home Diagnosis and diseases Political and state power. Distinctive features of state power

Political and state power. Distinctive features of state power

Thus, under political power understands a special type of social interaction of political subjects, as well as a specific form of social communication between subjects and objects political activity regarding the receipt, storage, reproduction and transformation of political information in order to develop decisions that are adequate or inadequate to the political values of society.

3. Political and state power

Political power in society is possessed by all those subjects to whom other people voluntarily submit, united by some common (political) idea. A political idea may or may not be accepted by the whole society, i.e. may or may not have a form (official) state ideas.

The embodiment of the state idea is the entire set of political laws and institutions officially recognized and operating in a given society. The power wielded by specific subjects acting within the framework of these laws and institutions is state power. The power of subjects whose idea has not become state and has not been embodied in the officially recognized institutions of a given society is simply power political, and no more. For example, the Bolsheviks in Russia until October 1917 simply had political power (and very limited), and after October they became state power.

We have already given above general definition authorities V.G. Ledyaev as “the ability of a subject to ensure the subordination of an object in accordance with its intentions.” Political power is defined by him, accordingly, as “the ability of a subject to ensure the subordination of an object in the sphere of politics.” Consequently, in order to understand what political power is, according to V.G. Ledyaev, you must first understand what politics is. Obviously, in this case, the very definition of politics should not contain references to the political, otherwise we will have a definition based on the principle of “the same through the same,” or “butter and butter.” Let's see how he succeeds.

So what is the “policy sphere”? “Politics,” formulates V.G. Ledyaev, “includes All social relations and events that have a significant impact on the life of a social community, it is expressed in any actions of people aimed at changing or maintaining the conditions of their life." In this formulation, obviously, politics is indistinguishable, for example, from economics, and indeed from any forms of human activity aimed at “changing and preserving the conditions of their life.” This understanding of politics simply coincides with the life of society in general.

Apparently understanding this, V.G. Ledyaev adds one more “criterion of the political.” This is “connection with the process of public administration and the functioning of state (public) institutions” 9. But the state is political institute By introducing this “criterion of the political,” we “smuggle” the political into the definition of the political itself. To say that the political is everything that is connected in one way or another with the state means to say that the political is connected in some way with the political.

We have defined political power as power based on a specific political idea and exercised only within the framework of this idea. We distinguish a political idea from all others in that it expresses a certain order social life and mainly that which concerns the exercise by members of society of their physical, intellectual and economic authorities over things and other people. In other words, political power is metaphysical power, power, buildable over natural power and regulating the use of the latter in society. Coming to government power, politicians receive a monopoly on the use of physical violence, but not in their own interests, but in the interests of the order that is expressed in their idea that brought them to power. At V.G. Ledyaev, it turns out that political power is the ability of some subjects to achieve the subordination of other subjects “in their own interests” in the sphere of politics. But where “one’s own interests” begin, politics ends and corruption, robbery, etc. begin.

Fundamental political ideas can arise both in pre-state human communities, and then they immediately become state-forming ideas (the Mongols of Genghis Khan, the Arabs of Mohammed, etc.), and within the framework of an already established state structure (most often already “decaying”), and then they form a new “(proto)state within a state” (Jacobins and other political clubs in 18th-century France, Marxists in 19th-century Europe, etc.). New power, as V.I. said Lenin, “does not fall from the sky, but grows, arises along with the old, against the old government, in the struggle against it.”

Wrestled from the old government minds of its subjects (or its citizens), the new government turns sooner or later, peacefully (as during the collapse of the USSR) or non-peacefully (as during its creation) into power state Its legitimacy is ensured precisely by the fact that it idea becomes (all) popular. And its legitimacy, and therefore the (political) power itself, as such, disappears when its idea “fizzles out” and ceases to rule over the minds of the entire (or majority) of the people. This is exactly how, for example, the CPSU lost power in the state it created.

Even the most “savage”, despotic forms of absolute monarchy are not the “machines” of naked tyranny and violence that it has become fashionable to portray them as in Lately. At the heart of such “machines” there is always a certain idea, which the despot serves in the same way as the last of his subjects. You can be convinced of this by reading, for example, the correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Kurbsky, in which Ivan the Terrible, one of the most despotic rulers, sets out in detail the ideas that he serves. In this service of his there is a clue to the people's love for the tyrant, which baffles many historians today.

Thus, state power is basically power spiritual, and not physical, economic, intellectual, etc.

