Legitimacy of power - what is it? Legality of political power

21.09.2019

One of the most important integral characteristics of power is its effectiveness, i.e. the degree to which the government fulfills its tasks and functions. In practice, this means guaranteed implementation of competent government orders with the lowest costs and expenses in the shortest possible time.

The criteria for the effectiveness of government are:

1) sufficiency of the bases of power and efficient use its resources;
2) the rationality of “vertical” and “horizontal” power structures;
3) effective, efficient, timely control over the implementation of orders of government agencies;
4) organizational, technical and personnel support for accounting and analysis of government orders;
5) the presence of an effective system of sanctions applied to the object of power in case of failure to comply with an authority order;
6) efficient system self-control of power, one of the indicators of which is its authority.

The effectiveness of government largely depends on its legitimacy. The history of the concept of “legitimacy” dates back to the Middle Ages, when an understanding of legitimacy emerged as agreement with customs, traditions and established behavior. Legitimacy was predominantly interpreted as the right of supreme officials to act in accordance with customs, but already from the middle of the 14th century. begins to be used in the sense of the authority of elected authorities.

The term “legitimacy” was introduced into scientific use by M. Weber. The German scientist pointed out that any power needs self-justification, recognition and support. The concept of “legitimacy” is often translated as “legitimacy,” which is not entirely accurate, since Weber did not mean legal, but sociological (behavioral) characteristics of domination (power) and attached primary importance to the factor of the exclusive use of violence.

M. Weber identified three main types of legitimate domination (power):

1. Traditional legitimacy. “It is acquired through customs, the habit of obeying authority, faith 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 wonderful 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 attitude of the leader and the masses.
3. Rational-legal (democratic) legitimacy. Its source is a rationally understood interest, which encourages people to obey the decisions of a government formed according to generally accepted rules, i.e. based on democratic procedures. In such a state, it is not the personality of the leader that is subject to the laws, but the laws within which government representatives are elected and act. Rational-legal legitimacy arises in the conditions of formation market economy and is embodied in the rule of law. The main features of this type of domination are: the establishment of rules of law and the subordination of every person to them; application of legal norms in management; dominance in society of law, not of officials. Specially trained, competent officials - the bureaucracy - must implement the law.

Bureaucracy, according to Weber, is technically the purest type of legal domination. It was Weber who formulated the basic requirements for officials, which are still relevant today:

1) are personally free and subject only to business official duties;
2) have a stable service hierarchy;
3) have clearly defined competence;
4) work by virtue of a contract (based on free choice);
5) work in accordance with special qualifications;
6) are rewarded with constant cash salaries;
7) consider their service as their only or main profession;
8) foresee their career;
9) work in complete isolation from controls and without assigning official positions;
10) are subject to strict, uniform official discipline and control.

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;
c) the presence of authority in the eyes of the population.

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 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 a person does not violate the law. But whether he submits, recognizing or not recognizing the existing power - this is already an ethical, evaluative characteristic of power. In other words, not every submission to authority means recognition of this authority, or - people submit not only to legitimate authority.

The legitimacy of power is not limited to its three, which have become classical types. There are other ways of legitimation and, accordingly, types of legitimacy. One of them is ideological legitimacy. Its essence is to justify power with the help of ideology introduced into mass consciousness. Ideology justifies the correspondence of power to the interests of the people, nation or class, its right to govern. Depending on who the ideology appeals to and what ideas it uses, ideological legitimacy can be class or nationalist.

In countries of command-administrative socialism, class legitimacy was widespread. In the second half of the 20th century. Many young states, in attempts to gain recognition and support from the population, very often resort to nationalist legitimation of their power, often establishing ethnocratic regimes.

Ideological legitimation is based on the introduction of a certain “official” ideology into the consciousness and subconscious of people using methods of persuasion and suggestion. However, in contrast to rational-legal legitimation, which appeals to consciousness and reason, it is a unidirectional process that does not imply feedback, free participation of citizens in the formation of ideological platforms or their choice.

Legitimacy means the quality of the relationship between power and those under power, which is expressed in the voluntary recognition of the value of power, in its right to govern.

The population perceives the legitimate government as legitimate and fair.

On the contrary, if the ruling group does not enjoy public trust and is forced to constantly resort to means of coercion, then the power of such a group is usually considered illegitimate.

Legitimate power gives rise to the right of leaders to govern and, accordingly, the obligation of the population to obey them.

