IN in a broad sense legitimacy is the acceptance of power by the population of the country, recognition of its right to manage social processes, and readiness to obey it. In a narrow sense, legitimate authority is recognized as a legal authority formed in accordance with the procedure provided for by legal norms.
It is necessary to distinguish between the legitimacy of the primary source of power and the legitimacy of organs state power. The legitimacy of the primary source of power (the ruling entity) is reflected and legally enshrined in the country's constitution. So, paragraph 1 of Art. 3 of the Constitution Russian Federation states: “The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people" This means that the Constitution proclaims and defines the multinational people of Russia as the primary bearer and primary source of state power, thereby emphasizing its legitimacy.
Government bodies acquire the property of legitimacy in different ways. Representative bodies become legitimate through the holding of elections provided for and regulated by law. These bodies receive power directly from the primary source of power. Management bodies acquire legitimacy through competitive selection, their appointment most often by representative bodies and in the manner prescribed by law.
The powers exercised by state bodies and methods of activity, especially the method of state coercion, must also be legitimate.
Illegitimate power is recognized as usurper. In the narrow sense of the word, usurpation is the violent illegal seizure of power by any person or group of persons, as well as the appropriation of someone else’s power. Usurpation is recognized, for example, as violation of legal procedures during elections or their falsification. Legitimately formed power can also be usurped if it is abused, i.e. use for illegal purposes to harm society and the state, exceed authority, etc. In paragraph 4 of Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation says: “No one can appropriate power in the Russian Federation. Seizure of power or misappropriation of power is prosecuted under federal law.”
The legal expression of the legitimacy of power is its legality, those. normativity, the ability to be embodied in the rules of law, to be limited by law, to function within the framework of the rule of law. Illegal power, for example mafia-criminal power, which tends to harsh forms of coercion and violence, is also possible in society. If legal power is based on officially recognized, documented and known to society norms, then criminal, illegal power is based on unwritten rules of behavior known only to a certain circle of people. Legal power seeks to stabilize society and establish order in it, while illegal power is like cancer cells that infect and destroy the healthy fabric of society.
Based on the teachings of M. Weber about legitimate types of domination, the following definition of the legitimacy of power can be given.
The situation in which people consider themselves obligated to obey, and the authorities consider themselves to have the right to command, is called the legitimacy of power.
In other words, legitimacy of power- This
a) recognition of power by the population;
b) acceptance of power as legitimate and fair;
The term "legitimacy" is sometimes translated from French as the "legitimacy" of power. This is not true. To determine the legitimacy of power in French network is another term – the legality of power.
The legality of power means that
a) power has a legal origin;
b) power is exercised through the law (and not through arbitrariness, violence, etc.);
c) the government itself is subject to the law.
From this it is clear that legitimacy and legality of power are close, but not identical concepts.
Legitimacy is an ethical, evaluative characteristic of power (the existing government is good or bad, fair or unfair, honest or dishonest, etc.).
Legality is a legal and therefore ethically neutral characteristic of power.
The difference between the two indicated characteristics of power is also expressed in the fact that legal power can at a certain stage become illegitimate in the eyes of the population. In this regard, Western political science has developed such an indicator as threshold of government legitimacy. It is determined based on the results of sociological surveys and makes up 30% of the population. This means that if, according to the results of sociological surveys, more than 30% of the population expresses confidence in the existing government, it is considered legitimate; if, according to the results of sociological surveys, less than 30% of the population expresses confidence in the existing government, it is considered illegitimate. Since public opinion in Western democracies is considered one of the political institutions of society, a politician with a rating of less than 30%, as a rule, resigns. On the eve of the elections, candidates for the position of US President have a rating significantly exceeding 50% (about 60-70%) and constantly ensure that during their presidency it remains high enough, i.e. did not fall below the 50% mark.
To understand the differences between these characteristics of power, it seems important to introduce another concept - subordination to power.
Submission to authority is a legal act; it means that I am not breaking the law. But I submit, recognizing or not recognizing the existing power - this is already an ethical, evaluative characteristic of power. In other words, not all my submission to power means recognition of this power, or - people submit not only to legitimate power.
When a government becomes illegitimate in the eyes of the population, the likelihood of opposition to that government increases. One of the most common forms of resistance to power in democratic practice, expressing one’s distrust of it, are actions of civil disobedience as a means of nonviolent struggle. The effectiveness of this means is evidenced, for example, by India gaining independence in 1950 as a result of mass campaigns of disobedience to the colonial British authorities.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Introduction
Over the entire history of human society, thousands of different states have been created, and state power is the most essential, integral feature of the state. Political power is the ability of a social unit (social group, class, majority of society) and the organizations and individuals representing it to carry out their will in relation to other social units; to pursue the general interests of a given social unit by violent or non-violent means.
The basic element of the existence and functioning of power, as well as its consolidation in society, is the legitimacy and legality of power. A government that is legitimate and legal will be the most correct for society.
The degree of legality of state power and its legitimacy is a moving variable, this especially applies to the second. The first is more stable, since it depends on legal factors (the presence or absence of a constitution, democratic, insufficiently democratic or completely undemocratic methods of adopting a constitution formalizing this power, appropriate international standards human rights action government agencies or violating these standards, etc.), while the second is sometimes associated with the quick reaction of people to certain actions of government bodies, successful or unseemly actions of government officials.
1 . Bythe concept of legality and legitimacy of power
If power is based only on coercion (physical, material, psychological), then its capabilities are quite limited. By their nature, power relations are based on the relationship between coercion and consent. The duality of power is that it can not only be the result of coercion of someone over someone, but also the result of the population agreeing to voluntarily obey. Contradictory unity within power relations is ensured by the authority of power, its legitimacy.