4. Features of political power in Russia

Modern government in Russia repeats its traditional features, which allows us to talk about its reproduction in new conditions. Power in Russia has always been personified and associated with a specific holder - the tsar, emperor, general secretary, president. Popular representation in Russia arose to strengthen power, and not to limit it, which indicates the absence of popular representation in the classical sense in the Russian historical tradition. So, Zemsky Sobors for the Russian autocratic government they were, in the words of V. Klyuchevsky, their own tools, from which the government expected readiness to “act one way or another,” and did not seek authority or advice on how to act. The same point of view was supported by B. Chicherin, who compared the style of communication between the tsar and his subjects with the way a landowner communicates with his serfs. Even earlier, P. Chaadaev argued that Russian sovereigns “almost always dragged the country in tow, without any participation of the country itself.”

Exploring the nature of power in Russia, Yu. Pivovarov notes several special qualities:

Despite the personification, power can be separated from one person and merge with many persons, which happened during the transition from the tsarist autocracy to the Soviet system of power;

Despite its external primitiveness, it is complex in its composition. Thus, in tsarist times, power was hereditary-elective in origin, and limited-autocratic in composition; V Soviet time- publicly the power was of the entire people, but behind the scenes it was bound by an agreement with the highest government class, which ruled through the Central Committee; in post-Soviet times, through controlled popular election, power is also bound by an unspoken agreement with the highest government class;

Historically, the characteristic features of political power in Russia were statism And paternalism, which the government itself reproduced in the Russian mentality, trying to create appropriate structures that would justify its activities. These features are to a certain extent universal in the mass consciousness of the Russian people. Under statism understood as: a term used to characterize the state as the highest result and goal of social development; the process of strengthening the role of the state in all spheres of society. Paternalism- this is paternal care on the part of the state towards its citizens.

Character Russian society unlike Western European, it is determined not so much by the agreement of subjects and state power about mutual observance of laws, as much as a silent agreement about mutual impunity for their violation. As a result, in Russia the state acted not as a reconciliating, but as a pacifying principle, and its subjects - as a silent majority or rebels.

Paternalism dates back to the time of Peter I, when a special type of state was emerging in Russia, the symbol of which was the “fatherly”, bureaucratic guardianship of the sovereign and state authorities for the welfare of the people, the social and personal benefit of their subjects.

For Russia, constantly under pressure from both the West and the East, there was a continuous need for defense, so the Moscow state was formed from the very beginning as a “military-national” state, which led to an increased policy of internal centralization and external expansion. This policy ensured the territorial and state integrity of Russian society and blocked tendencies towards disintegration. This was carried out forcibly by the state authorities, which forced the population to accept any hardships when solving the problems of mobilization development. From here stemmed the despotic features of state power, which relied mainly on military force and military methods of management.

The special role of external factors forced the government to choose development goals that were constantly ahead of the country's socio-economic capabilities. Since these goals were not an organic continuation of internal development trends, the state, acting within the framework of the old socio-economic structures, in order to achieve “progressive” results, resorted in the institutional sphere to the policy of “implanting the new from above” and to methods of accelerated development of economic and military potential .

State power played a dual role in the history of Russia. On the one hand, it turned Russia into a great power, while constantly resorting to inhumane means of control, often destroying many thousands and even millions of people in the name of the people.

On the other hand, in Russia state power itself became the direct cause of the crisis of statehood and even the collapse of the state. Over four centuries, Russian civilization experienced three national-state catastrophes: during the first unrest of 1605-1613. the Rurik dynasty ceased to exist, and Russian statehood; Second Troubles 1917-1921 put an end to the monarchical state and the Romanov dynasty; the result of the third turmoil of the 1990s. became the collapse of the USSR.

The alienation of society and state power, reaching its limit on the eve of the crisis of Russian statehood, largely explains the indifference with which Russian society perceives the fall of political regimes, and the ability of the Russian people to turn away from power in difficult times for it, and their willingness to prove themselves in the most unexpected and radical way at the sharp turns of history. This was the case at the beginning of the 17th century, and during the overthrow of the autocracy in Russia, and during the collapse of the communist regime in the USSR.

Another feature of state power is associated with the implementation of reforms “from above” in Russia. The reform elite with an innovative type of culture, based on a critical goal-oriented, technocratic style of thinking, was more concerned with the goals of development and its organizational forms than the value orientations of people. It seemed to her that through administrative influence on the current situation, it is enough to place a person in special organizational conditions so that he is forced or by realizing the need to change his life attitudes and begin to solve new problems.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be said that the above arguments and reasoning, in our opinion, show how two different approaches to the definition of power - "causal" and "systemic", mentioned at the very beginning, can be reconciled. While remaining “causal,” the understanding of various forms and types of power at the same time is in good agreement with many provisions developed by supporters of a purely “systemic” understanding of this fundamental social phenomenon.

