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 public support for the government and demonstration of trust are an important factor in its effectiveness. Conversely, the weak conviction of citizens in the legitimacy of state power is one of the reasons for its instability. Therefore, any political power strives in every possible way to maintain and stimulate the trust of the people. The objects of legitimation are usually the state itself and its bodies, the social system, the political regime, the political and economic programs being implemented, etc. In this case, various means are used. Various documents are published: decrees, resolutions, legislative acts. Informal effective methods and means are used. These could be political movements in support of the government, non-governmental organizations pursuing the same goal.

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 have identified several ways (sources) of power legitimation.

The first and most reliable way is the participation of citizens in governance, which creates a feeling of people’s involvement in the policies pursued by the government and allows people to feel to a certain extent as its subject. This is why democratic regimes, compared to others, have the greatest potential for legitimation.

Another source is the so-called technocratic legitimation, i.e. legitimation through administrative, economic, military, educational and similar activities of power. Technocratic means come down to scientific and technical support for the political course (in laws, infrastructure, tax system, etc.). In this case, the legitimacy of power is directly dependent on the effectiveness of such activities, the end result of which is stability in society and the successful development of all aspects of public life. A series of economic failures when carrying out reforms or when the country emerges from a crisis weakens the legitimacy of the government and can lead to the collapse of the political system. The legitimacy of the political power of Germany, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore has increased largely due to economic achievements.

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

The third method of legitimation is force. All regimes rely on coercion, but the forms, extent of its distribution and use are different. It manifests itself in the restriction of individual rights and freedoms, primarily the right to receive complete and objective information, speech, association, manifestation. The lower the level of legitimation, the stronger the coercion. Force is the last argument of power, with the help of which it tries to increase the level of its legitimacy, however, it is doubtful that power can maintain itself for a long time relying solely on force. The use of force can not only increase the level of legitimacy, but also hasten the fall of the regime. Force is an unreliable source of legitimation of power.

The government has the ability to increase legitimacy by influencing the consciousness and behavior of social groups and forming a certain public opinion. Thus, the US authorities, before landing troops in Haiti, for a long time formed public opinion in the country, showing the dictatorial nature of the regime that existed there. 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 “focused” on using “one regiment within two hours” to eliminate armed gangs. The Chechen war had a negative impact on the legitimacy of the government, 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 him, 47.4% and 33.5% did not trust the Federation Council, 62% trusted the government. .2% and 30.2%, State Duma - 54.5% and 28.4%.

Among other methods that are of great importance for ensuring the legitimacy of power, one can highlight the promotion of the values on which the policies being pursued are based. Propaganda is any information aimed at forming a belief. Government propaganda serves functional socialization, i.e. acceptance by the masses of government policies. The ruling group is tempted to limit information about its activities and their results. The policy of limiting information comes down to privately blocking those sources that come from centers hostile to the government. The cultivation of limited information, especially the absolute blocking of other, “unnecessary” information, entails both direct, immediate, and indirect, far-reaching consequences. The immediate results are the prevention or reduction of reasons for unrest among the masses, doubts, opposition, alternatives. The indirect result is the habit of the masses to only one government information.

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

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

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 the statesman as the guarantor of legitimacy. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 80) notes that the President of the Russian Federation is its guarantor and, therefore, he is the guarantor of legitimacy.

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

An important place in the functioning of state power is occupied by problems of delegitimation, 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 particularistic and even selfish interests of the ruling elite and associated social groups. The deepening of this contradiction leads to the fact that the government turns 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, characteristic of democratic regimes, is the contradiction between the idea of democracy and socio-political practice. It manifests itself in the authorities’ attempt to solve emerging problems only by force, pressure on the media, restriction or non-observance of basic human rights. Chaotically emerging manifestations of this contradiction indicate its presence in Russia, and the strengthening of these trends will lead to the replacement of a democratic regime with an authoritarian one. A favorable background for this is always the depoliticization and apathy of the population.

The third reason for the delegitimation 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 the government. When intellectuals question the existing regime, its legitimacy declines. The radicalization of sentiment in society leads to the emergence of an opposition that puts forward an alternative vision of social order. It is obvious that this source of delegitimation of power exists in Russia.

The fourth reason for the delegitimation of power is the growing bureaucratization and corruption. The bureaucracy, for example, in the Senate of Russian reformers found a way to enter into new relationships and structures through a kind of participation in the process of privatization and the creation of market infrastructure. Control “from below” due to an undeveloped civil society and insufficiently effective elected authorities “from bottom to top” is practically absent, and control “from above” is extremely weakened, which has created unprecedented freedom for the bureaucracy. Corruption has flourished and, above all, such a form as bribery. The possibility of converting power into wealth has opened up. Pervasive corruption is a symptom not only of the delegitimation of power, but also of its crisis. The regime's last stronghold against 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 delegitimation; in some cases they can serve as proof of the democratic and legitimate functioning of the political system, especially if an official (minister, head of state) found to be corrupt is forced to resign .