Legitimacy and legality (legitimacy) of power are not the same concepts. If legality means the legal justification of power, its compliance with legal norms, which is its legal characteristic, then legitimacy is the trust and justification of power, which is its moral characteristic. Any government that makes laws, even unpopular ones, but ensures their implementation is legal. At the same time, it may be illegal and not accepted by the people.

The following types of legitimacy of state power are distinguished:

1.rational, when power is legitimized by democratically established and recognized norms of law, based on subordination not to the personality of the leader, but to the laws within which government representatives are elected and act;

2.ideological, when power is recognized as justified by virtue of internal conviction or faith in the correctness of the ideological values that it proclaims;

3.traditional, when power is recognized as justified due to rooted customs, traditions, habits of obedience, belief in the steadfastness and sacredness of ancient orders;

4. charismatic (personal), when power is based on the faith of the masses in the exceptional qualities, special abilities of the political leader (a leader from God with a miraculous gift), on the personal authority of the ruler, etc.

The considered (and some other) types of legitimacy of power are ideal and do not exist in pure form. In the specific historical conditions of each country, these types are intertwined with the dominance of one of them.

The degree of legitimacy of state power can be judged by the level of coercion (violence) necessary to carry out a particular policy in society, by quantitative and qualitative analysis of attempts to overthrow rulers; by social tension, the strength of civil disobedience (riots, uprisings, etc.); based on election results; by mass demonstrations, sudden manifestations of support or, conversely, opposition to the existing regime, etc.

At all times a matter of constant concern ruling groups is the legitimation of one’s power and policies, i.e. ensuring their recognition and approval from their subordinates. In order to achieve strengthening of their support by the masses, they strive to influence the consciousness of people by all means - ideological, scientific, legal, moral, emotional and psychological.

More on topic 13. Legitimacy and legality of state power:

Formation of the Provisional Government. Dual power. The problem of legality and legitimacy
Legitimacy of power, mechanism of functioning of various types of political power
Management, public administration and executive power: concept, correlation. Executive power in a system of unified state power.
3. Division of powers between federal government bodies and government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the field of labor relations
19. State power as a special type of social power
2. State executive power and public administration as a type of state activity (interrelation and correlation)

The concept of “legitimacy” in political science is most often used together with the paired concept of “legality”. Both words - “legitimacy” and “legality” - are derived from the same root from the Latin lex, i.e. law. But they mean quite different things. “Legality” is strict compliance with the officially existing law. If we compare a specific political or legal case with the rules of the law, we can clearly decide whether it is legal or illegal. If something does not violate the law, then it is legal. And if it contradicts, then it is illegal.

“Legitimacy” in political science refers to the compliance of this or that action, this or that political figure with the expectations of the entire people, the entire society as a whole. “Legitimacy”, unlike legality, is not a formal law, not a clearly formulated legal norm. This coincidence of the personality of the ruler or some of his actions with what society expects from him is required by history, tradition, and sometimes emergency circumstances.

The difference between legitimacy and legality can be understood by following example. The government of any sovereign state has the right, under certain circumstances, to initiate military action against any power, while no other organizations or authorities in the sovereign state can make such a decision. Only the government has the right to legally start a war. The legality of such an act, when carried out in accordance with prescribed and legally established procedures, is beyond doubt.

But a specific declaration of war on one or another country under certain conditions can be both legitimate and illegitimate. If history leaves no other way out, or if the people and society approve of such an act of the rulers, realizing its necessity, then entry into the war will be both legal and legitimate. An example of such a case is the beginning of the war of the USSR against Nazi Germany. Stalin had the right to start a war from the point of view of legality, and this was a completely legitimate step, confirmed by historical necessity and the will of the people for freedom from the enemy who attacked first.

In another case, when war can be avoided, but the rulers still decide to start it, contrary to the sentiments of the majority, this is legal, but not legitimate. It was like that Russo-Japanese War beginning of the twentieth century.

And finally, in exceptional cases, when the legitimate government is paralyzed and unable to make a decision, some groups of people can themselves begin military operations, bypassing legal procedures, but relying on the legitimacy of history and the will of the people. Such an action was a meeting of the militia in Novgorod by Prince Minin and citizen Pozharsky to fight the Polish-Lithuanian occupiers.

It is the people and their history that make the decision legitimate. But people and history are constantly moving, never standing still. And therefore, all formal rules of law developed in other circumstances and in another historical context cannot keep up with this life. Moreover, there are cases when there is simply no legal way out of the situation - and such a situation is not described in the law. This is especially true for emergency situations - political crises, social unrest, natural disasters, wars and unrest. The main definition of legitimacy is the coincidence of the will of the people and the authorities in a specific action, decision, choice.

