Legitimacy of power and its typology. means of legitimizing power

The legitimacy of state power is a circumstance to which great importance is attached. Practice shows that the support of the authorities by the society and the 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 in every possible way seeks to maintain and stimulate the trust of the people. The objects of legitimation are usually the state itself and its bodies, the social system, the political regime, the ongoing political and economic programs, etc. For this, various means are used. Various documents are published: decrees, resolutions, legislative acts. Informal effective methods and means are used. These can be political movements in support of the authorities, non-governmental organizations pursuing the same goal.

The policy of legitimation of this power is formed in accordance with the real meaning of ideological and structural legitimacy, the role of the personality of political leaders. Researchers identify several ways (sources) of legitimation of power.

The first and most reliable way is the participation of citizens in governance, which creates a sense of people's involvement in the policy pursued by the authorities, allows people to feel themselves, to a certain extent, 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 are reduced to the scientific and technical support of 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 during reforms or when a country emerges from a crisis weakens the legitimacy of power and can lead to the collapse of the political system. The legitimacy of the political power of Germany, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore has increased largely due to economic achievements.

It is safe to say that the legitimacy of power in Russia is largely determined by how successfully it overcomes the economic crisis and ensures the development of the economy.

The third way of legitimation is force. All regimes are based on coercion, but the forms, extent of its distribution and use are different. It manifests itself in the restriction of the rights and freedoms of the individual, primarily the right to receive complete and objective information, speeches, associations, manifestations. The lower the level of legitimation, the stronger the coercion. Strength is the last argument of power, with the help of which it tries to increase the level of its legitimacy, but it is doubtful that power could hold out for a long time relying solely on strength. The use of force can not only increase the level of legitimacy, but also hasten the scorching of the regime. Force is an unreliable source of legitimation of power.

Power has the ability to increase legitimacy by influencing the consciousness and behavior of social groups, forming a certain public opinion. So the US authorities, before landing troops in Haiti, for a long time formed public opinion in the country, showing the dictatorial essence of the regime that existed there. The Russian authorities have not adequately prepared the country's public opinion for the use of military force to resolve the Chechen crisis. It was "oriented" to the use of "one regiment within two hours" to eliminate armed gangs. The Chechen war had a negative impact on the legitimacy of power, the level of which was low even before the war. According to a public opinion poll conducted at the end of 1994 by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 53.5% trusted the president of the country completely or with some reservations, 42.7% did not trust the Federation Council - 47.4% and 33.5%, the government - 62 .2% and 30.2%, the State Duma - 54.5% and 28.4%.

Among other ways that are of great importance for ensuring the legitimacy of power, one can single out the promotion of the values on which the current policy is 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 their activities and their results. The policy of restricting information comes down to the private blocking of 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. Immediate results - prevention or reduction of reasons for unrest among the masses, doubts, opposition, alternatives. An indirect result is the habit of the masses of only one government information.

An example of the effective use of limited information is Stalinist propaganda. The Stalinist regime did not rest only on fear. The monopoly on information was actively used. The habit of a one-sided and tendentious political vision of all domestic and international processes led to the fact that a change of generations was required for the spiritual emancipation of society.

In the process of legitimation, the qualities of the political elite play an important role. History teaches that the strength of power, the effectiveness of the policy being pursued depend on the intellectual potential and energy of the elite, on its ability to take advantage of all favorable factors for itself, on the ability to neutralize unfavorable ones. Legitimacy does not stand still. Only the constant reproduction of legitimacy makes power strong and reliable.

Recent events in Russia provide an example of the legitimation of political power: after the events of October 1993, the creation of a new system of power was accompanied by the adoption of a new Constitution, a referendum, and elections to the Federal Assembly. With the help of these means, the new government carried out the process of its legitimation, i.e. gaining the support and trust of the people.

An important role in ensuring the legitimacy of power is played by the personality of a statesman as a 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.

Such means as various kinds of rituals, symbols, and the use of traditions are essential for strengthening the confidence in the authorities on the part of the people. As an example of adherence to traditions and rituals, the English political system can be cited. In modern Russia, the oath of statesmen on the Constitution has become traditional.

An important place in the functioning of state power is occupied by the problems of delegitimization, the aggravation of which can cause a crisis and even the collapse of the political regime. In this regard, there is a need to identify the causes of delegitimation. One of the main reasons is the contradiction between the universal values that dominate society and the particular and even selfish interests of the ruling elite and social groups associated with it. The deepening of this contradiction leads to the fact that the government closes in on itself, losing the support of the population. This circumstance is at the same time a symptom of the developing crisis of power.

Another reason for the delegitimation of power, which is characteristic of democratic regimes, is the contradiction between the idea of democracy and socio-political practice. It manifests itself in an attempt by the authorities to solve emerging problems only by force, pressure on the media, restriction or non-observance of basic human rights. The chaotic manifestations of this contradiction indicate its presence in Russia, and the strengthening of these tendencies will lead to the replacement of a democratic regime by an authoritarian one. A favorable background for this is always the depoliticization and apathy of the population.

The third reason for the delegitimization of power is the lack of articulation of the interests of social groups in the political system; lack of sufficient vertical mobility, combined with social inequality, massive impoverishment of the population, etc. undermines the legitimacy of power. When intellectuals question the existing regime, its legitimacy falls. The radicalization of moods in society leads to the emergence of opposition, which puts forward an alternative vision of the social order. Obviously, this source of delegitimization of power exists in Russia.

The fourth reason for the delegitimization of power is the growing bureaucratization and corruption. The bureaucracy, for example, in the reformist senate of Russia found a way to enter into new relationships and structures through a kind of participation in the process of privatization and the creation of a market infrastructure. Due to an undeveloped civil society and insufficiently effective elective power “from top to bottom”, control “from below” is practically absent, and control “from above” is extremely weakened, which created unprecedented freedom for the bureaucracy. Corruption flourished, and above all its form of bribery. The possibility of converting power into wealth opened up. Pervasive corruption is a symptom not only of the delegitimization of power, but also of its crisis. The last stronghold of the regime that resists corruption is the court. If it affects him too, then the crisis and the fall of the regime can be considered a foregone conclusion. It should be noted, however, that scandals related to corruption are not necessarily an indicator of delegitimization, in some cases they can serve as evidence of the democratic and legitimate functioning of the political system, especially if an official (minister, head of state) who is noticed in corruption is forced to resign .

Among the reasons for the delegitimization of power in multinational states is nationalism, ethnic separatism, which rejects the legitimacy of federal power (this happened in Chechnya) or proclaims the supremacy of republican constitutions over federal law (this took place in Bashkortostan, Komi, Dagestan). The strengthening of nationalism and ethnic separatism weakens the legitimacy of the federal government, but also calls into question the state integrity of the country.

And, finally, the source of delegitimization of power can be the loss by the ruling elite itself of faith in the legitimacy of its power, the emergence of sharp contradictions within it, the clash of various branches of power.

These are the most important problems of the legitimacy of power, which in modern conditions is becoming extremely important.

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.