The reasons for the delegitimation of power in multinational states include 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 happened in Bashkortostan, Komi, Dagestan). Strengthening 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 delegitimation of power may be the loss of faith by the ruling elite itself in the legitimacy of its power, the emergence of acute contradictions within it, and a clash between 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 "Public 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 legitimizing state power
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Many turning points in recent years in Russia (the confrontation between the legislative and executive powers, the 1994 Treaty of Social Accord, an 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 fairness, recognition, and support by its population, on the other. The severity of the problem is aggravated 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 nomenclature, 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 theoretical ambiguity: in the works of lawyers, political scientists, and political figures, the terms “legalization” and “legitimation” are often used with incorrect meanings.
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 increase the efficiency of government in modern Russia and restore trust in it from the population. In the context of complex and ambiguously assessed reform processes, accompanied by aggravation of social contradictions, the private, at first glance, question of the degree of “acceptance” of the government itself, its instructions and institutions by the population, becomes one of the determining factors of public consent, the main, strategic resource of the government, in largely determining the success of large-scale political and economic transformations.
It is with regret that we have to state that the activities of officials of the state apparatus of modern Russia in the public consciousness are increasingly associated with incompetence, bureaucracy, corruption and administrative arbitrariness; electoral procedures as the legal basis for the most democratic way of identifying the will of the people in 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 removing from office heads of federal and regional government bodies who improperly perform their official duties. All this leads to the diffusion of the mutual understanding that should exist between the government and society, calls into question the legitimacy of power structures and personified bearers of power, giving rise to social tension and numerous conflicts in the sphere of the formation and functioning of public political power.
A legal conflict in the sphere of legitimation of state power is at the same time 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” that accelerates social progress, bringing to power those political forces that enjoy the support and trust of broad sections of the population; in the second, 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 school of Chinese legalists in a dispute with the Confucians, who demanded behavior that would be consistent with universal harmony. Elements of a kind of legalization were present in the confrontation between secular and spiritual authorities in Western Europe in the Middle Ages; in modern times, supporters of the “legitimate monarchy” of the Bourbons referred to it when speaking 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.: Lawyer. 2001. P.451.
In modern conditions of legalization of state power as a legal concept means the establishment, recognition, support of this power by law, primarily by the constitution, the support of power on the law. However, firstly, constitutions and laws can be adopted, amended, or repealed in various ways. The 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 proclaimed new temporary constitutions without any special procedures.
In fact, in Iraq such a temporary constitution has remained in force from 1970 to the present; in the UAE, a temporary constitution adopted by the emirs has been in force since 1971. In some countries, constitutions have been replaced by institutional acts (Brazil) and proclamations (Ethiopia). Monarchs single-handedly “granted” constitutions to “their faithful people” (Nepal, Saudi Arabia, etc.) Grafsky V.G. General history of law and state: Textbook for universities. - M.: Norma, 2005. P.532. In Russia, in 1993, the 1978 Constitution (as amended) was suspended by presidential decree. Secondly, sometimes constitutions and laws adopted in accordance with established procedures, in their content, legalized openly dictatorial, anti-people power, a totalitarian system. These were the constitutional acts of fascist Germany, the racist legislation of South Africa (before the adoption of a provisional constitution in 1994), the “party-state” of Guinea or the constitution of African Zaire (there were several of them), which proclaimed that there was only one political institution in the country - the ruling party - movement, and the legislative, executive bodies, and 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, in fact legalized a totalitarian and even at times terrorist regime.
Of course, in the conditions of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, constitutions can be adopted by apparently democratic means (by the Constituent Assembly, the Supreme Council 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 1936 . a wide range of socio-economic rights was established), etc. But these points need to be assessed only in conjunction with reality.
Thus, the elections of the parliament itself, which adopts the constitution, are not free under a totalitarian regime, and phrases about democracy serve as a cover for the real situation. Thus, if the democratic procedures for adopting a constitution or other acts of constitutional significance are violated, if such procedures do not correspond to the people’s ability to exercise constituent power when adopting the fundamental law, if the laws contradict the universal human values of humanity, the formal (legal) law does not correspond to the law. Legal legalization of state power in such conditions will be illusory, i.e. false legalization.
The concept of legitimation of state power seems more complex. “Legitimus” also means legal, legalized, but this concept is not legal, but factual, although legal elements may be part of it. Essentially, this is what the Confucians proceeded from in their dispute with the mentioned legalists; supporters of both secular and spiritual authorities had this in mind, interpreting “the will of God” differently. The modern meaning of this concept is associated with the research of political scientists, primarily the German scientist Max Weber (1864-1920).