Legitimacy is the belief (primarily moral) that the accepted political order fair and legal.
Legitimacy is an article of faith, a concept that is present in the minds of citizens. It stems from the belief that the government of a country has the right to make decisions that its citizens must carry out.
Etymologically, the word “legitimacy” originates from the Latin legalis - legality. However, legitimacy and legality are not synonymous. It was used to denote legally established power as opposed to forcefully usurped power. At the same time, this word acquired another meaning - recognition of this state power and the territory of the state at the international level.
The legal expression of the legitimacy of power is its legality, i.e. normativity, the ability to be embodied in the rules of law, to be limited by law, to function within the framework of the rule of law.
Legality (legitimacy) of power is a political order based on legal rights, supported by appropriate rationally justified sanctions, while its moral content (supported or not supported by the majority) is considered secondary (typical of democracies).
Since political power is not always based on law and laws, but always enjoys some form of support from at least part of the population, legitimacy, which characterizes the support and support of power by real political subjects, differs from legality, which indicates a legal, legislatively based type of government, i.e. . on recognition of its competence by the entire population as a whole. In some political systems power can be legal and illegitimate, as, for example, under the rule of metropolises in colonial states, in others - legitimate, but illegal, as, say, after the fact revolutionary coup, supported by the majority of the population, and thirdly, both legal and legitimate, as, for example, after the victory of certain forces in the elections. The demand for the legitimacy of power arose as a reaction against the violent change of power and the redrawing of state borders, against arbitrariness.
In a broad sense, legitimacy is the acceptance of power by the population of a country, recognition of its right to manage social processes, and readiness to obey it. In a narrow sense, legitimate authority is recognized as a legal authority formed in accordance with the procedure provided for by legal norms.
It is necessary to distinguish between the legitimacy of the primary source of power and the legitimacy of government bodies. The legitimacy of the primary source of power (the ruling entity) is reflected and legally enshrined in the country's constitution. So, paragraph 1 of Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.” This means that the Constitution proclaims and defines the multinational people of Russia as the primary bearer and primary source of state power, thereby emphasizing its legitimacy.
Government bodies acquire the property of legitimacy in different ways. Representative bodies become legitimate through the holding of elections provided for and regulated by law. These bodies receive power directly from the primary source of power. Management bodies acquire legitimacy through competitive selection, their appointment most often by representative bodies and in the manner prescribed by law.
The powers exercised by state bodies and methods of activity, especially the method of state coercion, must also be legitimate.
2. Legalityand legitimacy-the basisauthorities
The state and state power have always played a huge role in society, becoming above society, alienating themselves from it. The state is bound by the rules of law; it not only rules, but also obeys, and bears certain responsibilities to society and the individual. The activities of the state and its bodies are regulated by law, official actions of state bodies are carried out on the basis of legal norms, and in this case they are legal, legal. State power itself needs to be legalized and legitimized.
The legality of state power is a legal concept. It correlates with the recognition, admission, support of a particular phenomenon, institution, body, “state action” by law, primarily by fundamental law.
The rationale for authority is rooted in in this case in legal acts and procedures, in legal relations. However, there are so-called constitutional laws that legalize (in fact, only externally) anti-people, anti-democratic, terrorist state power. These were, for example, legal acts Hitler's Germany. Therefore, when determining the legality or illegality of state power, the extent of its legalization, it is important to establish to what extent the legal acts implementing legalization comply with generally accepted principles of law, including international law.
More complex is the concept of legitimation of state power. The word "legitimation" is based on the same Latin root, but the term is given a different interpretation. This is also “legalization,” but legitimation is not only legal, mainly non-legal, and sometimes not related to law.
Legitimacy is a factual state; legitimation is not necessarily formal, but more often informal. Legitimation often has nothing to do with the law at all, and sometimes even contradicts it. This is a process, not necessarily formal and even most often informal, through which state power acquires the property of legitimacy, i.e. a state that expresses the correctness, justification, expediency, legality and other aspects of the compliance of a specific state power with the attitudes and expectations of the individual, social and other groups, and society as a whole. Recognition of state power and its actions as legitimate is based on sensory perception, experience, and rational assessment. It is based not on external signs (although, for example, the oratorical abilities of leaders can have a significant impact on the public, contributing to the establishment of charismatic power), but on internal motivations, internal incentives. The legitimation of state power is not associated with the publication 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 the observance by state power and its bodies of the norms of social justice, human rights, their protection.
Illegitimate power is based on violence and 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 a monarch imposing a “good” constitution on his people. It is created by people’s devotion to a certain social system (sometimes to a certain person), which expresses the immutable values of existence. The basis of this kind of devotion is the belief of people that their benefits depend on the preservation and support of a given order, a given state power, the belief that they express the interests of the people. Therefore, the legitimation of state power is always connected with the interests of people, various segments of the population, and since the interests and needs various groups Due to limited resources and other circumstances, the requests of some groups can be satisfied only partially or completely; the legitimation of state power in society, with rare exceptions, cannot have a comprehensive, universal character.
Legitimation of state power is a delegation, transfer of power by society to its special organization - the state, its structures. This transfer is carried out on the assumed conditions that state power will correspond to people’s ideas about its activities and their expectations. But unlike legalization, these ideas are not rooted in legal consciousness (although it also participates in this), but in moral consciousness, rooted in the concepts of justice and goodness. Legitimation usually includes legalization, but may not include it (the power of the Jacobins during french revolution was legitimate in the views of the majority of the population that carried out this revolution, but its legalization, especially after the execution of the king, was always disputed by many French jurists of that time), and, on the contrary, apparently legal power may be illegitimate in the views of the people. Legitimacy may be in conflict with formal legality if legal laws do not correspond to the laws of justice, universal human values, the prevailing attitudes of the majority of the population.