COURSE WORK

on the course "State Law"

on the topic: "Legitimation of state power: concept, content, methods"

Introduction
1. The concept of legitimation of state power
2. Types and methods of legitimation of state power
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Many turning points in recent years in Russia (the confrontation between the legislative and executive authorities, the agreement on public consent in 1994, the ambiguous attitude towards the Chechen war of 1994-1995, etc.) sharply raise in society the question of state power, its legality and legitimacy, those. its legal validity, on the one hand, and justice, recognition, support by its population, on the other. The severity of the problem is exacerbated by the conditions for the formation of nomenklatura-mafia capitalism in some areas, the lack of division in some cases of commercial, administrative, and even criminal structures, opposition from the local nomenklatura, the federal government, the frequent incompetence of the latter, the authoritarian features of the federal constitution, and some others, including including personal factors. There is also a theoretical ambiguity: in the works of lawyers, political scientists, politicians, the terms "legalization" and "legitimation" are often used in the wrong sense.
The relevance of the topic of this work is due to the theoretical and practical significance of issues related to the search for ways to improve the efficiency of state power in modern Russia, restore public confidence in it. In the context of complex and ambiguously assessed reform processes, accompanied by an aggravation of social contradictions, a private, at first glance, the question of the degree of "acceptance" of the government itself, its prescriptions and institutions by the population, becomes one of the determining factors of public consent, the main, strategic resource of power, in which largely determines the success of the implementation of large-scale political and economic reforms.
With regret, we have to state that the activities of officials of the state apparatus of modern Russia in the public mind are increasingly associated with incompetence, bureaucracy, corruption and administrative arbitrariness; electoral procedures as the legal basis for the most democratic way of revealing the will of the people in the sphere of the formation of state power are increasingly being replaced by "dirty" electoral technologies; officials who have discredited themselves in their previous jobs are often appointed to high government positions; there are no clear, transparent for public control, legal procedures for dismissal of heads of federal and regional authorities who improperly perform their official duties. All this leads to the diffusion of the mutual understanding that should exist between the government and society, casts doubt on the legitimacy of power structures and personified holders of power, giving rise to social tension and numerous conflicts in the formation and functioning of public political power.
The legal conflict in the field of legitimation of state power is both an action and a counteraction, capable of performing both constructive and destructive functions. In the first case, the conflict acts as a kind of “catalyst”, accelerating social progress, bringing to power those political forces that enjoy the support and trust of the general population, in the second case, it carries destructive tendencies that have a negative impact on the integrity and stability of the social system.
1. conceptlegitimationstate power
The term "legalization" comes from the Latin word "legalis", which means legal. References to legalization as the basis of power and proper behavior already in the 4th-3rd centuries. BC. were used by the Chinese legalist school in a dispute with the Confucians, who demanded such behavior that would correspond to universal harmony. Elements of a kind of legalization were present in the confrontation between the secular and spiritual authorities in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, it was referred to in modern times by supporters of the "legitimate monarchy" of the Bourbons, speaking out against the "usurper" Napoleon Theory of State and Law: A Course of Lectures / Ed. N.I. Matuzova and A.V. Malko. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Jurist. 2001. p.451.
In modern conditions, the legalization of state power as a legal concept means the establishment, recognition, support of this power by law, primarily by the constitution, the reliance of power on the law. However, firstly, constitutions and laws can be adopted, changed, repealed in various ways. Military and revolutionary councils created as a result of military coups in many countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America decreed the abolition (often suspension) of constitutions and often, without any special procedures, proclaimed new provisional constitutions.
In fact, in Iraq, such a provisional constitution has been in force since 1970 to the present, in the UAE, the provisional constitution adopted by the emirs has been since 1971. In some countries, constitutions have been replaced by institutional acts (Brazil), proclamations (Ethiopia). Monarchs single-handedly “granted” constitutions to “their faithful people” (Nepal, Saudi Arabia, etc.) Grafsky V. G. General History of Law and State: A Textbook for High Schools. - M.: Norma, 2005. S.532. In Russia in 1993 the operation of the Constitution of 1978 (as amended) was suspended by presidential decree. Secondly, sometimes constitutions and laws adopted in accordance with established procedures, in their content, legalized an openly dictatorial, anti-people power, a totalitarian system. Such were the constitutional acts of fascist Germany, the racist legislation of South Africa (before the adoption of an interim constitution in 1994), the “party-states” of Guinea, or the constitution of African Zaire (there were several), proclaiming that there was a single political institution in the country - the ruling party - movement, and the legislative, executive, courts are the organs of this party. The constitutions of Russia and the USSR, adopted during the Soviet period and proclaiming that power belonged to the working people, actually legalized the totalitarian and even terrorist regime at times.
Of course, under the conditions of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, constitutions can be adopted by outwardly democratic means (by the Constituent Assembly, the Supreme Soviet in the USSR in 1977, a referendum in Cuba in 1976), they can contain democratic provisions, the rights of citizens (in the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 a wide list of socio-economic rights has been entrenched), etc. But these moments need to be assessed only in conjunction with reality.
Thus, the very elections of the parliament that adopts the constitution are not free under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, and phrases about democracy serve as a cover for the real situation. Thus, if the democratic procedures for adopting a constitution, other acts of constitutional significance are violated, if such procedures do not correspond to the ability of the people to exercise constituent power when adopting a fundamental law, if laws contradict the human values of mankind, a formal (legal) law does not correspond to law. The legalization of state power under such conditions will be illusory; false legalization.
More difficult is the concept of legitimation of state power. "Legitimus" also means legal, legitimized, but this concept is not legal, but factual, although legal elements may be its integral part. In essence, the Confucians proceeded from this in a dispute with the legalists mentioned, it was meant by supporters of both secular and spiritual authorities, interpreting the “will of God” in different ways. The modern meaning of this concept is associated with the studies of political scientists, primarily the German scientist Max Weber (1864-1920).

The current interpretation of the concept of legitimacy of state power was formed under the influence of the theoretical constructions of M. Weber and, in particular, one of his fundamental theses: “... the state is that human society that within a certain area (...) claims (with success) to a monopoly of legitimate physical violence.” Weber M. Politics as a calling and a profession. // Selected works. M. 1990. P. 645. At the same time, the authors of the second half of the 20th century, writing on the topic of political sociology, express two opposite views on the possibility of using the concept of legitimacy in characterizing societies of the distant past. So the authors of the "Pengan" "Sociological Dictionary" argue that "within the framework of classical civilizations, there was no significant difference between" legality "and" legitimacy ": legitimate power was legitimate." Abercombie N., Steven H., Brian S. T. Sociological Dictionary. Kazan 1997. S. 152. This means that before the formation of a representative democracy, the problem of legitimizing state power cannot be considered independent.

The opposite point of view involves the allocation of special types of legitimacy and, accordingly, special forms of legitimation of power for different stages of the history of the state, starting from the most ancient times. M. Weber himself identified three stages in the development of the legitimacy of power in a pre-bourgeois society: gerontocratic, patriarchal and patrimonal. Weber M. Politics as a calling and a profession. // Selected works. M. 1990. S. 646. Jürgen Habermas and the sociologists of his circle specifically stipulated that in medieval states the legitimacy of royal power could not be based only on dynastic rules or title. It had to be constantly confirmed by the effective performance of the "functions of management and court." American historian Nancy Kollmann, highlighting two stages of legitimation of state power in the history of Muscovite Rus': "charismatic" and "traditional" Fetisov AS Political power: problems of legitimacy. //Social and political journal. 1995. N 3. S. 104. . In this latter case, the "Weberian" division into "types" of legitimation of power is used: traditional, charismatic and rational, and the transfer of certain types to different time periods.

Of interest to the researcher is not only the type of legitimacy, but also those forms that are used to legitimize power at a particular stage of historical development. The whole set of features of legitimate power in a given society could be designated as a potestary image of power, in which two parts are clearly distinguished. The first part is a way of gaining power. The moment of transfer of power from one hand to another actualizes the concept of "legitimacy" to the utmost and, thereby, allows us to determine those historical and national forms that are characteristic of a given time and a given state. The characteristics of this part of the potestar image can be considered Theory of State and Law: A Course of Lectures / Ed. N.I. Matuzova and A.V. Malko. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Jurist. 2001. p.457:

· political and cultural stereotypes that have developed in a given society, to which the contender for power appeals;

· ideological and political theories substantiating the rights of a contender for power;

public and state institutions involved in the transfer of power;

Rites and ceremonies used in the transition of power;

Rites and ceremonies by which the consent of the people to the transfer of power is expressed.