I would like to note that political power can be achieved both by violent and non-violent means. In our opinion, the violent path, such as any revolutions, coups and wars, has never given the authorities great advantages and confidence in the future, very often leading to no less violent counteractions. And vice versa, the non-violent, or evolutionary, path has always moved the government slowly but surely towards the trust of the people and the stability of its position.

Bibliography

1. Andreev D. Space Russian authorities: In search of the optimal formula // Free Thought - XXI.- 2004.- No. 3.- P. 13.

2. Baranov N.B. Legitimacy of power: the political experience of Russia // Social and humanitarian knowledge. - 2008. - No. 1. - pp. 18-21.

3. Dibirov A., Pronsky L. On the nature of political power // Bulletin of Moscow State University: Sociology and Political Science. - 2002. - No. 2. - P. 49-50.

4. Kurskova G.Yu. Political phenomenon of power // Social and humanitarian knowledge. - 2000. - No. 1. - P. 89.

5. Soloviev A.I. Power in the political dimension // Bulletin of Moscow State University: Political Sciences. - 1997. - No. 6. - P. 57.

6. Soloviev A.I. Political power in the review of Russian scientists // Bulletin of Moscow State University: Political Sciences. - 1998. - No. 4. - P. 21.

7. Yuriev A.I. Classification of parties according to their political argumentation // Power. - 1997. - No. 7. - P. 47.

Dibirov A., Pronsky L. On the nature of political power // Bulletin of Moscow State University: Sociology and Political Science. - 2002. - No. - P. 49-50.

Dibirov A., Pronsky L. On the nature of political power // Bulletin of Moscow State University: Sociology and Political Science. - 2002. - No. 2. - P. 50.

Dibirov A., Pronsky L. On the nature of political power // Bulletin of Moscow State University: Sociology and Political Science. - 2002. - No. 2. - P. 52-54.

Dibirov A., Pronsky L. On the nature of political power // Bulletin of Moscow State University: Sociology and Political Science. - 2002. - No. 2. - P. 54-56.

Baranov N.B. Legitimacy of power: the political experience of Russia // Social and humanitarian knowledge. - 2008. - No. 1. - P. 18-21.

In the literature, the relationship between the categories “state power” and “political power” is understood differently.

According to one point of view, state power is a narrower category than political power, because the latter is exercised not only by the state, but also by other parts of the political system of society: local governments, parties, political movements, public organizations, etc. Yes, in accordance with the Constitution Russian Federation Local government bodies are not included in the system of state authorities, although they exercise power (Articles 3, 12, Chapter 8).

Now let us consider the issue of the relationship between the concepts of “political” and “state” power. In general, there are two polar points of view on this issue: the first is that its adherents insist on the identity and synonymy of these concepts. In particular, M.I. Baytin objecting to Yu.A. Dmitriev insists: “... political, or state, power is a type of public power that is either exercised by the state itself or delegated or sanctioned by it, i.e. carried out on his behalf, under his authority and with his support.” This approach to this issue has become decisive for many Soviet legal scholars; it is based on the views of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, in K. Marx’s article “Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality,” we find a direct indication of the identity of the concepts of “state” and “political” power.” It should be noted that under the conditions of an authoritarian regime, the above interpretation corresponds to reality, since public organizations, and state bodies are carriers of one dominant ideology, which has become the core of public life, and serve the common goals of protecting the state system and ensuring the dominance of party-state structures. Such an approach, acceptable for periods of revolutionary change of political regimes, transitions from one socio-economic formation to another, can hardly be universal for any political situation, especially peaceful, calm development.

Proponents of another point of view use the concept of “political power” in a broader sense than “state power” - this is power exercised not only by the state, but also by other parts of the political system of society: parties, public organizations and other public associations. A bright representative This point of view is the mentioned Yu.A. Dmitriev. The fact is that Marx’s identification of state and political power was based on the fact that he did not separate the state and civil society. The state and all its various institutions, in particular the electoral system, according to Marx, is the political existence of civil society. “Such a look no longer answers modern ideas about such an institution as civil society. In world science today, the approach to civil society as a complex of social relations, independent of the state, but interacting with it, has gained recognition.

It includes:

- voluntarily, spontaneously formed primary self-governing communities of people (family, cooperation, associations, business corporations, public organizations, professional, creative, sports, ethnic, religious and other associations);
- a set of non-state (non-political) economic, social, spiritual, moral and other social relations;
- production and privacy people, their customs, traditions, morals;
- the sphere of self-government of free individuals and their organizations, protected by law from direct interference in it by state power and politics” Dmitriev Yu A. Correlation of the concepts of political and state power in the conditions of the formation of civil society // State and Law. 1994. No. 7. P. 28-34..