In conditions of transitional states and political instability, problems of legality and legitimacy of state power always acquire special significance.
3 . Issources of legitimacy of power
Currently, in political science it is common to take a more specific approach to the concept of legitimacy, recording a much wider range of its sources and forms.
Thus, as a rule, three subjects are considered as the main sources of legitimacy: the population, the government and foreign policy structures.
Legitimacy, which means support for power from broad sections of the population, is the most cherished goal of all political regimes. It is this that primarily ensures the stability and stability of power. Positive attitude population to the policies of the authorities and their recognition of the competence of the ruling elite are formed on any problems that are in the focus of public opinion.
The approval and support of the authorities by the population is associated with various political and civil traditions, mechanisms for the spread of ideologies, the processes of forming the authority of values shared by the “tops” and “bottoms,” and a certain organization of the state and society. This forces us to treat legitimacy as a political-cultural characteristic of power relations.
The population, as already noted, can support rulers even when they manage the state poorly. Because of this, such legitimacy can be formed even in conditions of declining government effectiveness. Therefore, with this form of legitimacy, the real disposition and complementarity of citizens towards the existing regime, which does not depend on formal legal provisions, is placed at the forefront.
At the same time, legitimacy can be initiated and formed not by the population, but by the state (government) itself and political structures that encourage mass consciousness reproduce positive assessments of the activities of the ruling regime. Such legitimacy is based on the right of citizens to fulfill their duties in maintaining a certain order and relations with the state. It directly depends on the ability of the authorities and elite structures to create and maintain people’s beliefs in the fairness and optimality of the existing political institutions and the line of behavior they pursue. For the formation of such legitimacy, the institutional and communicative resources of the state acquire enormous importance. True, such forms of legitimacy often turn into excessive juridicalization, which ultimately makes it possible to consider any institutionalized and legislatively formalized government as the legal right of the authorities to use coercion. Thus, legitimacy is essentially identified with the legality, legality, legal validity of state power and the consolidation of its existence in society.
Legitimacy can also be formed by external political centers - friendly states, international organizations. This type of political support is often used in the election of state leaders and in international conflicts. The category of legitimacy is also applicable to characterize politicians themselves, various institutions, norms and individual bodies of the state. In other words, within the state, various political subjects may have different character and have varying levels of support from public or international opinion. For example, the institution of the presidency in Yugoslavia enjoys broad domestic support but is strongly condemned internationally, where many countries recognize Milosevic as a war criminal. Or, conversely, individual politicians or parties may be ostracized at home, but receive support abroad as representatives of the democratic movement. Thus, the population can support parliament and protest against the activities of the government, or they can support the president and have a negative attitude towards the activities of representative bodies. Thus, legitimacy can have different intensities, making it possible to establish hierarchical connections between individual politicians and authorities.
4 . FoForms of legalization of power
The legalization of state power, inextricably linked with the procedures for vesting power in its bearers (primarily the head of state, parliament, government), is carried out differently in the conditions various forms government, state (territorial-political structure), state regime. IN modern world It is customary to distinguish between two main forms of government: monarchy and republic.
In a monarchy, the head of state (king, shah, sultan, etc.) is lifelong and hereditary. The legalization of the monarchy as a form of government and the monarch as the head of state is rooted not in the fact of the latter’s election, but essentially in historical traditions, in charisma (the well-known deification of the monarch), which is enshrined in constitutions and laws of succession to the throne. The basic laws of many countries name the reigning dynasty (Sweden, Japan, Nepal, etc.), thereby legally securing its right to power, and the seizure of the throne by another dynasty is considered usurpation.
Monarchies have different forms of government with different procedures for legalizing public authorities.
The legitimation of state power under the conditions of a monarchical form of government in all its varieties is to a greater or lesser extent connected not only with the constitution, but also with unwritten agreements, traditions, and customs. Where there are no constitutions, such norms are the main basis for legalization (often along with the tenets of religion), but even where there is a written constitution, the role of traditional norms is very significant. The legitimation of this form of government also relies heavily on the traditions and charisma of the ruler - “good”, “strong”, “wise”, etc. monarch, each chooses from these characteristics what appeals to his mental make-up and his practical experience.
The republican form of government, as a special model of the organization of state power, has two main varieties: presidential and parliamentary republic. Both of them have both a president and a parliament; the differences lie in the different relationships between the central bodies of the state: the president, parliament and government.
In a presidential republic, the government is appointed by the president at his own discretion, regardless of parliament, and does not need a vote of confidence from parliament. The head of the government, who determines its policy, remains the president. Legalization of this state form has little connection with traditions and customs; it relies primarily on constitutional norms.
In a parliamentary republic, the government is formed by parliament, in fact by the party or parties that have a majority in the lower house of parliament or in a unicameral parliament. The government is politically responsible to parliament. He approves the program of activity of the new government by voting, can express no confidence in the entire government or an individual minister, and this entails the resignation of the government or the minister.
The legalization of the form of a parliamentary republic as a method of government depends little on traditions and customs. It is connected almost entirely with constitutional texts and other laws.
5. Types of legitimacy of power according to Weber
According to the theory he developed and has become a classical theory, legitimacy is characterized by two fundamental features: recognition of the power exercised by existing state institutions, and the obligation of individuals to obey it. Simultaneously essential characteristic legitimacy lies in the fact that this is precisely the idea (belief) of citizens about state power that is present in their minds. Max Weber identified three main types of legitimacy:
Legitimacy based on tradition (“traditional”, for example, monarchical power);
Legitimacy based on the charisma (sacred gift) possessed by the leader, leader;
Legitimacy based on the rational (democratic) structure and procedures of government.