The second part of the potestar image reflects the ever-present need to legitimize the decisions that the authorities make in the process of public administration. Accordingly, it describes a way of legitimate action, recognized by the people not only as a lawful action, but also as a correct action. For this part of the potestar image of power, V.E. Chirkin can be considered the most significant features. Legalization and legitimation of state power // State and Law. 1995. No. 8. S. 64:

The appearance of power carriers;

Ceremonial behavior corresponding to the current idea of the organization of power;

· everyday behavior corresponding to the ethical norms recognized in the given society;

the way in which government decisions are made;

the way in which decisions are made;

a way to communicate the decisions made to the population;

· the possibility of correcting the decisions taken, depending on the positive or negative perception of it by the population.

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

Illegitimate power relies on violence, other forms of coercion, including mental influence, but legitimation cannot be imposed on people from the outside, for example, by force of arms or the imposition of a “good” constitution by a monarch on his people. It is created by people's devotion to a certain social system (sometimes a certain personality), which expresses the immutable values of being. At the basis of this kind of devotion lies 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 associated with the interests of people, various segments of the population.

And since the interests and needs of various groups, due to limited resources and other circumstances, can only be partially satisfied, or only the needs of some groups are fully satisfied, the legitimation of state power in society, with rare exceptions, cannot have a comprehensive, universal character: what is legitimate for some, appears as not legitimate for others. The total “expropriation of expropriators” is a phenomenon that does not have legality, because modern constitutions provide for the possibility of nationalizing only certain objects only on the basis of the law and with mandatory compensation, the amount of which in disputed cases is established by the court, and is extremely illegitimate not only from the point of view of the owners of the means of production , but also other segments of the population Chirkin V.E. Legalization and legitimation of state power // State and Law. 1995. No. 8. S. 67.

In the views of the lumpen proletariat, general expropriation has the highest degree of legitimacy. Many other examples can be cited of the different interests of various sections of the population and their unequal, often opposite attitude towards the activities of state power and towards power itself. Therefore, its legitimation is not associated with the approval of the whole society (this is an extremely rare option), but with the acceptance of it by the majority of the population while respecting and protecting the rights of the minority. It is this, and not the dictatorship of the class, that makes state power legitimate - the legitimation of state power gives it the necessary authority in society. The majority of the population voluntarily and consciously submits to it, to the legitimate demands of its bodies and representatives, which gives it stability, stability, and the necessary degree of freedom in the implementation of state policy. The higher the level of legitimation of state power, the wider the possibilities of managing society with minimal "power" costs and the cost of "administrative energy", with greater freedom for self-regulation of social processes. At the same time, the legitimate authorities have the right and obligation, in the interests of society, to apply coercive measures provided for by law, if other ways to stop anti-social actions do not work.

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

The legitimation of state power is assessed not by the words of its representatives (although this matters), not by the texts of the programs and laws adopted by it (although this is important), but by practical activities, by the ways in which it solves the fundamental issues of society and each individual. The population sees a difference between slogans about reforms and democracy, on the one hand, and authoritarian methods of making decisions that are important for the fate of the country and the people, on the other.

Hence, as evidenced by systematic surveys of the population, the erosion of the legitimacy of state power in Russia at the end of the 20th century also resulted. (legitimacy was high after August 1991) while maintaining its legalization: all the highest bodies of the state were created under the Constitution of 1993 and act in principle in accordance with it, but according to polls organized at the end of March 1995 on the instructions of the NTV channel, 6% of the respondents trusted the President of Russia, 78% did not trust him. Of course, survey data does not always give the right picture, but these data cannot be underestimated Avrutina L.G. Legitimation of political power in Russia: analysis, problems, priorities. Diss... cand. politics, sciences. - M., 2001. S. 45. .

It has already been said above that the legitimization of state power may include and, as a rule, includes its legalization. But legitimation is in conflict with formal legalization, if legal laws do not correspond to the norms of justice, general democratic values, attitudes that have developed among the majority of the country's population. In this case, legitimation is either absent (for example, the population has a negative attitude towards the totalitarian order established by the authorities), or in the course of revolutionary events, national liberation movements, legitimation of a different, anti-state, insurgent, pre-state power that has developed in the liberated areas occurs, which then becomes state power. . This is how events unfolded in China, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, and Mozambique. Guinea-Bissau and some other countries Grafsky VG General History of Law and State: A Textbook for High Schools. - M.: Norma, 2005. S.479.

Like the false legalization noted above, false legitimation is also possible when, under the influence of propaganda, incitement of nationalist sentiments, the use of personal charisma and other methods (including the prohibition of the opposition and the free press, as a result of which the population does not have proper information), a significant part, or even the majority of the population supports state power that satisfies some of its current interests to the detriment of its root aspirations.

The problems of verification of legalization and legitimation (including false ones) are very complex. In the scientific literature, including foreign ones, they are not sufficiently developed. Legitimation is usually associated with the legal analysis of the preparation and adoption of the constitution, with the study of the decisions of constitutional courts and other bodies of constitutional control, the analysis of the data of elections and referendums ... Less attention is paid to the content of constitutional acts, the nature of the activities of state power, the comparison of the programs of political parties and that policy, carried out by those in power. Very rare is the scientific analysis of programs in comparison with the actions of various high officials.

It is even more difficult to identify indicators of legitimation. In this case, the results of elections and referendums are also used, but in the first case, falsifications are not uncommon, and the latter do not always reflect the true mood of the people, since these results are due to transient factors. In many developing countries with a one-party system (Ghana, Burma, Algeria, etc.), the ruling party received an overwhelming majority of votes in parliamentary and presidential elections, but the same population remained completely indifferent to the military coups that overthrew this power Grafsky V. G. General History law and state: Textbook for universities. - M.: Norma, 2005. S.480. At the 1991 referendum on the issue of preserving the USSR, the majority of voters gave an affirmative answer, but a few months later the USSR collapsed with the indifference of a significant part of the same voters. Thus, formal assessments used in legalization require a deep and comprehensive analysis in determining the legitimacy of state power.

2. Types and frombenefits lay downitimstate owAsti

As already noted, the legalization of state power is associated with legal procedures that are very diverse. Here, the role of the constitution as a form of legalization of state power will be considered, because the democratic way of preparing and adopting a constitution, its humanistic content, the compliance of the activities of state bodies with its norms are considered as the main evidence of the procedure for legalizing state power. Although the adoption of a constitution in itself indicates, as a rule, a certain stability of state power, the methods of preparing and adopting a basic law do not always correspond to the requirements of genuine legalization.

Preparation of the draft constitution is carried out in different ways. In rare cases, the project is created by the Constituent Assembly itself, specially elected to adopt the constitution (Italy when preparing the Constitution of 1947, India when drafting the Constitution of 1950) or parliament (Constitution of Sri Lanka 1978).

In all these cases, the leading role is played by a special (constitutional) committee formed by a representative body. In Russia, an important role in the development of the draft Constitution of 1993 was played by the Constitutional Conference, which consisted of representatives of federal state bodies appointed by decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, functionaries of political parties, entrepreneurs, subjects of the federation, etc. Czechoslovakia, etc.) "round tables", "civil assemblies" of representatives of state bodies, various parties, trade unions and social movements took part in the development of new principles of the constitution or changes to previous constitutions (new edition). Theory of State and Law: Course lectures / Ed. N.I. Matuzova and A.V. Malko. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Jurist. 2001. p.451.

In most countries, the draft of a new constitution is developed by a constitutional commission created by a representative body, the president, the government, the draft Constitution of France of 1958 (in addition to this text, the French Constitution includes two more documents - the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789, and the preamble of the Constitution of 1946) was prepared by a constitutional commission ... appointed by the government, and submitted to a referendum, bypassing parliament. In the FRG, the draft of the current Constitution of 1949 was prepared by the parliamentary council, which consisted of representatives of the regional parliaments (Landtags of the Lands), and approved by the command of the western occupation forces. In Algeria, the draft Constitution of 1989, submitted to a referendum, was prepared by a group of presidential advisers. After military coups, the draft of a permanent constitution is often developed by commissions appointed by the government, then it is discussed in the Constituent Assembly, partly elected and partly appointed by the military (Turkey in 1982, Nigeria in 1989, etc.).