The currently existing 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 the monopoly of legitimate physical violence.” Weber M. Politics as a calling and profession. // Selected works. M. 1990. P. 645. At the same time, authors of the second half of the 20th century, writing on the topic of political sociology, express two opposing views on the possibility of using the concept of legitimacy in characterizing societies of the distant past. Thus, the authors of Pengan’s “Sociological Dictionary” argue that “within the framework of classical civilizations there was no significant difference between “legitimacy” and “legitimacy”: legal power was legitimate.” Abercombe N., Stephen H., Brian S. T. Sociological Dictionary. Kazan 1997. P. 152. This means that until the formation of representative democracy, the problem of legitimating state power cannot be considered independent.

The opposite point of view involves the identification 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 of development of the legitimacy of power in pre-bourgeois society: gerontocratic, patriarchal and patrimonal. Weber M. Politics as a calling and profession. // Selected works. M. 1990. P. 646. Jurgen Habermas and 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 A. S. Political power: problems of legitimacy. //Social and political magazine. 1995. N 3. P. 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 entire 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 the way to gain power. The moment of transfer of power from one hand to another extremely actualizes the concept of “legitimacy” and, thus, makes it possible 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.: Lawyer. 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 that substantiate the rights of a contender for power;

· public and state institutions involved in the transfer of power;

· rites and ceremonies used during the transition of power;

· rituals and ceremonies through which the people’s consent 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 method of legitimate action, recognized by the people not only as a legal 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. P. 64:

· appearance of the holders of power;

· ceremonial behavior corresponding to the current idea of the organization of power;

· everyday behavior that corresponds to the ethical standards recognized in a given society;

· method of making government decisions;

· the method of formalizing the decisions made;

· way of communicating decisions made to the population;

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

Legitimation often has nothing to do with the law at all, and sometimes even contradicts it. This is a process, not necessarily formal and even most often informal, through which state power acquires the property of legitimacy, i.e. a state that expresses the correctness, justification, expediency, legality and other aspects of the compliance of a specific state power with the attitudes and expectations of the individual, social and other groups, and society as a whole. Recognition of state power and its actions as legitimate is based on sensory perception, experience, and rational assessment. It is based not on external signs (although, for example, the oratorical abilities of leaders can have a significant impact on the public, contributing to the establishment of charismatic power), but on internal motivations, internal incentives. The legitimation of state power is not associated with the publication of a law, the adoption of a constitution (although this may also be part of the legitimation process), 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; by its bodies the norms of social justice, human rights, and their protection.

Illegitimate power is based on violence and other forms of coercion, including mental influence, but legitimation cannot be imposed on people from the outside, for example, by force of arms or 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 to a certain person), which expresses the immutable values of existence. The basis of this kind of devotion is the belief of people that their benefits depend on the preservation and support of a given order, a given state power, the belief that they express the interests of the people. Therefore, the legitimation of state power is always connected with the interests of people, various segments of the population.

And since the interests and needs of various groups, due to limited resources and other circumstances, can only be partially satisfied, or only the demands of some groups can be 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 illegitimate for others. The wholesale “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 controversial 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. P. 67.

In the minds of the lumpen proletariat, general expropriation has the highest degree of legitimacy. One can cite many other examples of the different interests of certain segments of the population and their unequal, often opposite, attitudes towards the measures of state power and towards the government itself. Therefore, its legitimation is not associated with the approval of the entire society (this is an extremely rare option), but with its acceptance by the majority of the population while respecting and protecting the rights of the minority. It is this, and not the dictatorship of a 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, the legal 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 opportunities for leading society with minimal “power” costs and expenditures of “managerial energy”, with greater freedom for self-regulation of social processes. At the same time, the legitimate government has the right and obligation, in the interests of society, to apply coercive measures provided for by law if other methods of stopping antisocial actions do not produce results.

But an arithmetic majority cannot always serve as the basis for genuine legitimation of state power. The majority of Germans under Hitler's regime adopted a policy of "race cleansing" and 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 is important), not by the texts of the programs and laws it has adopted (although this is important), but by its practical activities, by the way it resolves fundamental issues in the life of society and each individual. The population sees the difference between slogans about reforms and democracy, on the one hand, and authoritarian ways of making decisions that are most important for the fate of the country and the people, on the other.

From here, as evidenced by systematic surveys of the population, came the erosion of the legitimacy of state power in Russia at the end of the 20th century. (legitimacy was high after August 1991) while maintaining its legalization: all the highest bodies of the state were created according to the 1993 Constitution 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 respondents trusted the President of Russia, 78% did not trust him. Of course, survey data does not always give the correct picture, but these data should not be underestimated. Avrutin L.G. Legitimation of political power in Russia: analysis, problems, priorities. Diss... cand. polit, science - M., 2001. P. 45. .

It has already been said above that the legitimation of state power can 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, and attitudes prevailing 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, a different, anti-state, rebel, pre-state power that has emerged in the liberated areas is legitimized, which then becomes state power . This is how events developed in China, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, and Mozambique. Guinea-Bissau and some other countries Grafsky V.G. General history of law and state: Textbook for universities. - M.: Norma, 2005. P.479.