1. Traditional legitimacy. It is acquired through customs, the habit of obeying authority, and belief in the steadfastness and sacredness of ancient orders. Traditional dominance is characteristic of monarchies. In its motivation, it is in many ways similar to relationships in a patriarchal family, based on unquestioning obedience to elders and on the personal, unofficial nature of the relationship between the head of the family and its members. Traditional legitimacy is durable. Therefore, Weber believed, the preservation of a hereditary monarch, who reinforces the authority of the state with centuries-old traditions of reverence for power, is useful for the stability of democracy.
2. Charismatic legitimacy. It is based on the belief in exceptional qualities, a miraculous gift, i.e. charisma, a leader who is sometimes even deified and a cult of his personality is created. The charismatic method of legitimation is often observed during periods of revolutionary change, when the new government cannot rely on the authority of tradition or the democratically expressed will of the majority for recognition by the population. In this case, the greatness of the leader’s personality is consciously cultivated, whose authority sanctifies the institutions of power and contributes to their recognition and acceptance by the population. Charismatic legitimacy is based on faith and on the emotional, personal relationship of the leader and the masses.
3. Rational-legal (democratic) legitimacy. This type of support develops due to a person’s understanding of the presence of third-party interests, which presupposes the need to develop rules of general behavior, following which creates the opportunity to realize his own goals. In other words, the rational type of legitimacy essentially has a normative basis, characteristic of the organization of power in complexly organized societies. People here are subject not so much to individuals embodying power, but to rules, laws, procedures, and, consequently, political structures and institutions formed on their basis. At the same time, the content of rules and institutions can change dynamically depending on changes in mutual interests and living conditions.
Rational-legal legitimacy is characteristic of democracies. This is predominantly structural or institutional legitimacy, based on citizens' trust in the structure of the state, and not in individuals (personal legitimacy). Although often, especially in young democracies, the legitimacy of power may be based not so much on respect for elected institutions, but on the authority of a specific person at the head of the state. In the modern world, the legitimacy of power is often identified only with its democratic legitimacy.
Really existing political systems are an interweaving of all three types, with one of them predominant. Therefore, one should not confuse the types of power identified as a theoretical concept with the concrete reality of political systems, where they appear only partially and in combination with each other. At the same time, without identifying these ideal types, understanding real political systems was impossible.
6. Types of legitimacyD.Easton
The modern American scientist D. Easton identified the following types of legitimacy: ideological, structural and personal.
Ideological legitimacy based on the conformity of power with a certain ideology. Citizens are convinced of the value of existing political system as the most advanced. They share the ideological guidelines of the ruling elite. The government, through intensive propaganda, maintains citizens' adherence to the official ideology. This type of legitimation of power existed in the USSR, where ideology substantiated the legitimacy of the regime.
Structural legitimacy relies on citizens' commitment to mechanism and norms political regime. Citizens trust the existing system of power with established, proven mechanisms for the formation of its institutions. An example is Great Britain with its democratic traditions and parliamentarism.
Personal (personalized) legitimacy is based on the masses' approval of the power of a particular leader. People trust this leader and are confident in his ability to properly use political power. Personal legitimacy is close to charismatic, but is not identical to it. Charisma is based on faith, close to fanatical, on admiration and readiness to obey. Personalized legitimacy is based on well-deserved authority, respect, and rational calculation.
7. Other types of legitimacy
In addition to these methods of supporting power, a number of scientists identify others, giving legitimacy a more universal and dynamic character. Thus, the English researcher D. Held, along with the types of legitimacy already known to us, suggests talking about its types such as:
- "consent under threat of violence" when people support the government, fearing threats from it, even a threat to their safety;
Legitimacy based on apathy population, indicating its indifference to the established style and forms of government;
- pragmatic(instrumental) support, in which the trust placed in the authorities is carried out in exchange for promises given by them of certain social benefits;
- normative support that presupposes the coincidence of political principles shared by the population and the authorities;
And finally, highest normative support, meaning complete coincidence of these kinds of principles.
Some scientists also highlight ideological type of legitimacy that provokes support for the authorities from public opinion as a result of active propaganda activities carried out ruling circles. Allocate and patriotic a type of legitimacy in which a person’s pride in his country and its domestic and foreign policies is recognized as the highest criterion for supporting the authorities.
Many means are used to maintain the legitimacy of power. Including: changes in legislation and public administration mechanisms in accordance with new requirements; the desire to use the traditions of the population in lawmaking and in carrying out practical policies; implementation of legal precautions against possible declines in the legitimacy of government; maintaining law and order in society. The problem of legitimacy is largely a problem of mass participation in government. The system's failure to ensure participation undermines its legitimacy.
8. Ways to ensure legitimacy
The legitimacy of state power is a circumstance that is given great importance. Practice shows that public support for the government and demonstration of trust are an important factor in its effectiveness. Conversely, the weak conviction of citizens in the legitimacy of state power is one of the reasons for its instability. Therefore, any political power strives in every possible way to maintain and stimulate the trust of the people. The objects of legitimation are usually the state itself and its bodies, social order, political regime, implemented political and economic programs, etc. In this case, various means are used. Various documents are published: decrees, resolutions, legislative acts. Informal effective methods and means are used. These could be political movements in support of the government, non-governmental organizations pursuing the same goal.
Researchers have identified several ways (sources) of power legitimation.
First and most reliable way- participation of citizens in governance, which creates a feeling of people’s involvement in the policies pursued by the government, allows people to feel to a certain extent as its subject. This is why democratic regimes, compared to others, have the greatest potential for legitimation.