When independence was granted to former colonial countries, draft constitutions were prepared by the Ministry of Colonies (Nigeria in 1964) by local authorities with the participation of advisers from the metropolis (Madagascar in 1960), at meetings of "round tables" attended by representatives of parties or national liberation movements, and led meetings of high-ranking officials of the metropolis (Zimbabwe in 1979).

In the countries of totalitarian socialism, a different procedure for preparing the project was used. It was developed at the initiative of the Central Committee (Politburo) of the Communist Party. The same body created a constitutional commission, which was usually approved by parliament, established the basic principles of the future constitution, approved the draft and submitted it for adoption by parliament or to a referendum. In the socialist countries, as well as in the so-called countries of socialist orientation (South Yemen, Ethiopia, etc.), the draft before its adoption was submitted for public discussion. Usually there were many meetings, the discussion was covered in the media. The practical results of such discussions were, as a rule, very insignificant, since the principles of the constitution were predetermined by the ruling party. But in some countries (the USSR, Cuba, Benin, Ethiopia, etc.), as a result of discussion by the people, substantial, and in some cases very important, amendments were made to the draft.

From the point of view of the legalization of state power, the stage of discussion is not essential (for legalization, it is important that the constitution be adopted by a legally authorized body), but from the point of view of legitimation, a nationwide discussion of the project can be of great importance. This process introduces into the consciousness of the population participation in the preparation of the basic law, the conviction that the order established by the constitution reflects its will.

To the greatest extent, the issue of legalizing state power is not connected with the preparation of the project, but with the procedures for adopting the constitution and its content. One of the most democratic ways is the adoption of a constitution by a Constituent Assembly specially elected for this purpose. The first meeting of this kind was the Philadelphia Congress of the United States, which adopted the Constitution of 1787, which is still in force. Peru 1993 and others. However, the Constituent Assembly is not always, as noted, formed through elections, and sometimes consists of partially appointed members. In addition, the Constituent Assembly often plays the role of an advisory body, since the adoption of the constitution by it was approved by the military authorities, who sometimes made amendments to the text (Ghana, Nigeria, Turkey, etc.). All this reduces the degree of legalization of state power, its bodies created in accordance with such a constitution.

The legalization of state power can be carried out by constitutions adopted by ordinary parliaments elected for current legislative work. This is how the Constitution of the USSR was adopted in 1977, the Netherlands in 1983, Papua New Guinea in 1975. However, for the purposes of adopting a constitution, some of these parliaments declare themselves Constituent Assemblies (for example, in Tanzania in 1977), and then continue to work as usual parliaments. Such a transformation is designed to increase the degree of legalization of state power,

Increasingly, constitutions in modern conditions are adopted by referendum. Theoretically, direct voting provides the greatest legalization of state power. Thus, the Constitutions of France in 1958, Egypt in 1971, Cuba in 1976, the Philippines in 1967, and Russia in 1993 were adopted. In practice, however, a referendum can be used in different ways. Without a preliminary discussion of the draft in parliament, it can be difficult for the population to understand such a complex document as the constitution. It is not uncommon to use a referendum or to adopt reactionary constitutions (for example, in Greece in 1978 under the regime of "black colonels"). Sometimes the constitutions of totalitarian regimes (Burma in 1974, Ethiopia in 1987, etc.) after a referendum were approved (or confirmed) by parliaments elected on the basis of these constitutions. Formally, such a double process of legalization reliably legitimized state power, but in its content it did not correspond to democratic principles.

Some ways of adopting constitutions do not even formally entail the legalization of state power. Such are the constitutional acts of the military regimes, the constitutions approved by the military governments in Turkey, Nigeria and other countries, the constitutions adopted by the congresses and other highest bodies of the ruling parties in the 70s and the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, the constitutions imposed by the monarch or the mother country.

The legalization of state power is inextricably linked with the content of constitutions. Reactionary constitutions, adopted even with the observance of the necessary procedures, can in fact create only false legalization. This is explained not only by the fact that the adoption of such constitutions is sometimes carried out in an atmosphere of deceit and violence, but also by the fact that certain forces manage to include in the constitution provisions that contradict the general democratic principles developed by mankind and enshrined in fundamental international legal acts (UN Charter 1945 Covenants on Human Rights 1966, etc.). The constitutions of many countries recognize that such principles take precedence over the internal law of the country. Constitutional provisions that violate human rights (for example, in South Africa before 1994), proclaim the only permissible ideology (for example, moboutism under the Zaire Constitution of 1980), contrary to the sovereignty of the people (the provisions of the Algerian Constitution of 1976 on the political power of the only allowed party - National Liberation Front), etc., exclude the true legalization of state power, as they contradict generally accepted international norms and principles. They are at the same time illegitimate, because they contradict the democratic consciousness of the peoples.

There is no clear distinction and contradiction between the legalization and legitimation of state power: legal acts and procedures can be an integral part of legitimation, and the latter creates the necessary prerequisites for a strong legalization of state power. At the same time, legitimation plays an important role in society, because any state power cannot rely only on the laws it proclaims or only on violence. To be sustainable, strong, stable, it must seek the support of society, certain groups, the media, and even certain influential personalities. In modern conditions, representatives of an authoritarian and totalitarian government often arrange meetings and conferences with prominent representatives of the intelligentsia, organize visits to various regions of the country, meetings with employees of enterprises, etc. for influential journalists. The purpose of these events is to find support, primarily through actions, but also through moods and feelings.

Since the time of M. Weber, it has been customary to distinguish three “pure” types of legitimation of power, which can also be applied to the legitimation of state power. This is traditional, charismatic and rational legitimation.

Traditional legitimation is domination based on traditional authority, rooted in respect for customs, belief in their continuity, in the fact that power “expresses the spirit of the people”, corresponds to the customs and traditions accepted in society as stereotypes of consciousness and behavior. Traditions are of great importance for strengthening the power of the monarch in the Muslim countries of the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc., in Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei). They determine the issues of succession to the throne, the structure of state bodies. In those Muslim countries where there are parliaments, they are sometimes established in accordance with the tradition of ash-shura (conferences under the monarch) as consultative parliaments. Traditions determine decision-making in the Indonesian Parliament mainly by consensus. Together with religious dogmas, traditions largely regulate public life in a number of developing countries Chirkin V.E. Legalization and legitimation of state power // State and Law. 1995. No. 8. S. 66. .

Traditions are important for the legitimation of state power in countries where the system of Anglo-Saxon law operates. Judicial precedent is one expression of the power of tradition. The British monarch is traditionally the head of the Anglican Church (an integral part of his title is Defender of the Faith). A similar situation occurs in some other European countries, where one of the churches is declared state (for example, Lutheranism in Denmark).

Charismatic legitimation is domination based on faith in the personal gifts of the leader (less often in a narrow ruling group), in the exclusive mission of the leader. Charismatic legitimation is not associated with rational judgments, but relies on a range of feelings; it is legitimation that is sensory in nature. Charisma is usually individual. She will create a special image. In the past, this was a belief in a "good king" who could save the people from oppression by the boyars and landlords. In modern conditions, charismatic power is much less common than in the past, but it is common in the countries of totalitarian socialism, being associated with a certain ideology (Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, etc.). In relatively liberal India, occupation is associated with charisma. the most important state post of prime minister by representatives of the Gandhi family - Nehru (father, then daughter, and after her murder - son). The same generation was and is in power in Sri Lanka (Banderanaix's father, then his wife, now the president is their daughter, and his mother is the prime minister).