Similar to the false legalization noted above, false legitimation is also possible when, under the influence of propaganda, inciting nationalist sentiments, the use of personal charisma and other techniques (including banning the opposition and 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 fundamental aspirations.

The problems of verification of legalization and legitimation (including false) are very complex. They are not sufficiently developed in the scientific literature, including foreign ones. Legitimation is usually associated with a legal analysis of the preparation and adoption of the constitution, with the study of decisions of constitutional courts and other bodies of constitutional control, analysis of data from elections and referendums... Less attention is paid to the content of constitutional acts, the nature of the activities of state power, comparison of the programs of political parties and the policies which is 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, falsification is common, and the second does not always reflect the true sentiments of the people, since these results are determined by transitory factors. In many developing countries with a one-party system (Ghana, Burma, Algeria, etc.), in parliamentary and presidential elections the ruling party received an overwhelming majority of votes, but the same population remained completely indifferent to the military coups that overthrew this government V. G. Grafsky. General history Law and State: Textbook for Universities. - M.: Norma, 2005. P.480. At the 1991 referendum on the question of preserving the USSR, the majority of voters gave an affirmative answer, but a few months later the USSR collapsed due to the indifference of a significant part of the same voters. Thus, formal assessments used in legalization require a deep and comprehensive analysis when determining the legitimacy of state power.

2. Types and withways to lay downit's timeations of the state governmentAsti

As already noted, the legalization of state power is associated with legal procedures, which are very diverse. Here the role of the constitution will be considered as a form of legalization of state power, because the democratic method of preparing and adopting the constitution, its humanistic content, and 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 itself usually indicates a certain stability of state power, the methods of preparation and adoption of the fundamental law do not always correspond to the requirements of genuine legalization.

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

In all of 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 government bodies appointed by decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, functionaries of political parties, entrepreneurs, federal subjects, etc. appointed by them. In many post-socialist countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) in the development of new principles of the constitution or changes made to previous constitutions (new edition), “round tables”, “civil assemblies” of representatives of government bodies, various parties, trade unions and social movements took part in Theory of State and Law: Course lectures /Ed. N.I. Matuzova and A.V. Malko. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Lawyer. 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, and 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 the 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 Germany, the draft of the current Constitution of 1949 was prepared by a parliamentary council consisting of representatives of regional parliaments (Landtags) 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, a draft permanent constitution is often developed by government-appointed commissions, then discussed in the Constituent Assembly, partly elected and partly appointed by the military (Turkey in 1982, Nigeria in 1989, etc.).

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

In countries of totalitarian socialism, a different procedure for preparing the project was used. It was developed on 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 a referendum. In socialist countries, as well as in the so-called countries of socialist orientation (South Yemen, Ethiopia, etc.), the project was submitted for public discussion before its adoption. There were usually many meetings and discussions were 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 (USSR, Cuba, Benin, Ethiopia, etc.), based on the results of public discussion, significant, and in some cases very important, amendments were made to the draft.

From the point of view of legalization of state power, the discussion stage is not significant (for legalization it is important that the constitution is 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 fundamental 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 related to the preparation of the draft, but to 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. Constituent assemblies in recent years have adopted the constitutions of Brazil 1988, Namibia 1990, Bulgaria 1991, Colombia 1991, Cambodia 1993, Peru 1993, etc. However, the Constituent Assembly is not always, as noted, formed through elections, but sometimes consists of partially appointed members. In addition, the Constituent Assembly often plays the role of an advisory body, since its adoption of the constitution 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 and 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 ongoing legislative work. This is how the Constitution of the USSR was adopted in 1977, the Netherlands in 1983, Papua New Guinea in 1975. However, some of these parliaments, for the purpose of adopting a constitution, declare themselves Constituent Assemblies (for example, in Tanzania in 1977), and then continue to work as ordinary ones parliaments. This transformation is intended 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 1958, Egypt 1971, Cuba 1976, Philippines 1967, Russia 1993 were adopted. In practice, however, a referendum can be used in different ways. Without preliminary discussion of the project in parliament, the population and voters may find it difficult to understand such a complex document as the constitution. There are frequent cases of using a referendum or for the adoption of reactionary constitutions (for example, in Greece in 1978 under the regime of the “black colonels”). Sometimes the constitutions of totalitarian regimes (Burma 1974, Ethiopia 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 methods of adopting constitutions do not even formally entail the legalization of state power. These are the constitutional acts of military regimes, the constitutions approved by military governments in Turkey, Nigeria and other countries, the constitutions adopted by congresses and other supreme bodies of the ruling parties in the 70s and the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, constitutions enacted by the monarch or metropolis.