Another source is the so-called technocratic legitimation, i.e. legitimation through administrative, economic, military, educational and similar activities of power. Technocratic means come down to scientific and technical support for the political course (in laws, infrastructure, tax system, etc.). In this case, the legitimacy of power is directly dependent on the effectiveness of such activities, the end result of which is stability in society and the successful development of all aspects of public life. A series of economic failures when carrying out reforms or when the country emerges from a crisis weakens the legitimacy of the government and can lead to the collapse of the political system. Legitimacy political power Germany, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore increased largely due to economic achievements.
The third method of legitimation is force. All regimes rely on coercion, but the forms, extent of its distribution and use are different. It manifests itself in the restriction of individual rights and freedoms, primarily the right to receive complete and objective information, speech, association, manifestation. The lower the level of legitimation, the stronger the coercion. Force is the last argument of power, with the help of which it tries to increase the level of its legitimacy, however, it is doubtful that power can maintain itself for a long time relying solely on force. The use of force can not only increase the level of legitimacy, but also hasten the fall of the regime. Force is an unreliable source of legitimation of power.
Power has the ability to increase legitimacy by influencing consciousness and behavior social groups, formation of a certain public opinion. Thus, the US authorities, before landing troops in Haiti, for a long time formed public opinion in the country, showing the dictatorial nature of the regime that existed there. Russian authorities not prepared accordingly public opinion countries to use military force to resolve the Chechen crisis. It was “focused” on using “one regiment within two hours” to eliminate armed gangs.
Among other methods that are of great importance for ensuring the legitimacy of power, one can highlight the promotion of the values on which the policies being pursued are based. Propaganda is any information aimed at forming a belief. Government propaganda serves functional socialization, i.e. acceptance by the masses of government policies. The ruling group is tempted to limit information about its activities and their results. The policy of limiting information comes down to privately blocking those sources that come from centers hostile to the government. The cultivation of limited information, especially the absolute blocking of other, “unnecessary” information, entails both direct, immediate and indirect, far-reaching consequences. The immediate results are the prevention or reduction of reasons for unrest among the masses, doubts, opposition, alternatives. The indirect result is the habit of the masses to only one government information.
An example of the effective use of limited information is Stalinist propaganda. The Stalinist regime rested not only on fear. The monopoly on information was actively used. The habit of a one-sided and tendentious political vision of all internal and international processes led to the fact that a change of generations was required for the spiritual emancipation of society.
The qualities of the political elite play an important role in the process of legitimation. History teaches that the strength of power and the effectiveness of the policies pursued depend on the intellectual potential and energy of the elite, on its ability to take advantage of all factors favorable to itself, and on the ability to neutralize unfavorable ones. Legitimacy does not stand still. Only the constant reproduction of legitimacy makes power strong and reliable.
An important role in ensuring the legitimacy of power is played by the personality of the statesman as the guarantor of legitimacy. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 80) notes that the President of the Russian Federation is its guarantor and, therefore, he is the guarantor of legitimacy. Means such as various kinds of rituals, symbols, and the use of traditions are essential for strengthening trust in the authorities on the part of the people. The English political system can be cited as an example of adherence to traditions and rituals. In modern Russia, the oath of statesmen on the Constitution has become traditional.
9. Crises of legitimacy
legality legitimacy power state
Legitimacy has the property of changing its intensity, i.e. the nature and degree of support for the authorities (and its institutions), therefore we can talk about crises of legitimacy. Crises are understood as such a drop in real support for public authorities or the ruling regime as a whole, which affects a qualitative change in their roles and functions.
Thus, scientists who link the crisis of regime legitimacy with the destabilization of political power and governance name the following factors as such criteria:
The inability of authorities to carry out their functions or the presence of illegitimate violence in the political space;
Absence of military conflicts and civil wars;
Inability of the government to adapt to changing conditions;
Destruction of the constitutional order;
Lack of major structural changes or reduced effectiveness of the government in carrying out its main tasks - budgeting and distribution political functions among the elite.
Summarizing the most significant approaches, we can say that the main sources of the crisis of legitimacy of the ruling regime as such are the level of political protest of the population aimed at overthrowing the regime, as well as the results of elections, referendums, and plebiscites indicating distrust of the regime. These indicators indicate a “lower” limit of legitimacy, followed by the collapse of the current regime and even a complete change of the constitutional order. To the factors that determine its “upper” limit, i.e. the current, dynamic change in likes and dislikes for the authorities can be attributed to: the functional overload of the state and the limited resources of the authorities, a sharp increase in the activity of opposition forces, the regime’s constant violation of the established rules of the political game, the inability of the authorities to explain to the population the essence of their policies, the widespread spread of such social diseases, such as an increase in crime, a drop in living standards, etc.
Signs of a decline in the legitimacy of power are:
Increasing degree of coercion;
Restriction of rights and freedoms;
Prohibition political parties and independent press;
Increased corruption of all government institutions, merging with criminal structures;
Low economic efficiency of government (declining living standards of various population groups) is the most significant indicator of delegitimization of government;
The extreme point of decline in the legitimacy of power is revolution, coups d'etat - open forms of dissatisfaction with the regime.
In general, the resolution of crises of legitimacy should be built taking into account the specific reasons for the decline in support for the political regime as a whole or its specific institution, as well as the type and source of support. The main ways and means of overcoming crisis situations for a state where public opinion is valued are the following:
Maintaining constant contacts with the population;
Carrying out explanatory work regarding your goals;
Strengthening the role of legal methods of achieving goals and constantly updating legislation;
Balance of branches of government;
Compliance with the rules of the political game without infringing on the interests of the forces participating in it;
Organization of control by the organized public over various levels of government;
Strengthening democratic values in society;
Overcoming the legal nihilism of the population, etc.