To strengthen charisma, special rituals are widely used: torchlight processions of demonstrations in support of power in a special uniform, the coronation of a monarch. Rational legitimation of state power is based on a rational assessment associated with the formation of a conviction in the reasonableness of the existing order, laws, rules adopted in a democratic society to manage it. This type of legitimation is one of the main ones in modern conditions of a democratic legal state.

Rational legitimation assumes that the population supports (or rejects) state power, based primarily on their own assessment of the actions of this power. Not slogans and promises (they have a relatively short-term effect), not the image of a wise ruler, often not even fair laws (many good laws are not enforced in modern Russia), but, above all, the practical activities of state authorities, officials, especially senior ones, serve as the basis rational evaluation.

In practice, only one of these forms of legitimation is rarely used; usually they are used in combination. Hitlerism used the traditional reverence of the Germans for the law, the charisma of the leader, instilled in the population the belief in the correctness of the "thousand-year Reich." In democratic Great Britain, the main thing is the method of rational legitimation, but, for example, the activities of Prime Ministers W. Churchill and M. Thatcher had elements of charisma, and traditions play an important role in the activities of parliament and the cabinet. The role of de Gaulle in France was to a large extent connected with his charisma as the leader of the Resistance in the fight against the fascist invaders, the power of V.I. Lenin and, to an even greater extent, I.V. Stalin in Russia was consecrated by ideological factors, etc.

Unlike charisma, which can be acquired rather quickly, stable rational legitimation requires a certain period of time. However, there are a number of ways to acquire initial rational legitimation, the procedure of which is not so long and depends on certain events. First of all, these are the elections of the highest bodies of the state. Direct elections are of the greatest importance, when this or that body of the state, the highest official receives a mandate directly as a result of the vote of the electorate. In China, however, the parliament (National People's Congress) is elected by multistage elections, the presidents of many countries are elected by parliaments (Turkey, Israel, etc.), electors (USA) or special electoral colleges (Germany, India) History of State and Law: A Course of Lectures / ed. D.O.Guseva. - Novosibirsk, 2000. P.254.

The upper houses of parliaments are also often elected indirectly (France) and sometimes appointed (Canada). This, of course, does not call into question the legitimation of these bodies, we are talking only about the forms of legitimation established by the constitutions, especially since in direct elections, especially with a majoritarian system of a relative majority, distortions of the will of voters are possible. In India, the Indian National Congress Party has been in power for several decades, with a majority in parliament, but they have never received a majority of the popular vote in the country. The same facts took place in Great Britain: the party that received fewer votes in the country had more mandates in Parliament. In Hungary in 1994, in the parliamentary elections, the Hungarian Socialist Party received 33% of the vote, but 54% of the seats in parliament. History of State and Law: A Course of Lectures / ed. D.O.Guseva. - Novosibirsk, 2000. P.456.

The vote of voters in a referendum according to the proposed formula can be of great importance for the legitimization of state Power, and the referendum is decisive or consultative, but in any case, if the voters approve the constitution or support government measures, the referendum legitimizes power. The strength of a referendum is also in the fact that usually the decision is recognized as having taken place with the participation of at least 50% of the voters and with a positive response of at least 50% of the votes (according to the Constitution of South Africa in 1984, 2/3 of the votes are required), while elections in a number of countries are recognized as having taken place with turnout of 25% of voters (France, Russia) and a majority system of relative majority is allowed (Great Britain, USA, India, etc.), in which one can be elected with a small majority of votes, but more than another candidate. .

Important for the legitimation of state power is the signing of a social contract between state power, the most important political parties, public organizations, sometimes representatives of various parts of the state (in federations, in countries with autonomous entities). After the fall of the Franco regime, such an agreement was signed in Spain and greatly contributed to stabilization of the situation in the country. In 1994, the Agreement on Public Accord, which defines the measures of state power, mutual rights and obligations of the parties, was signed in Russia, but its implementation is going on with great difficulties, there are attempts to withdraw their signatures from the agreement. In 1995, a constitutional treaty between the parliament and the president was signed in Ukraine. It is designed to reduce friction between the branches of government and thereby give it greater legitimacy in the assessments of the population.

In recent years, the role of the opposition has been increasingly used to legitimize political power. We have already mentioned the "round tables" in the post-socialist countries, which worked out new rules for the organization of public life. The Portuguese Constitution of 1976 was the first to mention the role of the political opposition; in the UK, the leader of the parliamentary opposition since 1937 receives a salary from the treasury in the amount of a cabinet minister. The Colombian Constitution of 1991 contains a whole chapter on the rights of the political opposition (the right to a comment in the media, the right to access all official documents, etc.). The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 introduces the leader of the opposition, along with some senior officials, into the Presidential Council of the Republic. The leader of the opposition appoints a certain number of senators in Jamaica and some other countries. The institutionalization of the opposition strengthens the stability of state power History of State and Law: A Course of Lectures / ed. D.O.Guseva. - Novosibirsk, 2000. P.461.

In the international arena, methods of rational legitimation of state power can be associated with the recognition of states and governments, with the admission of certain states to international organizations, and other circumstances.

At present, classical models of legitimacy are perceived as ideal types of ethnocultural legitimation processes, since it often happens that traditional, charismatic and rational legitimacy combine and mutually reinforce each other, and often these same forms of legitimacy may come into conflict. Therefore, it becomes obvious that the modern political and legal reality makes adjustments to the mentioned classification. Today, classical forms of legitimacy include such post-classical (modern) forms as Tursunkulov A.B. Modern forms of legitimation of institutions of state power // Philosophy of Law. 2006. No. 2. P.52:

Liberal-democratic - is associated with the transfer of the decision-making mechanism to the whole society, while setting the starting point, the “unit” of legitimation, the individual manifestation of free judgment;

Technocratic (effective) - based on the idea of the effectiveness of state (public) management, the main thesis of which is the consideration of public policy as a special art ("public management"), requiring appropriate skills, knowledge and skills, carried out by a specialized social group;

Ideological - is carried out through recognition and belief in the correctness, exclusivity of certain ideas of political and legal development, which are proclaimed and implemented by government institutions;

Ontological - associated with the adequacy of the institutions of public power to the established order, "inscribed in human and social reality" (J.-L. Chabot) ..

In addition, one should also single out the patriotic type of legitimacy, in which the highest criterion for supporting the authorities is the pride of a person for his homeland, country, his government and its domestic and foreign policy. However, these grounds for the adequacy (forms of legitimation) of government institutions, as a rule, in real political and legal reality are intertwined and mutually complement each other. In this regard, we can only talk about the dominance of one or another type of legitimacy, which, first of all, is connected with the historical, spiritual and moral context and the specifics of the state-legal regime. Therefore, today we should talk about mixed (atypical) forms of legitimation of state power. And from this point of view, it seems appropriate to single out the following models of legitimation of state power Tursunkulov A.B. Modern forms of legitimation of institutions of state power // Philosophy of Law. 2006. No. 2. P.54:

The authoritarian form of legitimation of the institutions of power is based on the prevalence of the ideological type of legitimation. In this context, the institutional-power system exists without the need for feedback and confirmation of its legitimacy, because legitimation is replaced and compensated here by ideological arguments, the political faith of the population in power leaders. Nevertheless, this model also has a rational component in the sense that the state apparatus builds a clear and practically irreproachable system for managing the public and, in some aspects, the private and collective life of society in accordance with specific ideological postulates;

Adaptive legitimation is the most unstable form of legitimation of the institutions of power, since it is associated with the constant adaptation / change of functions, goals, tasks and activities to changing internal and external conditions in order to ensure the possibility of self-preservation, first of all, of the power elite of their positions. These are, as a rule, political and legal regimes under pressure and dependence on more economically and politically powerful states, forced to coordinate their policies taking into account external requirements and internal social needs and interests. This form of legitimation thus combines such forms of legitimacy as ideological, ontological and technocratic;