Thus, the following differences between state and political power are distinguished: “ Firstly, consisting of subjects with appropriate powers of authority. The direct subjects of state power are federal government bodies and government bodies of the constituent entities of the federation. And the subjects of political power are political parties, other political public associations and subjects of the electoral process (electoral associations), as well as local government bodies. The classification of the people as subjects of a particular type of power depends on which part of the people acts as a participant in this power relationship. If we're talking about about the multinational people of the Russian Federation, exercising power in the forms of direct democracy enshrined in law, then they act as a subject of state power at the federal level.

At the same time, the population of the subject of the federation, exercising the same powers provided for by law within the territory of the subject, becomes a subject of state power at the regional level. And the local community, operating within its territory, as a non-state institution, is a subject of political power. Subjects of political power will also be those associations of citizens that were created in order to implement the citizens’ desire to unite and pursue political goals.

It must be emphasized that the difference between subjects of state and political power, when it comes to the totality of citizens, is very conditional and depends on the specific regulatory framework. For example, the totality of citizens participating in a referendum represents the subject of the exercise of state power, and the same totality of citizens forming political party, is already a subject of political power.

Secondly, the difference between state and political power is that they have different fields for exercising their powers. The field of action of state power is the state itself and its bodies. The power of the state extends to civil society only in terms of establishing legal norms that ensure its normal functioning. On the contrary, the field for exercising political power is predominantly civil society. Political power goes beyond the framework of civil society only when it is necessary to influence the process of formation government agencies or putting pressure on them.

Third, the difference between the types of power under consideration lies in the methods they use to achieve their goals. Both types of power use a fairly wide range of methods of power influence. The only difference is that subjects of political power cannot directly use the method of state influence (coercion), which is unique to subjects of state power.

And finally, they differ in the scope of their powers. Only subjects of state power have the right to issue normative acts of a generally binding nature. Similar powers of local government bodies (subjects of political power) are limited to a specific territory subject to this body” Dmitriev Yu A. Correlation of the concepts of political and state power in the conditions of the formation of civil society // State and Law. 1994. No. 7. P. 28-34..

In conclusion, it should be noted that political and state power have much in common. In addition to a common source in the person of a multinational people, both types of power have a public character, common goals - managing the affairs of society and the state, and methods of their implementation that are similar in nature. In a democratic state governed by law, they implement the will of their subjects within the framework established by law. However, the conditions for the formation of such a state in the Russian Federation, the formation of civil society in it, pose the need for legal science to study more deeply the institutions of political and state power, to more clearly distinguish between these concepts and their content.

Taking into account the fact that any political organization (such as a party or movement) reflects the interests of a certain social group, it seems objectively fairer (in the universal sense) the non-political interpretation of state power and the provision of state institutions functions of regulation and balancing in meeting the interests of all social groups. Consequently, it is optimal to define political power as “a mechanism for identifying and satisfying certain political interests existing in society, realized through the activities of all organizations of the political system” (9), and state power as “an institutional mechanism for coordinating and coordinating socio-political interests and imparting political will, reflecting a compromise of these interests, of a generally binding legal nature, enshrined in the laws of the state” Lyubashits V.Ya. “Theory of State and Law” Rostov-on-Don, 2002.

Introduction

The concept of power is one of the central ones in political science. It provides the key to understanding political institutions, political movements and politics itself. The definition of the concept of power, its essence and character has vital importance to understand the nature of politics and the state, it allows us to distinguish politics and political relations from the entire sum of social relations. In the context of reforming Russian society, the issues of studying the nature of political power and building its most advanced model are acquiring significant practical importance that is difficult to overestimate. The implementation of economic, political and legal reforms requires both leaders and any conscious member of civil society to expand their knowledge in the field of the peculiarities of the functioning of political power in order to better understand the processes of government reform and forecasting possible consequences decision-making at any level of power relations in society.

In this work, an attempt is made to answer questions such as: what is “Political power”, what is its essence, structure, and to determine the main ways of formation and functioning of power in modern Russia.

Political power: concept, relationship with state power.