Conclusion
Legitimacy is an important factor in political life.
The success or failure of political power is determined by its ability to represent interests and powers in the acceptance of it by those people to whom it extends, in their recognition of its right to rule and in their consent to obey.
When we talk about legitimacy, we mean, first of all, the compatibility of political actions with the prevailing value system in a given community. The basis of legitimacy is voluntary submission to laws, consideration of power as an authority for the individual. 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. Legitimacy can be political power that is controlled and expresses the interests of the people.
M. Weber considered the following factors to form this kind of legitimacy:
Economic efficiency, productivity and productivity of the system of economic relations supported by the political order, its ability to satisfy the urgent needs of people;
Legality, legality, compliance of its actions with its own norms and regulations;
Traditions, identity of the system of authorities of that cultural environment in which its action takes place;
Charisma - belief in special qualities, the calling of bearers of power;
Ideological, ethical, psychological justification.
The legitimacy of power is violated if it is unable to obey and follow its own regulations and norms. That's why the most important aspect power is served by its legality, normativity, expressed in the ability to operate and be guided by laws.
Bibliography
1. Achkasov V.A., Eliseev S.M., Lantsov S.A. Monograph. Legitimation of power in post-socialist Russian society. - M.: Aspect-Press, 1996. - 125 p.
2. Weber M. Selected works: Trans. with German; comp., total. ed. and after. Yu.N. Davydova; preface P.P. Gaidenko; comment A.F. Filippova. - M.: Progress, 1990. - 808 p.
3. Volkov Yu.G., Lubsky A.V., Makarenko V.P., Kharitonov E.M. Legitimacy of political power (methodological problems and Russian realities). M., 1996.
4. Zerkin D.P. Fundamentals of political science: Course of lectures. - 2nd ed., add. - Rostov-on-Don.: Phoenix, 1999. - 573 p.
5. Irkhin Yu.V., Zotov V.D., Zotova L.V. Political Science: Textbook. - M.: Yurist, 2002. - 511 p.
6. Mukhaev. R.T. Political science: textbook. for university students - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2007. - 495 p.
7. Selyutin V.I. Theory and practice of political science - Voronezh: publishing house named after. E.A. Bolkhovitinova, 2009. - 420 p.
8. Soloviev A.I. Political science: Political theory, political technologies: Textbook for university students. - M.: Aspect Press, 2006. - 559 p.
9. Pikulkin A.V. Public administration system; publishing house: Unity-Data, 2000 - 399 p.
10. Pugachev V., Soloviev A.I. Introduction to Political Science. Textbook allowance; 3rd edition, revised and expanded, 2000. - 382 p.
11. Chirkin V.E. Fundamentals of state power. - M.: Yurist, 1996.
Posted on Allbest.ru
Similar documents
The capacity of power and its dependence on legitimacy. The concept of “power” and the essence of political power. Legitimacy of power. Types of legitimacy of power. Crises of legitimacy and ways to resolve them. The difference between the concepts of legitimacy and legality of power.
abstract, added 12/04/2008
Theoretical justification of the concept of legitimacy, its normative structure and principles. Modern typology of legitimacy according to Max Weber. Ideological and nationalist legitimacy. Types of legitimacy according to Zerkin. Types of legitimacy according to Mushtuk.
presentation, added 04/16/2011
Characteristics of legitimacy as support for power from broad sections of the population. Typology of legitimacy according to Weber. Specifics of the charismatic type of power. Signs of a decline in legitimation. The process of legitimation as the embodiment of the ideas of freedom and equality.
abstract, added 04/28/2010
Political power: essence, structure, functions, forms, methods and principles of its implementation. Concepts of resources of political power, its legality, legitimacy, effectiveness. The relationship between the concepts of power and its social, historical, political role.
test, added 07/26/2010
"Open Society"in the understanding of K. Popper. Classical theory about the principle of legitimacy of power. Biography of Karl Popper. Interpretation of the concept of “democracy”: classical and realistic theories. Criticism of the proportional system. Problems of the legitimacy of power.
course work, added 07/24/2012
Definition of the concept of political legitimacy, consideration of its typology presented in the works of several researchers. Identifying the structure, sources, functions of political legitimacy and causes of the crisis; assessment of its current state in Russia.
course work, added 10/20/2014
Problems of recognition by society of the legitimacy and legitimacy of official power. The main sources and foundations of the legitimacy of political power: traditional, charismatic, rational-legal, class, ideological and nationalist legitimacy.
abstract, added 07/25/2010
The legitimacy of power is the legal justification for the legal existence of power. Traditional legitimacy. Charismatic legitimacy. Charisma means a special gift. Legal or rational-legal legitimacy. Means of legitimizing power.
abstract, added 03/14/2007
Concept and essence, as well as basic concepts and approaches to the study of political power. Grounds and resources, criteria for assessing legitimacy. Types of legitimate domination according to M. Weber. The main problems of the functioning of state power in Russia.
test, added 06/07/2015
The essence and content of power. Interaction of subject and object, vertical and horizontal structure. Levels of power, its bases and resources. Distribution of power in modern society. Indicators, types and levels of legitimacy in political practice.
Legality and legitimacy of political power. One of the main specific properties of political power is legitimacy. Legitimacy can be defined as a form of support, justification for the legitimacy of the use of power and the exercise of government either by the state as a whole or by its individual structures and institutions.