The ideational form of legitimation is based on ideational ethics (P.A. Sorokin), which is characterized by a disdainful attitude towards social values, material wealth, wealth, bodily pleasures. The earthly device is considered by her as something secondary. The ideational legal consciousness is characterized by uncritical trust in the existing institutional and power system, it is not allowed to doubt the legitimacy of its existence. In turn, the legitimacy of existing public institutions of power depends on the compliance of their activities with the principles of religious normativity. This form of legitimation combines traditional, ideological, charismatic and ontological forms;

Ideocratic form of legitimation - is based on a set of objectively existing historical factors that are interpreted using a system of ideals and ideas. The legitimacy of power in this regard is due to the service to the general idea that has been developed in the course of the internal, spiritual state-legal life of society, and thanks to the adherence to this general idea, it is at a real height in serving it, its existence and position in society are explained. The meaning of being and the justification of state power, therefore, lies in the organization of a special "ideological" way of life of the people, maintaining and preserving the originality, individuality of the national culture, which fully corresponds to the spirit of the people, its history and social and legal experience;

Liberal legal legitimation - prescribes the formation of state-legal institutions as derivatives of the natural order of things, human nature, which implies the existence of universal and applicable in space and time norms and principles of an ontological nature. Here, the improvement of human institutions and their legitimation, as well as political and legal behavior, depends solely on the sound application of critical reason and is amenable to rational explanation. Hence, legitimate, in fact, are the public legal institutions of civil society, protecting and defending the rights and freedoms of the individual. The leitmotif of liberal legal legitimation is the creation of such political and legal principles that would ensure effective limitation of both state and public, personal power. But at the same time, this form of legitimation recognizes the existence of transcendental absolutes and elevates natural legal values and norms to them. Thus, liberal legal legitimation combines such types of legitimacy as rational (legal), procedural, ideological, technocratic (effective);

Pragmatic form - combines democratic procedure and functionality, technocratic, ontological and legal types of legitimacy. It, as a rule, lacks any ideologization of existing public law institutions. This form is based on special procedures for rational relations between institutions of state power and civil society, as well as on the internal distribution of power itself using election procedures, universal suffrage, pluralism of opinions and freedom of expression, separation of powers, etc. However, although legitimacy is inextricably linked with rationally formed rules and procedures, a necessary factor for the justification of certain government institutions is also the functionality and effectiveness of institutions. Thus, the basis of this form of legitimacy are three components: materiality associated with ontological legitimacy, i.e. with the correspondence of the institutions of power to the existing interests and needs of the population, the established order of civil relations and ideas about the models of interaction between the supreme power and civil society; formality - reflects the conformity of the activities of the institutions of power to protect and maintain legal-rational conditions that ensure formal individual freedom; technocracy - ensuring the justification of existing institutions through their procedural and functional nature, necessary for non-conflictogenic interaction of all social subjects;

The universalist (globalization) model of legitimation is based on the postulate of the existence of institutions of public power in an open international political and legal space, where the legitimacy of these institutions is mainly dominated by ways of external justification of their functioning. Moreover, this political and legal space presupposes the existence of “open societies” (K. Popper), based on the denial of any form of political identity and ethno-political legitimacy, since the latter represent a fundamental violence against the natural law “human nature”.

Conclusion

A scientific study of the essence and content of legal conflicts in the field of legitimation of state power opens up the possibility not only to understand the prerequisites, conditions and consequences of their occurrence and development, but also to substantiate the mechanism for managing a conflict situation, ways and means of its effective resolution. At present, the issues of power and its social recognition have been studied quite well. Many views on legitimate power (in the modern sense of the term) are formulated in the works of the classics of political and legal thought.

What does this concept imply?

How to explain the concept of "legitimate power"? In professional language, this phenomenon fixes the legitimacy of the emergence of any formation or action. Legalization is provided by the main law of the country - the Constitution. It is this legal act that is the basis for the formation of the social and state system. It determines the structure of organs, as well as the methods in relation to which their activities are built. The constitution contributes to the legitimization of political power. That is, both the state body itself and its activities have a legal basis.

In addition to the Constitution, there are a number of other legal acts that make political power and its powers legalized. These include the following official written documents:

laws that may regulate the work of the president, parliament, judiciary and other bodies;
presidential decrees;
government regulations;
court decisions.

What is the essence of this phenomenon?

The legitimization of power, not only as a practical process, but also as a theoretical concept, is very often found in modern political scientific works. It is the subject of controversy and discussion in various circles. In general, the majority give it the following characteristic: formal legality, which has legal support in the form of a special legal act. But in a similar way, the legitimation of political power is defined in political and legal sense.

However, this phenomenon is rather ambiguous. It also has a psychological connotation. In the minds of people there is such a principle that considers everything that is fixed by power structures to be positive. That is, a person agrees with the legitimacy of the behavior of state bodies, regardless of whether it is such or not. That is why the population feels the power and superiority of government structures and is ready to actually voluntarily obey any order. Thus, such a connection, which has been established between the inhabitants of the state and its rulers, is defined by psychology as the legalization and legitimization of state power. People at a subconscious level recognize any direction of the authorities as fair and legitimate. Thus, in a sense, legitimacy refers to the respect and authority of the government among the citizens of the state. This suggests that legally recognizing power is not enough; it is also important to establish contact with the people by complying with value concepts and guidelines.

How is legitimacy reflected in the position in society?

It is believed that the legitimacy and legitimization of power contribute to the stabilization of society. People are re-evaluating their priorities. It is these concepts that guarantee further development and progress within the state. They are so strong in their effect and influence on popular sentiment that the comprehensive rehabilitation of the economic and political sector simply cannot compete.

The legitimacy and legitimation of political power determine and fix a fairly wide range of sources of emergence and emerging forms. At the moment, political science distinguishes three subjects in relation to which these processes are carried out. These include:

civil society;
power structures;
foreign political forces.

It is the moods of the first subject that determine the role of the government in the life of society. Thanks to the approving look of the majority of the inhabitants of the state, one can speak of prosperity and a stable situation both in the country and in the governing apparatus itself. In order to form a positive image of the ruling elite, it needs to show itself positively in solving any social problems. Only attention and interest in the life of ordinary people can cause support from citizens. Recognition of the legitimacy of the government is explained by various factors. These include relations between different segments of the population, ideological and political views, mentality, historical traditions and moral values. The correct complex influence on the social mechanism can ensure the authority of the governing apparatus among the masses.

What is traditional legitimacy?

For the first time, the concept of "legitimation of state power" was singled out and formulated by Max Weber. It was this German sociologist who put forward the idea that the causes of this phenomenon are not always similar. This allows us to conclude that the process is heterogeneous. Weber also identified (according to a number of classification features) three types of the legitimization phenomenon. The main reason for this separation is the motivation of submission. This allocation of species is relevant today and is recognized in political science.

The first type is called the traditional legitimation of power. This is a classic version of legitimizing the actions of the state apparatus, since the action is conditioned by the need to subordinate the people to power. As a result of established customs, people develop a habit, a need to obey political institutions.

This type of legitimation is inherent in powers with a hereditary type of government, that is, where the monarch is at the head. This is due to the values developed in the process of historical events. The personality in the face of the ruler has a steady and undeniable authority. The image of the monarch determines all his actions as lawful and fair. The advantage of this type of statehood is a high level of stability and sustainability of society. At this stage, there is practically no such type of legitimation in its pure form. It acts, as a rule, combined. The traditional campaign is supported by modern social institutions, apparatuses and "clerical domination".

What is rational legitimacy?

Also, the legitimation of power can have a more reasonable basis. In this case, the determining factors are not emotions and beliefs, but common sense. Rational legitimacy, or in other words - democratic, is formed through the recognition by the masses of the correctness of the decisions taken by the state apparatus. Only, unlike the previous type, people are guided not by blind convictions directed in favor of their leader, but by a real understanding of affairs. Power structures organize a system consisting of generally accepted rules of conduct. The principle of its operation is to realize the goals of the government through the implementation of these rules by the people.

