities. Its essence is manifested in ignoring the rights of national (ethnic) groups of people when deciding fundamental issues public life, when unilateral representation of the interests of the dominant nation is realized, and not the interests of the individual, social groups, regardless of ethnic origin, religion and class affiliation.

Zh. T. Toshchenko identifies the following essential features of ethnocracy:

• Ethnocracy emphasizes ethnic interest, exaggerates it, puts it in first place among other possible values;
• the confrontation between the interests of the nation and the interests of the individual is supported by ethnocracy not spontaneously, but consciously, with exaggeration of existing contradictions, with the glorification of ethnic confrontation, its elevation and even attempts at deification;
• Ethnocracy always uses the image of the messiah, leader, Fuhrer, who is endowed with superhuman qualities, concentrates in himself an understanding of the essence and secret thoughts of his people;
• one of the main goals of ethnocracy is to show the surrounding states the greatness of a given people, to show its role and significance;
• the economic, social, cultural spheres are placed under the main goal - dominion over other peoples;
• ethnocratic regimes are interested in conflicts, in hatred, in maintaining social tension;
• ethnocracy preaches intransigence.

The following types of ethnocracy can be distinguished.

1. Racism, which at its core is based on the idea of ​​​​dividing peoples into higher and lower. The racist government strives for the purity of the race, resists attempts to achieve equality between peoples, and establishes restrictions and prohibitions for “inferior” peoples at the legislative level.

2. Fascism, which openly proclaimed ethnic criteria in determining politics and organizing public life.

3. Chauvinism, which is characterized by excessive patriotism to the point of misunderstanding with a focus on military force, ultranationalism with elements of authoritarianism.

4. Nationalism, which acts as a policy, social practice, ideology and psychology of the process of subjugation of some nations to others, as a preaching of national exclusivity and superiority.

5. Separatism (political), which is understood as:

• movement and actions for the territorial separation of one or another part of the state in order to create an independent state;
• broad, practically uncontrolled autonomy of part of the state based on national-linguistic or religious characteristics.

6. Fundamentalism. This type of ethnocracy acts as an extremely conservative movement, in which nationalist and confessional claims are closely intertwined, the expression of which are socio-political and religious movements and organizations that demonstrate their commitment to right-wing conservative ideological and political views. (Currently, the attention of scientists and politicians is focused on Islamic (Muslim) fundamentalism).

7. At the present stage historical development There is a tendency to involve representatives of various religious faiths in power relations and to use religious ideology in the struggle to achieve, maintain and maintain power. This allowed Zh. T. Toshchenko to identify such a form of power as theocracy.

The main features of the theocratic form of political governance are: religious and legal regulation of all aspects of public and state life, the implementation of legal proceedings according to the norms of religious law, political leadership religious figures, proclamation religious holidays state, oppression or prohibition of other religions, persecution of people for religious reasons, active interference of religion in the sphere of education and culture. In theocratic societies, totalitarian control over the behavior and lifestyle of the individual is established, because the status of the individual is determined by the person’s affiliation with religion and its institutions.

In the XX - XXI centuries. There is an increasing influence of science and technology on political relations. The consequence of this is the hope of many ordinary people that with the help of new scientific disciplines, new technology, new people (technocrats) problems and contradictions will be resolved human life. Technocratic social and political concepts, claiming a fundamentally new design of society, based on the most mechanized technology and effective organization industry, appeared in late XIX V. One of the sources of their formation was the real achievements of Great Britain, the USA, and Germany in the economy and in creating a new image of society. Another source for the creation of the theory of technocracy was the movement of progressives (W. Lippmann, G. Crowley, etc.), who advocated the establishment of a new social order in the form of centralized national governance under the leadership of experts who knew the technology of “social engineering.” The third source is the technical and organizational theory of “scientific management”, the representative of which was F. Taylor. He argued that the main figure in society is a professional who is guided by the scientific method of solving any problem in the field of industry, which, in his opinion, can and should be transferred to the management of the country and the state.

It was on the basis of the ideas of progressivism, social engineering and scientific management that the founder of technocracy, like political trend, T. B. Veblen, draws the following conclusions:

• anarchy and instability modern society are the result of government control by politicians;
• stabilizing society and giving it positive dynamics is possible only by transferring the leadership of all economic life and government management to technicians;
• it is necessary to contrast the power of technocracy with the power of the “money bag”.

Zh. T. Toshchenko concludes that technocracy means:

• 1) management (in the broad sense of the word) of all social processes by professional specialists on the basis of those laws and principles that guide the world of engineering, technology, and science;
• 2) a specific form of political power, in which methods of managing equipment and technology are used and which are transferred to power relations, to state power;
• 3) possession of political power by technical specialists and their management of the life of any industrial society.