The term “legitimacy” itself comes from the Latin word legalis, which means “legality”. However, this translation is not entirely accurate. The fact is that legality is reflected by the term “legality,” which etymologically has the same roots, but a slightly different meaning. Legality reflects precisely the legal aspect of legality, that is, compliance with legal norms enshrined in state legislation. Legitimacy reflects, rather, the political and psychological aspect of the functioning of power. Legitimation is the manner or process by which power gains recognition and justification from the majority of the population. Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. Legitimacy is associated with the belief of the vast majority of the population that the existing order is the best for a given state. The lack of broad legitimacy of the institution of power inevitably leads to the refusal of those in power to recognize any acts of power, regardless of their rationality, to political instability, tension and the emergence of conflicts.
It should be emphasized that in some political systems the government can be legal and illegitimate, that is, it has received and uses power legally, but is disapproved and not accepted by the majority of society. The most problematic is ensuring the legitimacy of power during the period of transformation of social systems, the transition from one political regime to another, when the old ways of justifying power are destroyed and rejected by the majority, and new ones have not yet been created and do not work. In such a situation, the authorities begin to “slip” - decisions are made, but not always and not by everyone. The opposite situation may also exist, when the government is legitimate, but illegal, for example, after the completion of revolutionary coups supported by the majority of the population. In stable societies, power is usually both legal and legitimate.
The concept of “legitimacy of power” was first introduced by the famous German political scientist Max Weber. He also showed that the process of legitimation of power can have different bases, identifying, in accordance with this statement, three main types of legitimacy.
First, power can receive legitimacy in accordance with tradition. M. Weber called this type of legitimacy traditional. It arises thanks to customs, the habit of obeying authority, belief in the steadfastness and sacredness of long-existing orders. As a rule, traditional dominance is inherent in monarchies. The regulation of social relations on the basis of traditions leads to the fact that people reproduce relations of power and subordination again and again over many generations. The power of tradition is such that when leaders break it, they can lose legitimacy in the eyes of the masses. In this sense, the power of the political elite is strictly limited by the same tradition that gives it legitimacy. Traditional legitimacy is durable, therefore, as M. Weber believed, the preservation of a hereditary monarch, who reinforces the authority of the state with centuries-old traditions of honoring power, is useful for the stability of democracy.
Secondly, power can be based on the voluntary recognition of established legal norms aimed at regulating relations of management and subordination. Weber called this type of construction of power relations legal or rational-legal legitimacy.
Based on the teachings of M. Weber about legitimate types of domination, the following definition of the legitimacy of power can be given.
The situation in which people consider themselves obligated to obey, and the authorities consider themselves to have the right to command, is called the legitimacy of power.
In other words, the legitimacy of power is
a) recognition of power by the population;
b) acceptance of power as legitimate and fair;
The term "legitimacy" is sometimes translated from French as the "legitimacy" of power. This is not true. To define the legality of power in French, another term is the legality of power.
The legality of power means that
a) power has a legal origin;
b) power is exercised through the law (and not through arbitrariness, violence, etc.);
c) the government itself is subject to the law.
From this it is clear that legitimacy and legality of power are close, but not identical concepts.
Legitimacy is an ethical, evaluative characteristic of power (the existing government is good or bad, fair or unfair, honest or dishonest, etc.).
Legality is a legal and therefore ethically neutral characteristic of power.
The difference between the two indicated characteristics of power is also expressed in the fact that legal power can at a certain stage become illegitimate in the eyes of the population. In this regard, Western political science has developed such an indicator as the threshold of legitimacy of power. It is determined based on the results of sociological surveys and makes up 30% of the population. This means that if, according to the results of sociological surveys, more than 30% of the population expresses confidence in the existing government, it is considered legitimate; if, according to the results of sociological surveys, less than 30% of the population expresses confidence in the existing government, it is considered illegitimate. Since public opinion in Western democracies is considered one of the political institutions of society, a politician with a rating of less than 30%, as a rule, resigns. On the eve of the elections, candidates for the position of US President have a rating significantly exceeding 50% (about 60-70%) and constantly ensure that during their presidency it remains high enough, i.e. did not fall below the 50% mark.
To understand the differences between these characteristics of power, it seems important to introduce another concept - subordination to power.
Submission to authority is a legal act; it means that I am not breaking the law. But I submit, recognizing or not recognizing the existing power - this is already an ethical, evaluative characteristic of power. In other words, not all my submission to power means recognition of this power, or - people submit not only to legitimate power.
When a government becomes illegitimate in the eyes of the population, the likelihood of opposition to that government increases. One of the most common forms of resistance to power in democratic practice, expressing one’s distrust of it, are actions of civil disobedience as a means of nonviolent struggle. The effectiveness of this means is evidenced, for example, by India gaining independence in 1950 as a result of mass campaigns of disobedience to the colonial British authorities.
UDC 340.132.8
T.V. SMOKOTNINA,
postgraduate student of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law of Khakassia state university them. N.F. Katanova
The article defines the concepts of legitimacy and legality of state power, reveals the relationship between the definitions of “legitimation” and “legalization”.
Key words: legitimacy, legality, legitimation, legalization, delegitimation, delegalization.
In this article is given definition of the concepts, such as: legitimacy and legality of State Power. It reveals the correlation of the concepts of legitimation and legalization.
Keywords: legitimity, legality, legitimation, legalization, delegitimation, delegalization.
The statement about the legal nature of state power requires a theoretical justification for the impossibility of illegitimate rule. The solution to this theoretical problem is difficult due to the fact that in modern Russian history we quite often witness attempts, sometimes successful, to illegally seize power, both in certain regions of Russia (Chechnya, North Ossetia) and in neighboring countries (Ukraine). On the other hand, the political content of state power never fits into the legal form prepared for it. This has long served as a reason for periodically renewed public discussions about the relationship between legality and expediency in government. In both cases, the legitimacy of power should be understood not only as a property of statehood acquired in the historical past, but also as an ongoing process in state life countries.