The legalization of state power is inextricably linked with the content of constitutions. Reactionary constitutions, adopted even with the necessary procedures, can in fact only create false legalization. This is explained not only by the fact that the adoption of such constitutions is sometimes carried out in an atmosphere of deception and violence, but also by the fact that certain forces manage to include provisions in the constitutions that contradict the general democratic principles developed by mankind and enshrined in fundamental international legal acts (UN Charter of 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. Provisions of constitutions that violate human rights (for example, in South Africa until 1994), proclaiming the only permissible ideology (for example, mobutism in the Constitution of Zaire 1980), contrary to the sovereignty of the people (provisions of the Constitution of Algeria 1976 on the ownership of political power by the only permitted party - National Liberation Front), etc., exclude the true legalization of state power, since they contradict generally accepted international norms and principles. They are at the same time illegitimate, because they contradict the democratic consciousness of peoples.

There is no clear distinction or 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 preconditions for the lasting 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 individuals. In modern conditions, representatives of authorities that are authoritarian and totalitarian in nature often arrange meetings and conferences with prominent representatives of the intelligentsia; influential journalists are organized visits to various regions of the country, meetings with enterprise teams, etc. 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 on the basis of traditional authority, rooted in respect for customs, belief in their continuity, in the fact that power “expresses the spirit of the people”, corresponds to 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 and the structure of state bodies. In those Muslim countries where there are parliaments, they are sometimes created in accordance with the traditions of al-shura (conference of the monarch) as consultative parliaments. Tradition guides decision-making in the Indonesian Parliament mainly through 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. P. 66. .

Traditions are important for the legitimation of state power in countries where the system of Anglo-Saxon law operates. Judicial precedent is one of the expressions of the power of tradition. The British monarch is traditionally the head of the Church of England (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 talents of the leader (less often, a narrow ruling group), in the exclusive mission of the leader. Charismatic legitimation is not associated with rational judgments, but is based on a range of feelings; it is sensory in nature. Charisma, as a rule, is individual. She will create a special image. In the past, this was faith in the “good tsar”, who was able to save the people from oppression by the boyars and landowners. In modern conditions, charismatic power is much less common than in the past, but it is common in countries of totalitarian socialism, being associated with a certain ideology (Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, etc.) In relatively liberal India, an occupation is associated with charisma the most important government post of Prime Minister by representatives of the Gandhi family - Nehru (father, then daughter, and after her assassination - son). The same generation was and is in power in Sri Lanka (father Banderanaiks, then his wife, now the president, is their daughter, and the mother is the prime minister).

To strengthen charisma, special rituals are widely used: torchlight processions, demonstrations in support of the authorities in a special uniform, the coronation of the monarch. Rational legitimation of state power is based on a rational assessment and is associated with the formation of confidence in the reasonableness of the existing order, laws, and instillations adopted in a democratic society to govern it. This type of legitimation is one of the main ones in modern conditions of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

Rational legitimation assumes that the population supports (or rejects) state power, based primarily on its 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 (in modern Russia many good laws are not implemented), but, above all, the practical activities of government bodies, officials, especially senior ones, serve as the basis rational assessment.

In practice, only one of these forms of legitimation is rarely used; they are usually used in combination. Hitlerism used the traditional respect of the Germans for the law, the charisma of the leader, and 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 cabinet. De Gaulle's role in France was to a great extent connected with his charisma as the leader of the Resistance in the fight against the fascist occupiers, 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 quite 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 lengthy and depends on certain events. First of all, these are elections of the highest bodies of the state. Direct elections are of greatest importance, when one or another state body, the highest official, receives a mandate directly as a result of the vote of voters. In China, however, the parliament (National People's Congress) is elected by multi-degree 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: Course of Lectures / ed. D.O. Guseva. - Novosibirsk, 2000. P.254.

The upper houses of parliaments are also often elected by indirect elections (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 constitutions, especially since in direct elections, especially in 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 won a majority of the popular vote across the country. The same facts took place in Great Britain: the party that received fewer votes throughout the country had more mandates in parliament. In Hungary in 1994, in the parliamentary elections, the Hungarian Socialist Party received 33% of the votes, but 54% of the seats in parliament. History of State and Law: 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 legitimation of state power, and the referendum is decisive or advisory, but in any case, if voters approve the constitution or speak out in support of government measures, the referendum legitimizes power. The strength of a referendum is that usually the decision is recognized as valid with the participation of at least 50% of voters and with a positive answer of at least 50% of the votes (according to the 1984 Constitution of South Africa, 2/3 of the votes are required), while elections in a number of countries are recognized as valid if turnout of 25% of voters (France, Russia) and a majority system of relative majority is allowed (Great Britain, USA, India, etc.), in which you can be elected by receiving a slight majority of votes, but more compared to another candidate Ibid. .