Conclusion

Analyzing this topic, we can conclude that 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 country. Legality is reflected by the term “legality”. “Legitimacy” and “legality” are close, but not identical concepts. The first is more solitary, ethical in nature, while the second is legal. Historically, several types of legitimacy have been formed: the legal type of legitimacy - the legitimation of power by specific legal norms, the constitution, supported by the activities of relevant institutions, including coercive sanctions; The basis is a common understanding of the norms, established by law; ideological type of legitimacy - recognition of power due to internal conviction or faith in the correctness of those ideological values proclaimed by power; The basis is ideological values; traditional legitimacy - recognition of power as legitimate because it acts in accordance with traditions and traditional values mass; The basis is traditions, traditional consciousness; structural legitimacy - the legitimacy of power stems from the belief in the legitimacy and value of established structures and norms governing political relations; The basis is specific political structures; personal (charismatic) legitimacy - recognition of power is based on the belief of the masses in special abilities political leader, leader; The basis is the personal authority of the ruler; political expediency - an agreement or imposition of power on society, where the motivation is political expediency. Characteristic of transition periods associated with the formation of a new political system.

Summing up the results of this work, we can report that the purpose of this work is to understand the legitimacy and legality political power- achieved.

The tasks set in this work were completed:

1. The concept and types of legitimacy of power are clarified.

2. The concepts of legitimacy and legality of power have become clear.

Bibliography:

1. Weber, M. Politics as a calling and profession. Selected works / M. Weber. – M.: Progress, 1990. – 642 p.

2. Gadzhiev, K.S. Political science / K.S. Gadzhiev – M: Logos, 2001. – 488 p.

3. Degtyarev, A. A. Fundamentals political theory/ A. A. Degtyarev. – M.: graduate School, 1998. – 239 p.

4. Solovyov, A. I. Political science. Political theory, political technologies / A. I. Solovyov. – M.: Aspect Press, 2006. – 559 p.

5. Held, D. Models of Democracy / D. Held. – Stanford, 1990. – R. 56.

Soloviev A.I. Political science. Political theory, political technologies. M.: Aspect Press, 2006. P. 350.

Weber M. Politics as a calling and profession. Selected works. M. 1990. P. 31.

See: Held D. Models of Democracy. Stanford, 1990.

Gadzhiev K. S. Political Science. M.: Logos, 2001. P. 146.

Degtyarev A. A. Fundamentals of political theory. M.: Higher school, 1998. P.226.

The current political situation in the world is such that, having fallen asleep in the evening under one political regime, you can wake up in the morning under a completely different one. How many people wonder how legal this method of changing power is? Can we, ordinary citizens, in any way influence the events taking place in the country without our knowledge?

In connection with the events that are taking place today in Europe and in the world as a whole, every socially active citizen should have at least a minimal understanding of the language of politics.

Due to ignorance of this language, many citizens confuse similar-sounding concepts, for example, “legitimacy of power” and “legality of power.”

To avoid misunderstandings between government officials and ordinary citizens, you need to know exactly what both of these concepts mean, but also many other political terms.

According to the dictionary foreign words“legitimate” means “legal, in accordance with the law”; in jurisprudence, this term is understood as “being in accordance with the law in force in a given state.” If we talk about the political aspect of this concept, then we can say that “legitimate” is approved by the people.

Thus, the legitimacy of power means trust from the majority of the country’s population in one or another government structure, be it the Presidential Administration or any individual political party, in this moment in power.

This is the consent of the people so that this particular politician or party represents their interests not only nationally, but also international level. However, it is also a way in which the population recognizes state power the right to make decisions affecting the entire country and all the people inhabiting it.

Such approval is associated with the moral assessment of government officials, ideas about their nobility, honesty, justice, and decency. It is believed that legitimate power acts in the interests of the majority of the population and for its benefit.

It is for this purpose that during the election campaign various political parties they are trying to instill in the masses the idea that all their decisions after election will be aimed at improving the lives of the people.

Legitimacy makes it possible to ensure the obedience of the population without any coercive measures, otherwise it serves as the basis for justifying the need to use force. But more often than not, legitimate power is authoritative and effective without such extremes.

Types of legitimacy

In sociology, there are several types of legitimacy of power, identified by different scientists, but three main types were developed by the German sociologist Max Weber, these are:

traditional;
charismatic;
and rational - legal.

Traditional legitimacy

It is formed on the basis of people’s faith in the holiness and inviolability of power and the necessary inevitability of obeying it. In this case, power receives the status of tradition. This type was typical Russian Empire when power was passed from father to son.