Currently, the term “legitimacy” is quite actively used in various humanities (philosophy, political science, sociology, jurisprudence), each of which fills the category under consideration with a special semantic content. As a result, we have at least a dualism in the understanding of legitimacy: while acceptable in principle, it nevertheless gives rise to difficulties of both epistemological and practical nature. Every time there is a need to clarify in which of two or more senses a given term is used in a particular context.
The most acutely indicated problem is found in jurisprudence, within which special requirements are imposed on the certainty of the terminological apparatus. Therefore, from a methodology perspective, it is first necessary to define the concept of legitimacy and its relationship with related categories.
Despite the fact that the concepts of legitimacy and legality come from the same root lex (Latin for “law”), they certainly have different meanings. Historically, legality was associated with written law, with the wording of laws. Actually, it meant compliance with laws that were also adopted in a legal, legal way. On the contrary, legitimacy was associated primarily with tradition, divine law, natural law, that is, with what should serve as a measure of the correctness of the law, no matter how legal it may be on formal grounds. In all eras, various political forces have placed legality above legitimacy, sometimes vice versa. The general concept is legitimacy: belief in the legitimate significance of order.
The legitimacy of state power is often identified with its legal validity. However, this does not indicate legitimacy, but its legality. Just like legitimation and legalization, legitimacy and legality are close, but not identical concepts. The first is evaluative, ethical and political in nature, the second is legal and ethically neutral. In contrast to legality (legality in the legal sense), the legitimacy of power also means legality, but in a broad sense - the compliance of power with the laws of existence of reason, justice, since political power is not always based on law and laws, but constantly enjoys one or another support at least part of the population. Legitimacy, which characterizes the support and support of power by real political subjects, differs from legality, which indicates a legal, legislatively based type of government, i.e., recognition of its competence by the entire population as a whole. In some political systems, power can be legal and illegitimate (under the rule of metropolises in colonial states); in others - legitimate, but illegal, as after a revolutionary coup supported by the majority of the population; thirdly, both legal and legitimate (after the victory of certain forces in free and fair elections).
The legality of power is a legal concept that means the compliance of power with the current positive law. For example, the power of the president is legal, since he is elected in accordance with the law and in the exercise of his powers is based on the law. There is a real contradiction between legality and legitimacy. Not all laws can be assessed by the population as fair. If the legally elected government fails to fulfill its promises, an unsuccessful economic course leads to a sharp drop in living standards, a loss of trust from society is likely. In this case, a process of delegitimation of power is observed.
There is no ideal legitimacy (absolute support by the population). In any society there are people who break laws or are indifferent to authority. Finally, in a democratic society there is opposition to official power. Consequently, any government must confirm its authority, prove to the population that it is it that best suits its interests.
The relationship between the concepts of legitimacy and legality is the same as the definitions of legitimation and legalization, with the only difference being that legitimation and legalization are processes, and legitimacy and legality are properties.
Legal legitimacy is the result of a long evolutionary development of a state in which human rights and the principles of law and order are respected. It must correspond to the will of the governed (democratic legitimacy) or be consistent with the abilities of the rulers (technocratic legitimacy).
The essence of legal domination is that it presupposes subordination not to individuals, but established laws, before which everyone, without exception, is equal. Management is carried out by educated, competent officials (bureaucracy). They, and not “servants”, constitute the management apparatus - “headquarters”, in the terminology of M. Weber. However, legal domination is not purely bureaucratic. The top of the hierarchical ladder is closed by “either hereditary monarchs, or presidents elected by the people, or leaders elected by the parliamentary hierarchy...”. Legal domination, therefore, is nothing more than a rule of law state. To this type M. Weber attributed contemporary European states: England, France, USA, etc.
In such characteristics as legality and legitimacy, the unity of the instrumental and value aspects of power becomes most expressive. The quality of legality expresses the ability of the government to act within the limits it sets, the willingness to assume certain obligations and not violate them. The government's refusal of this principle breaks the elementary orderliness of socio-political relations and predetermines the ineffectiveness and unacceptability of power for society. Such power turns out to be ineffective, undesirable and simply dangerous for people.
The processes taking place in society and the state cannot be unidirectional. Based on the analysis of political practice, science distinguishes the reverse legitimation and legalization of state power - delegitimation and delegalization. The issue of these phenomena must be approached taking into account the identified relationship between the concepts of legitimation and legalization of state power, as well as taking into account the established signs of a decline in legitimacy, namely:
- increasing the degree of coercion;
- restrictions on rights and freedoms;
- prohibition of political parties and independent press;
- growth of corruption in all institutions of power, fusion with criminal structures;
- low economic efficiency of power (declining living standards of various groups of the population) - the most significant indicator of delegitimization of power.
At all times a matter of constant concern ruling groups is to legitimize one’s power and policies, i.e., ensuring their recognition and approval from those in power. To achieve strengthening of your sub-
supported by the masses, they strive to influence the consciousness of people by all means: ideological, scientific, legal, moral, emotional and psychological.
Currently, legitimacy is an obligatory sign of civilized power, recognition of its legitimacy by civil society and the world community.
Literature
1. Baranov N. Political relations and the political process in modern Russia: Special course // http://nicbar.narod.ru/lekziya3.him
2. Gaidenko P.P. History and rationality. Sociology of Max Weber and the Weberian Renaissance. - M., 1991. P. 80-97.
3. Uppelev A.G. Political science: power, democracy, personality. - M., 1994. P. 30.