Important for the legitimation of state power is the signing of a social contract between state authorities, the most important political parties, public organizations, and 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 Treaty on Social Accord, which defines the activities of state power, the mutual rights and obligations of the parties, was signed in Russia, but its implementation is proceeding with great difficulties, there are attempts to withdraw their signatures from the treaty. In 1995, a constitutional treaty between the parliament and the president was signed in Ukraine. It is intended 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, paradoxically as it may seem. We have already mentioned the “round tables” in post-socialist countries, at which new rules for organizing public life were developed. The Portuguese Constitution of 1976 was the first to speak about the role of the political opposition; in the UK, the leader of the parliamentary opposition has received a salary from the treasury in the amount of a cabinet minister since 1937. The Colombian Constitution of 1991 contains an entire chapter on the rights of the political opposition (right of speech in the media, right of access to all official documents, etc.). Brazil's 1988 Constitution inducts the leader of the opposition, along with certain 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: Course of lectures / ed. D.O. Guseva. - Novosibirsk, 2000. P.461.

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

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

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

Technocratic (effective) - based on the idea of efficiency 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 abilities, carried out by a specialized social group;

Ideological - carried out through recognition and belief in the correctness and 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, we should also highlight the patriotic type of legitimacy, in which the highest criterion for supporting the authorities is a person’s pride in his homeland, country, his government and its domestic and foreign policies. However, these grounds for the adequacy (forms of legitimation) of the institutions of state power, 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 associated 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 highlight 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 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. However, this model also has a rational component in the sense that the state apparatus builds a clear and almost impeccable system for managing public and, in some aspects, private and collective life of society in accordance with specific ideological postulates;

Adaptive legitimation is the most unstable form of legitimation of institutions of power, since it is associated with the constant adaptation/change of functions, goals, objectives 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 that are 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 benefits, wealth, and bodily pleasures. The earthly structure is considered by her as something secondary. 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 conditioned by serving the general idea, which was 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 the real height of serving it, its existence and position in society is explained. The meaning of existence and justification of state power, therefore, lies in the organization of a special “ideological” way of life of the people, maintaining and preserving the originality and individuality of the national culture, which is fully consistent with the spirit of the people, their 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 presupposes the presence of norms and principles of an ontological nature that are universal and suitable in space and time. 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, the public legal institutions of civil society, which protect and defend the rights and freedoms of the individual, are essentially legitimate. 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 and 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 procedurality and functionality, technocratic, ontological and legal types of legitimacy. As a rule, it lacks any ideologization of existing public legal 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 of government, 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 government institutions to the existing interests and needs of the population, the established order of civil relations and ideas about models of interaction between the supreme power and civil society; formality - reflects the compliance of the activities of government institutions to protect and maintain legal and rational conditions that ensure formal individual freedom; technocraticism - ensuring the justification of existing institutions through their procedurality and functionality, necessary for non-conflict interaction of all social actors;

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 methods of external justification for 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 ethnopolitical legitimacy, since the latter represent fundamental violence against the natural legal “human nature”.

Conclusion

Scientific research into the essence and content of legal conflicts in the sphere of legitimation of state power opens up the opportunity 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. Currently, issues of power and its social recognition have been studied quite well. Many views on legitimate power (in the modern understanding of this term) are formulated in the works of classics of political and legal thought.

What does this concept mean?

How to explain the concept of “legitimation of power”? In professional language, this phenomenon fixes the legitimacy of the emergence of any formation or action. Legalization is ensured by the main law of the country - the Constitution. It is this legal act that is the basis for the formation of a social and state system. It determines the structure of organs, as well as the methods in relation to which their activities are based. The Constitution contributes to the legitimation 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 legal. 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?

Legitimation 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 debate 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 determined in political and legal senses.

However, this phenomenon is quite ambiguous. It also has psychological implications. There is a principle in the minds of people that considers everything that is enshrined by power structures to be necessarily positive. That is, a person agrees with the legality of the behavior of government bodies, regardless of whether it is such or not. That is why the population feels the strength and superiority of government structures and is ready to virtually voluntarily obey any order. Thus, such a connection that has been established between the inhabitants of the state and its rulers is defined by psychology as the legalization and legitimation of state power. People on a subconscious level recognize any direction of government activity 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 recognizing power legally 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 one’s position in society?

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

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

civil society;
power structures;
foreign policy forces.

It is the mood of the first subject that determines the role of the government in the life of society. Thanks to the approving look of the majority of the residents of the state, we can talk about 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 positively demonstrate itself in solving any public problems. Only attention and interest in the life of ordinary people can generate support from citizens. Recognition of the government's competence is explained by various factors. These include relations between different segments of the population, ideological and political views, mentality, historically established traditions and moral values. The correct comprehensive 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 identified 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 this process is heterogeneous. Weber also identified (according to a number of classification criteria) three types of the phenomenon of legitimation. The main reason for this division is the motivation of submission. This identification of species is relevant today and is recognized in political science.

The first type is called traditional legitimation of power. This is a classic version of legitimizing the actions of the state apparatus, since the action is determined by the need to subordinate the people to power. As a result of established customs, people develop a habit and a need to submit to 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 person of the ruler has unwavering and undeniable authority. The image of the monarch determines all his actions as lawful and fair. The advantage of this type of statehood is the high level of stability and sustainability of society. At this stage, there is practically no such type of legitimation left in its pure form. As a rule, it is combined. The traditional approach is supported by modern social institutions, apparatuses and “clerical domination”.