The basis of all foundations in such a state is law. Legitimation of this type of power is typical for a society with a more complex structural formation. It is according to the law that power is exercised on a legal basis. This determines the people's appreciation and authority not of a specifically identified person who has concentrated power in his hands, but of the entire structure of the state apparatus.

What determines legitimacy based on faith in the leader?

The charismatic way of legalization (legitimate power) is when the recognition of any actions of the ruling structure is due to the personal qualities of the leader. Outstanding personalities have always been able to establish contact with the masses. The general image of the ruler is transferred to the entire current system of power. Most often, in this case, people unconditionally believe the words and actions of their ideological inspirer. The strong character of a person forms an emotional upsurge among the population. A leader can suppress unrest in society with just one word or, conversely, cause active movements.

If you look into history, you can see that, according to the method of legitimation, the authorities single out leadership as the main way to manipulate the people during the period of revolutionary moods. At this time, it is quite easy to influence citizens, since an emotional outburst causes instability in the psychology of society. People, as a rule, do not trust the past political order. Principles, ideology, norms and values are changing. This period is a very fertile ground for political games. The emergence of a new charismatic leader certainly inspires people with faith in a brighter future, which raises his authority in the eyes of the people.

Various periods of history were saturated with such leaders. Among them are a huge number of historical figures, leaders, heroes and prophets. But most often such an image is created artificially. Basically, the basis of its creation is the active work of the media. People simply impose a leader. This can be done very easily, since there is practically nothing to rely on the people. The values built up in the process of history have been betrayed and broken; there are no existing results yet. Innovations do not bear fruit, but only make them tighten their belts even tighter. But everything around only inspires faith in the changes that the new ruler will provide.

According to Weber himself, it is this type that is defined as absolute legitimacy. He explained this by the fact that the personal qualities of a leader make him a superman. A similar phenomenon can be tolerated in democratic states. But in the classical version, this is a process inherent in a totalitarian and authoritarian regime.

What other notions of legitimacy exist?

In the course of the emergence of new political processes in history, ways of legitimizing power were also formed, which had a completely different character than that defined by Weber. Newly emerging concepts suggested that the concept could have a broader meaning. That is, not only power itself as a substance, but also the totality of political institutions became the object of legitimacy.

The American representative of political science S. Lipset tried to form a new definition of this phenomenon. He characterized the legitimacy of power as the belief of the masses in the fact that the state apparatus acts fairly, lawfully and in the interests of society. However, the state apparatus itself was understood as political institutions. His other colleague D. Easton gave the definition of "legitimacy" from the standpoint of moral values. That is, the government itself must act in such a way that it gives results that correspond to the idea of the people themselves about honesty, correctness and justice. In this case, the political scientist implies the following ways of legitimizing power: ideology, political regime and political leadership. With regard to these sources, a certain classification feature can also be distinguished. According to the method of legitimation of power, there are:

ideological;
structural;
personal.

How does D. Easton classify legitimacy?

Types of legitimation of power are represented by three categories. The first is called ideological. The correctness of decisions made by the state apparatus is due to the belief in a stable set of values. The strength of legitimacy in this case is determined by the support of the masses. That is, the more citizens share the ideology and course of the government, the more lawful and legitimate the government is considered.

The second type is structural legitimacy. It bears a resemblance to Weber's rational legitimacy. Here, too, people are guided not by feelings and beliefs, but by reason. The people understand and approve of the correct distribution of responsibilities in the government structure. The way in which society lives is subject to a system based on legal norms.

Similarly, analogies can be drawn between other species. For example, such types of leadership in terms of the way of legitimizing power, such as charismatic and personal, have a common essence. Both are based on unquestioning faith in the authority of the leader. The level of legitimacy of his actions is determined by individual abilities and the ability of the ruler to best manage his personal qualities. The difference between the concepts of Weber and Easton is that, according to the former, a truly charismatic person can be a leader. Even if her qualities are too exaggerated by the media, they are present anyway. It is impossible to reach such a level without possessing anything of the kind. According to Easton's theory, everything is quite the opposite - a ruler can be a person who does not have any specific abilities. There are quite a lot of examples in history when nothing outstanding personalities receive the active support of the general population.

What is D. Betham's theory?

D. Betham also singled out certain types of legitimation of power. His concept, as it were, sums up what was said by both D. Easton and M. Weber. But, in his opinion, this process is carried out in three stages:

The first level is the formation of a set of rules according to which a person can receive and send power.
The second level consists of persuasion or coercion of both the state apparatus and the masses. The main direction in relation to which further manipulations are built is the principles of the functioning of the political system.
At the third stage, citizens convinced of the legitimacy and justice of the ruling structures actively agree with the actions of the government.

D. Betham believed that the absoluteness of this process can be expressed in the established interaction between the meaning of the political game, positive reviews of its content and the formed political system. The latter expresses a voluntary desire to preserve it.

What does delegitimization mean?

Opposite, but no less important, is the notion of delegitimization. The action denoted by this term is the final stage in the life cycle of power and denotes the loss of trust and deprivation of influence on society.

This process occurs for completely different reasons. It can be preceded by either one event or a combination of them. Problems with faith in the government also arise when there is discord in the state apparatus itself. As they say, the fish rots from the head, and if the authorities cannot divide the sphere of interests, then legitimacy will also soon come to an end. The reason for the difficulties that have arisen may be the contradiction between democratic methods of influencing society and forceful methods. An attempt to aggressively influence the media may result in the loss of the support of the masses. Also, unrest among the population easily arises in the absence of protective mechanisms. A high level of corruption and bureaucratization can have an additional impact on the emergence of a process of delegitimization. Phenomena such as nationalism, separatism and racial strife are factors that ensure the shaking of the positions of the ruling structures.

Political science even defines such a thing as a “crisis of legitimacy”. It implies a period of time during which society loses faith in the honesty, justice and legitimacy of actions committed by state bodies within their powers. The political system is simply not perceived by the people. If the hopes placed on the state apparatus by the citizens of the country are not justified over time, then support from them should not be expected either.

To overcome the crisis, the government needs to have constantly established contact with the population. And it is necessary to take into account the opinion of all segments of society. To do this, it is necessary to carry out timely informing about the goals and directions of the authorities' activities. It is necessary to demonstrate to people that any issues can be resolved legally, without violence. The state structures themselves must also be organized. The political game must be conducted without prejudice to the rights of any of its participants. In society, it is necessary to carry out constant propaganda of democratic values.

Any government needs legitimacy.

Legitimacy - political property of a public authority, meaning the recognition by the majority of citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any power based on popular consensus is legitimate.

concept "legitimacy" means recognition by the community of an indisputable basis for officials (rulers) to exercise power functions. It is opposed to the illegal seizure of power, its usurpation. Legitimacy implies trust in the authorities and support of the rulers, i.e. loyalty, on the part of the majority of the members of the community, because in any society there are always people who are in opposition to the rulers.

The main thing in the concept of "legitimacy" is the nature ("tonality") of the attitude to power on the part of the population (people) subject to it. If the population (people) accepts and positively evaluates the power, recognizes its right to govern, and agrees to obey it, then such power is legitimate. If this is not the case, and the people do not “love” the authorities and do not trust the authorities, although they obey it for the time being within the instinct of self-preservation (primarily because of the fear of mass repressions), then such authority appears as illegitimate.

Assimilation of the question of the legitimacy of state power requires knowledge of the content and sources of not only the three classical types of legitimacy - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal (democratic) - but also such types of legitimacy as ideological, technocratic, etc. It is also necessary to answer the question of how the legitimacy of power and its effectiveness (effectiveness) correlate with each other.