The king or emperor was considered the anointed one of God and the “father” of the people, disobedience to whom was impossible for a simple peasant. If speak about modern world, then traditional legitimacy is observed in Japan.

According to official Japanese historiography, the power of the imperial dynasty has been passed on from father to son since the advent of Japanese statehood (2nd half of the 7th century AD). The emperor is deified and revered by the entire population of the country, without exception.

Second type of legitimacy

Charismatic is associated, first of all, with the personality of the political leader, with the population’s faith in his exceptional personal merits and authority. The charisma of a leader leaves an imprint on his entire political system; the population feels the desire to strictly obey him.

An example of charismatic legitimacy in our days is the beginning of the reign of V.V. Putin. The people’s trust in the President has also transferred to the party “ United Russia", the program of which is supported by the President himself.

Rational - legal legitimacy

It arises as a result of the population’s recognition of the justice of the actions and actions of those in power. The people understand the need to develop rules of general behavior (norms), adherence to which creates the opportunity to realize their own goals.

Thus, rational legitimacy has a legal basis and is characteristic of complexly organized societies. An example of this type of legitimacy can be observed in the United States, where there are only two parties: the Republican and the Democratic.

The leaders of these parties may change over time, so during elections the population pays primary attention to the programs that each party offers, and not to the figure who represents it.

Legitimacy and legality: the relationship between concepts

The concept of “legitimacy” is often confused with “legality”. Based on the political science dictionary, “legality” is the legal legitimacy of political power (parliament, government, head of state, etc.).

In other words, this is the compliance of the authorities with the legislation in force in the country. At the same time, the legal government may not receive the approval of the people (legitimacy), and may not listen to their opinions and judgments.

A similar situation is typical for modern Ukraine. During last elections The presidential part of Ukraine, namely the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, did not participate in the elections, which made the power of the new President illegitimate. However, at the same time, it was legal, since the elections took place according to the laws in force in the country.

Thus, a legitimate state has every right to demand from its citizens compliance with legal norms, since the rule of law comes first in it. Regardless of the attitude of citizens towards individuals in political structure, the people are obliged to obey the laws in force in a given state.

Thanks to the legitimacy of power in the state, a mechanism is provided for transferring from one generation of people to another the right to choose political regime which they agree with and approve of.

The quality of relationships between the authorities and the subordinates is expressed by the concepts legitimacy And legality.

Political legitimacy is public recognition of power and its right to govern. The legality of power is its normative and legal consolidation, legality in the relevant government documents. The first concept is more evaluative, ethical in nature, the second is legal.

Legitimacy and legality of power most often accompany each other during periods of stable functioning of society, when the institutions of the state and civil society work fruitfully, policy is carried out taking into account public opinion, the interests of groups are coordinated by reaching compromises.

During periods of deep social transformations affecting the interests of broad social strata, legitimacy and legality do not always go together. Formation of new public relations And social structure accompanied by a breakdown of the legislative system and disorganization of government institutions.

Legitimacy as a certain degree of compatibility between government and citizens, as a measure of trust in it, is a variable value. It largely depends on the presence or absence of real authority in power. Any changes in authority lead to a decrease or increase in legitimacy.

Legitimacy has its degrees and never reaches the point of unanimity among citizens in approving the regime. There is not a single country in the world where all citizens perceive the existing regime as absolutely legitimate. In any society there are opponents of the regime, protest subcultures, apolitical layers and the majority of citizens who are, to one degree or another, convinced of the legitimacy of the government.

The concept of legitimacy was introduced into political science by M. Weber. He proposed to distinguish between three “ideal types” of legitimacy and recognized mixed legitimacy.

The first type of legitimacy (according to M. Weber) - traditional legitimacy, which is based on faith in customs and traditions, is often sanctified by the authority of patriarchal foundations.

Second type - charismatic legitimacy. The word "charisma" translated from Greek language means "divine gift". This type of legitimacy is based on the popularity of a political figure, whose authority sanctifies the institutions of power and contributes to their recognition and acceptance by the population.

Third type of legitimacy -rational legitimacy. It is based on laws recognized by the people, within the framework of which government representatives are elected and act.

The first two types of legitimacy of political power - traditional and charismatic - are characteristic of states with undeveloped political system. In these states the level economic development not tall. The prosperity of some of them is due mainly to natural resources. Yes, United United Arab Emirates and Kuwait are rich in oil, the export of which helps ensure the well-being of part of society. Rational legitimacy typical for states with a highly developed political system and an efficient economy.