What is rational legitimacy?

Also, the legitimation of power may 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 decisions made 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 behavior. 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 power of this type is typical for a society with a more complex structural formation. It is according to law that power is exercised on a legal basis. This determines the people's appreciation and authority not of a specific 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 method of legitimation (legitimation of power) is when recognition of any actions of the ruling structure is conditioned by 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. A person's strong character creates an emotional uplift 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 distinguish leadership as the main way of manipulating the people during the period of revolutionary sentiments. At this time, it is possible to influence citizens quite easily, since an emotional outburst causes instability in the psychology of society. People generally do not trust the past political order. Principles, ideology, norms and values change. Such a period is very fertile ground for political games. The emergence of a new charismatic leader certainly instills in people faith in a bright future, which raises his authority in the eyes of the people.

Various periods of history were full of 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 for its creation is the active work of the media. A leader is simply imposed on people. This can be done very easily, since the people have practically nothing to rely on. The values formed in the process of history have been betrayed and broken; there are no existing results yet. Innovations do not bear fruit, but only force people to tighten their belts even tighter. But everyone around is only instilling 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 saying that the personal qualities of a leader make him a superman. A similar phenomenon can be allowed in democratic states. But in the classical version, this is a process inherent in a totalitarian and authoritarian regime.

What other ideas of legitimacy are there?

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

The American representative of political science S. Lipset tried to formulate a new definition for this phenomenon. He described the legitimacy of power as the belief of the masses that the state apparatus acts fairly, lawfully and in the interests of society. However, the state apparatus itself was understood as political institutions. Another colleague of his, D. Easton, defined “legitimacy” from the position of moral values. That is, the government itself must act in such a way that it produces results that correspond to the people’s own idea of honesty, correctness and justice. In this case, the political scientist implies the following ways of legitimizing power: ideology, political regime and political leadership. Regarding these sources, a certain classification feature can be identified. Based on the method of legitimation, authorities are distinguished:

ideological;
structural;
personal.

How does D. Easton classify legitimacy?

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

The second type is structural legitimacy. It is similar 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 society lives is subject to a system that is based on legal norms.

Similarly, analogies can be drawn between other species. For example, such types of leadership by the method 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 legality of his actions is determined by the individual abilities and the ability of the ruler to make the best use of his personal qualities. The difference between the concepts of Weber and Easton is that, according to the first, a leader can be a truly charismatic person. Even if her qualities are too exaggerated by the media, they are still present. It is impossible to reach such a level without possessing anything like this. According to Easton's theory, everything is completely the opposite - a person who does not have any specific abilities can be a ruler. There are quite a lot of examples in history when undistinguished individuals receive active support from broad sections of the population.

What is D. Betham's theory?

D. Bethem also identified certain types of legitimation of power. His concept seems to summarize 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 represents the formation of a set of rules according to which an individual 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 are the principles of functioning of the political system.
At the third stage, citizens who are convinced of the legitimacy and fairness 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 delegitimation mean?

Opposite, but no less important, is the concept of delegitimization. The action denoted by this term is the final stage in the life cycle of power and signifies a 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 a loss of support from the masses. Also, unrest among the population easily arises in the absence of protective mechanisms. High levels of corruption and bureaucratization may have an additional impact on the emergence of a process of delegitimization. Phenomena such as nationalism, separatism and racial strife are factors that undermine the positions of the ruling structures.

In political science, even such a concept as a “crisis of legitimacy” has been defined. It implies a period of time during which society loses faith in the honesty, justice and legality of actions carried out by government bodies within the limits of their powers. The political system is simply not accepted by the people. If the hopes placed on the state apparatus by the citizens of the country are not justified over time, then one should not expect support from them either.

To overcome crisis phenomena, the government needs to have constant contact with the population. Moreover, it is worth taking into account the opinions of all segments of society. To do this, it is necessary to provide timely information about the goals and directions of the government’s activities. It is necessary to demonstrate to people that any issues can be resolved legally, without violence. The government structures themselves must be organized. The political game must be played without infringing on the rights of any of its participants. There is a need to constantly promote democratic values in society.

Any power needs legitimacy.

Legitimacy - a political property of a public authority, meaning recognition by the majority of citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any power that is 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 authorities and support for rulers, i.e. loyalty, on the part of the majority of community members, 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 towards power on the part of the population (people) subject to it. If the population (people) accepts and positively evaluates the government, recognizes its right to govern, and agrees to submit to it, then such power is legitimate. If this is not the case, and the people do not “love” the government and do not trust the government, although they submit to it for the time being within the framework of the instinct of self-preservation (primarily because of the fear of mass repression), then such power appears as illegitimate.