Technocratic legitimacy

Along with the traditional types of legitimacy of power (traditional, charismatic and rational-legal), there is also such a type as technocratic legitimacy.

For the simple reason that politics deals with the interests and destinies of millions of people, and the cost of mistakes in this area often takes the form of tragedies for entire nations, the question of the effectiveness of politics and politicians is particularly acute. It is with this question that technocratic legitimacy is connected, the core of which is the requirement for the authorities to be competent, to be professional. It should be borne in mind that for those who exercise power or hope to achieve it, politics takes on the character of a craft, a specialized occupation, which necessarily implies the presence of special knowledge and experience. If this is not the case, then politics turns into politicking and loses its effectiveness. Very figuratively, the essence of technocratic legitimacy is expressed by Russian folk proverbs: “Take hold of the tug, do not say that you are not hefty”, “Do not know the ford, do not stick your head into the water.”

The formula that reflects the relationship (interdependence) between the legitimacy and effectiveness of power is the rule: the degree of legitimacy of power is most often directly proportional to its effectiveness, i.e. the more efficiency, the more legitimacy. And vice versa. If this efficiency, as they say, “the cat cried”, then the initially legitimate government, which does not cope with the tasks assigned to it, eventually loses the trust of citizens and turns into illegitimate in their eyes.

If we evaluate the power in post-socialist Russia through this prism, then it clearly lacks professionalism. It is known that Germany and Japan, defeated and thoroughly destroyed in the Second World War, took some 15-20 years to perform an “economic miracle” and be reborn as a “phoenix bird from the ashes”. For the same period of time (if we date the start of market reforms to August 1991), we have not even fully restored what (through thoughtlessness or malicious intent) we thoroughly destroyed.

It is no coincidence that on October 26, 2006, the day after the communication of the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin on the air with the people, during which he had to “take the rap” for all the “sins” of the powers that be, the then chairman of the federal government M. Fradkov appointed members of his cabinet, a disappointing diagnosis: "collective irresponsibility" associated with "organizational weakness and insufficient knowledge of the subject" . That is, what you manage and what you manage.

Types of legitimacy

Distinguish three "ideal types" legitimacy:

traditional based on a set of customs, the force of which has been recognized since time immemorial, and on the habit rooted in a person to adhere to such customs;
charismatic, which is entirely characterized by the personal devotion of people who are subject to the cause of a person and their trust only in his person as a leader-leader;
rational, arising from the correspondence of power to a rational principle, with the help of which the legal order of the current political system is established.

In relation to this latter type, the concept of "democratic legitimacy" is used as a synonym.

In addition to these three "ideal types", there are other types of legitimacy, namely:

technocratic, which can be expressed by a Russian proverb: “Take hold of the tug, don’t say that it’s not a dozen”, i.e. power must be professional;
ontological(ontology - the doctrine of being), which contains the correspondence of power to the universal principles of human and social existence.

Structural legitimacy

The most important factor in recognizing the validity of government is the formation of authorities on the basis of legality. This structural legitimacy(first view). It is called so because it determines the structure of the political system. This legitimacy can take two forms. First, this traditional legitimacy, which implies public recognition of rulers who have received power in accordance with the traditions and customs of a given community: elders, a leader (the most authoritative leader), a monarch, etc. Secondly, it is more common in democratic communities legal legitimacy, i.e., public recognition of the transfer of power in accordance with established laws on the election of authorities.

However, the acquisition by the rulers of powers on a legal basis does not yet guarantee them the preservation of trust and support, that is, legitimacy. abuse of power, violation of laws and citizens' ideas about justice, the inefficiency of government bodies in managing society can cause a political crisis, undermine confidence, i.e., loss of legitimacy. In established democracies, crises of legitimacy are resolved in a civilized manner. For this, procedures are provided for the removal from power of a ruler who has lost authority. For example, an increase in extra-parliamentary forms of political activity (rallies, protest marches, etc.) can lead to the voluntary resignation of political leaders, early elections, a referendum, etc.

Charismatic legitimacy

Charismatic legitimacy is based on the belief in the special talent of a leader who claims access to political power, all charisma is a divine gift, grace. The trust of citizens in this case has an emotional character and is based on personal sympathy for the leader. At the same time, the importance of legal norms is belittled on both sides. The charismatic way of legitimizing rulers is often used during periods of revolution, when new authorities cannot rely on law or tradition.

These types of legitimacy are ideal models. In political practice, they are intertwined and complement each other. Currently, new types of legitimacy are emerging. The rise of nationalism led to the emergence of the so-called ethnic legitimacy- the formation of power structures on a national basis. This variety can be attributed to the kind of legal legitimacy, when the qualification of nationality is explicitly or implicitly used in elections.

Degree of legitimacy, i.e., trust in rulers, is difficult to quantify. However, there are certain indicators that can be used for this purpose. Among them are: the level of coercion necessary for the performance of managerial functions by the rulers; the nature of attempts to replace representatives of authorities, manifestations of civil disobedience (riots, strikes, etc.); election results; survey results; and etc.

Legitimacy of political power

Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and just. The word "legitimacy" itself comes from the Latin. legitimus- law. But not every legitimate power can be legitimate. Already in the Middle Ages, there are theoretical justifications that a monarch who becomes a tyrant and does not fulfill his destiny deprives his power of legitimacy. In this case, the people have the right to overthrow such a government (F. Aquinas spoke about this, in particular).

M. Weber identified three main types of political domination and their corresponding forms of legitimacy:

traditional domination - legitimacy based on the traditions of a patriarchal society, for example, monarchy - traditional legitimacy;
charismatic dominance - legitimacy based on real or imaginary outstanding qualities of the ruler, leader, prophet - charismatic legitimacy;
dominance based on rationally created rules— rational legal legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in a democratic society.

In addition to those listed, there are other types of legitimacy, for example: ontological, ideological, structural, etc.

Ontological legitimacy is most characteristic of ancient and traditional societies, when the existing norms of being are perceived by people as a natural (non-human) way of the established order, and its violation as a catastrophe, anarchy, chaos. This is the recognition by a person (society) of the existing order as a norm of being, which applies not only to society, but to the entire outer space. Such legitimacy is closely connected with the life and death of the canonized political leader of the nation. His life represents power and order, and his death represents anarchy and chaos. History knows many examples when, after the death of their leader, the people experienced fear of the future. An example is the death of V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, Kim Il Sung (North Korea), etc.

At the core ideological legitimacy there are certain ideological "constructions" - attractive ideas, promises of a "bright future" or a "new world order", religious dogmas, etc. Thus, the communist ideology and promises of the rapid construction of communism largely ensured the legitimacy of the Soviet regime of power; the ideas of national socialism contributed to the legitimization of the fascist regime in Germany. Some countries of the Near and Middle East elevated Islam to the rank of state ideology.

Structural legitimacy is based on the rules and norms established in society for the establishment and change of power, for example, the constitution (constitutional legitimacy). If the majority of citizens are dissatisfied with the political power existing in society, then they “tolerate” it until new elections.

The legitimacy of power is closely related to its effectiveness. The authorities, which have legal grounds for dominating society, as a result of their ineffective policy, may lose the trust of citizens and become illegitimate. And vice versa, power that has no legal basis, as a result of effective policy, can gain the trust of the people and become legitimate. The process of recognizing the legitimacy of power is called se legitimization and the loss of its legitimacy - delegitimization.

Any political power, even the most reactionary one, strives to appear in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the world community as effective and legitimate. Therefore, the process of legitimization of power is a matter of special concern for the ruling elite. One of the most common tricks is to hush up the negative results of one's policy and to “push out” real and imaginary successes in every possible way. Quite often, independent media become an obstacle in such a substitution of negative factors for positive ones. An illegitimate and inefficient government is afraid to enter into a dialogue with society and with its opponents, so as not to finally show its insolvency. Therefore, it seeks in every way to limit the activities of independent media or put them under its control.