Traditional and rational types of legitimacy are relatively long-lasting. The inheritance of power by monarchs can continue for centuries. It is possible to predict the duration of rationally legitimate power based on laws and common sense. It is inherent in states with democratic regimes, high level political and economic stability.

The charismatic legitimacy of political power does not provide grounds for predicting the duration of its existence.

Firstly, power based on moods and emotional reactions, that is, on irrational complexes, by its very nature cannot be stable.

Secondly, after the death or removal from power of a charismatic leader, a lot changes.

Thirdly, this type of legitimacy is associated with periods of deep social change-revolutions and large-scale social reforms. During such periods, mobilization is necessary large masses people, overcoming social inertia. To break down outdated social orders, people who do not have a high political culture and blindly believe in leaders are needed.

Finally, fourthly, the relative short duration of charismatic power is also determined by the means of domination that it uses. The leader’s desire for sole power is accompanied by suppression democratic forms development of society, searching for opponents and often repressing dissidents. Sooner or later, the people realize the limitations of charismatic legitimacy, which leads to the exhaustion of the EU's possibilities.

The government manages society on the basis of laws with the help of its bureaucracy. In developed by M. Weber classical theory bureaucracy formulated the basic requirements for bureaucracy, which are still relevant today.

According to M. Weber, an official must:

1) be separated from ownership of management tools and positions, obey only official duty";
2) act within the framework of a stable service hierarchy;
3) have a clearly defined sphere of competence and authority;
4) work under a contract (based on free choice);
5) work in accordance with special qualifications;
6) be rewarded with constant cash salaries;
7) consider your service as your only or main profession;
8) envision your career;
9) be guided by the principle of impersonality, that is, a system of rules, recommendations and instructions, and maintain complete impartiality;
10) submit to a single service discipline and be controlled by the service hierarchy.

M. Weber called the bureaucracy that meets the listed parameters “rational,” in contrast to the “irrational” bureaucracy of traditional societies. To avoid the transformation of the bureaucracy into a closed caste, standing above society and incapable of innovation, he proposed regular rotation of managers and ensuring control over them by political institutions.

The legitimacy of power is not limited to these three classical types. There are other types of legitimacy, in particular ideological and nationalist.

The essence ideological legitimacy consists in justifying power with the help of ideology. Thus, the legitimacy of the power of the CPSU, which, according to Marxism, was predominantly ideological in nature; played a leading role in building communism. In the second half of the 20th century. leaders of liberated countries, in attempts to gain popular support, often appealed to nationalism. This type of legitimation is used to a greater or lesser extent by the elites of developed countries.

IN modern conditions a clear classification of the legitimacy of many regimes is difficult to implement, since the authorities are all in to a greater extent based on multi-element, mixed legitimacy. For example, democracy in Western countries is based not only on constitutions, but also largely on traditions. Even traditional regimes are characterized by a certain rational-legal legitimacy, since they comply with certain norms and rules of the game.

In the so-called third world, mainly in Africa, there are many countries where there is neither recognition nor non-recognition of the powers that be. Poverty is perceived by the population as the will of the gods, and tyrannical forms of government - as inevitability, fate. In relation to such regimes, the problem of legitimacy is completely meaningless.

The concept of legitimacy has three dimensions:

1) popular legitimacy or recognition by society of the competence of the ruling elite; it can be based on traditions, ideology, constitution, elections;
2) "external" legitimacy, or recognition of the regime and its ruling groups by other states, international organizations and influential circles that shape public opinion;
3) "legitimacy for oneself" that is, the range of ideas with which rulers justify their power and actions to maintain it.

An important place in the functioning of power is occupied by the problems of its delegitimation, that is, loss of trust in power and deprivation of public support. The legitimacy of power is weakened due to its ineffectiveness, inability to protect society from crime, corruption, commitment to forceful methods of resolving contradictions, pressure on funds mass media, bureaucratization and other factors.

Another characteristic of political power - legality - presupposes the ability of power to act within the framework of the norms established by it. The government's refusal to abandon these norms disrupts the orderliness of socio-political relations and predetermines its ineffectiveness. Such power can become simply dangerous for society.

Along with legal, state power, it is possible various shapes illegal power of criminal clans. If legal power rests on written, known to all mandatory standards, then the illegal one is guided by rules of behavior known to a narrow circle of people. Illegal power is distinguished by the severity of sanctions. If legal power stabilizes society, illegal power destroys it.

Political power in society is distributed unevenly. Most citizens do not directly and systematically participate in politics and government. Even in a democracy based on the recognition of the people as the source of power, its real bearers are the political elites and leaders.