Understanding 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 as ideological, technocratic, etc. It is also necessary to answer the question of how the legitimacy of power and its effectiveness (effectiveness) are related to 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 of entire nations, the question of the effectiveness of politics and politicians is particularly acute. It is with this issue 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 presupposes the presence of special knowledge and experience. If this is not so, then politics turns into politicking and loses its effectiveness. The essence of technocratic legitimacy is expressed very figuratively by Russian folk proverbs: “If you take up the tug, don’t say that it’s not strong,” “If you don’t know the ford, don’t poke your nose into the water.”

As a formula reflecting the relationship (interdependence) between the legitimacy and effectiveness of power, the rule stands: 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, over time loses the trust of citizens and turns into illegitimate in their eyes.

If we evaluate the government 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 about 15-20 years to perform an “economic miracle” and be reborn like a “phoenix from the ashes.” Over the same period of time (if we date the start of market reforms to August 1991), we have not yet even fully restored what we (through thoughtlessness or malicious intent) thoroughly destroyed.

It is no coincidence that on October 26, 2006 - the day after the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin spoke live with the people, during which he had to “take the rap” for all the “sins” of the executive powers that be - the then Chairman of the Federal Government M. Fradkov put the members his office a disappointing diagnosis: “collective irresponsibility” associated with “organizational weakness and insufficient knowledge of the subject.” That is, what you lead and manage.

Types of legitimacy

Distinguish three "ideal types" legitimacy:

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

In relation to this last type, the concept of “democratic legitimacy” is used as a synonym.

In addition to these three “ideal types”, other types of legitimacy are distinguished, namely:

technocratic, which can be expressed by the Russian proverb: “If you take up the tug, don’t say it’s not strong,” 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 the board 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. Such legitimacy can come in two forms. Firstly, 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, chief (the most authoritative leader), monarch, etc. Secondly, this is more common in democratic communities legal legitimacy, i.e. public recognition of the transfer of power in accordance with established laws on elections of government bodies.

However, the acquisition of powers by rulers 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, ineffectiveness of authorities in managing society can cause a political crisis, erosion of trust, i.e. loss of legitimacy. In established democracies, crises of legitimacy are resolved in a civilized manner. For this purpose, procedures are provided for the removal from power of a ruler who has lost his 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 faith in the special talent of the leader, who claims access to political power, my charisma - a Divine gift, grace. Citizens' trust in this case is emotional in nature 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 method of legitimizing rulers is often used during periods of revolution, when new authorities cannot rely on law or tradition.

The named types of legitimacy are ideal models. In political practice they are intertwined and complement each other. New types of legitimacy are currently emerging. The strengthening of nationalism led to the emergence of the so-called ethnic legitimacy— formation of power structures along national lines. This variety can be classified as a type of legal legitimacy, when the qualification of nationality is explicitly or implicitly used in elections.

Degree of legitimacy, i.e., trust in rulers, is quite difficult to establish quantitatively. 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 on the part of rulers; the nature of attempts to replace government representatives, 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 fair. The word “legitimacy” itself comes from the Latin. legitimus- law. But not every legitimate power can be legitimate. Already in the Middle Ages, theoretical justifications emerged 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, in particular, spoke about this).

M. Weber identified three main types of political domination and the 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 a ruler, leader, prophet - charismatic legitimacy;
domination based on rationally created rules— rational and 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 existing norms of existence are perceived by people as a naturally (non-human) established order, and its violation as a catastrophe, anarchy, chaos. This is the recognition by a person (society) of the existing order as the norm of existence, which extends 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, people experienced fear of the future. As an example, we can cite the death of V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, Kim Il Sung (North Korea), etc.

At the core ideological legitimacy there lie certain ideological “constructs” - attractive ideas, promises of a “bright future” or “new world order”, religious dogmas, etc. Thus, communist ideology and promises of the rapid construction of communism largely provided legitimacy to the Soviet regime of power; The ideas of National Socialism contributed to the legitimization of the fascist regime in Germany. Some countries in the Near and Middle East have 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 existing political power in society, then they “tolerate” it until new elections.

The legitimacy of power is closely related to its effectiveness. The government, which has legitimate grounds for dominance in society, as a result of its ineffective policies may lose the trust of citizens and become illegitimate. On the contrary, power that has no legal basis, as a result of effective policies, can gain the trust of the people and become legitimate. The process of recognizing the legitimacy of power is called se legitimization, and its loss of legitimacy - delegitimization.

Any political power, even the most reactionary, strives to appear effective and legitimate in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the world community. Therefore, the process of legitimizing power is a subject of special concern to the ruling elite. One of the most common techniques is to hush up the negative results of one’s policies and “stuff out” real and imaginary successes in every possible way. Often, independent media become an obstacle to such substitution of negative factors for positive ones. Illegitimate and ineffective authorities are afraid to enter into dialogue with society and with their opponents, so as not to completely reveal their inconsistency. Therefore, it strives in every way to limit the activities of independent media or put them under its control.