Before considering the relationship between the concepts of state and political power, it seems necessary to clarify what power is as a general sociological category. In political science theory, there is no single definition of power. The most frequently used definitions are:

- power, which interprets power as domination and coercion of obedience;
- strong-willed, understanding power as the ability to carry out one’s will even in the face of resistance;
- power as influence. The essence of influence is the ability to influence the behavior of others.
- teleological, according to which, power is the achievement of certain goals;
- instrumentalist, which interprets power as the ability to mobilize resources to achieve certain goals;
- conflictual, reducing power to a position of dominance associated with the ability of certain groups and individuals to control the mechanism for distributing scarce social values;
- structuralist, representing power as a special kind of relationship between the manager and the managed.

The above definitions are not mutually exclusive, but complement each other. Recognizing the fact that today science has not developed general theory authorities, domestic political scientists have systematized numerous theories of power. Several approaches have been identified in considering the essence of power.

Relationist theories (from the English relation) understand power as interpersonal attitude allowing one individual to change the behavior of another. There are several options for this approach:

A) resistance theory(D. Cartwright, J. French, B. Raven) considers power as a relationship in which the subject suppresses the resistance of the object. Accordingly, a classification is developed of the various degrees and forms of resistance, as well as the bases of power. The concept of “power” is introduced, which is understood as the maximum potential ability of an agent to influence another;
b) exchange theory(P. Blau, D. Hickson, K. Heinigs) interprets power as a situation of resource exchange. Resources are distributed unevenly: some individuals lack them and need them. In this case, surplus resources held by others can be transformed into power. Surpluses are given to those who lack them in exchange for desired behavior. The authors focus on the asymmetrical nature of power relations;
V) theory of division of spheres of influence(D. Rong) questions the issue of asymmetrical power relations. Power is an interaction where participants periodically change roles. For example, the trade union controls the hiring of labor, while the employer dictates the time and place of work.

System theories authorities consider power as an impersonal property, as an attribute of the system. Within this concept, three approaches are distinguished:

A) power as an attribute of a macrosocial system(T. Parsons, D. Easton). For T. Parsons, power is a generalized mediator in the political system. He compared it with money, which acts as a general intermediary of the economic process. Power is understood as the real ability of the system to accumulate its interests and achieve its goals;
b) meso-approach(M. Crozier) considers power at the level of subsystems (family, organization). The direct connection between power and the organizational structure is indicated;
V) micro approach(M. Rogers, T. Clark) interprets power as the interaction of individuals acting within a specific social environment. Power is defined as an individual's ability to influence others and is viewed through his roles and statuses in the system;
G) communicative approach(N. Luhmann, K. Deutsch) understands power as a means social communication, allowing to regulate group conflicts and ensure the integration of society.

Behavioral (behavioral interpretations, from the English behavior - behavior) power concepts , like relationist theories, view power as a relationship between people. The main focus is motives of behavior in the struggle for power. There are several interpretation options:

A) power model(G. Lasswell) believes that the root cause of power is impulse - the desire for power. All political matter is built from the collisions and interactions of individual wills to power. Power itself is manifested in decision-making and control over resources;
b) market model(J. Catlin) proceeds from the analogy between politics and economics. In politics, the laws of market trade apply: taking into account supply and demand, the desire for profit, competition;
V) game model(F. Znaniecki) suggests that in the political market subjects differ not only various stocks power, but also abilities, flexibility of strategy, passion. The struggle for power can be motivated by a “game” nature that brings satisfaction to the participants. Politics is a field of play, a theater where success depends on dexterity, on acting and the subject’s ability to transform.

So, to summarize: power is interpreted either as a characteristic of an individual (personal power), or as a resource or commodity. The most popular is to consider power as an interaction (relationship), the structural components of which will be the subject and the object (the subject is the active party that causes changes in the actions of another - the object). The lack of a single definition confirms the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon.

There are different points of view regarding nature of power(primary source of power):

- psychological interpretations they derive power from human psychology: the will to power, the inferiority complex (in this case, power acts as a means of compensating for the feeling of one’s own inferiority);
- structural-organizational approach takes power beyond the scope of psychology and connects it with the nature of the organization (a kind of “effect” of the organization), with the statuses and roles of individuals in the organization;
- legal approach derives power from norms and sanctions; from this point of view, power is the ability to create norms and demand their implementation;
- class approach(Marxist) substantiated the class nature of political power: power acts as an organization of the economically dominant class.

Power is associated with dominance, which is understood as coercive violence, command. The directive moment (imposing one's will in the form of an order) is present in power as a generalized symbol (the ability to use violence, punishment) and as real power in relation to those who have broken the laws. On the other hand, the category of domination is narrower than the category of power, because power can act in the form of influence and authority and not resort to violence.

Power can be exercised in the form influence. But influence is broader in content than power. We can talk about power if this influence is not of a random nature, but is observed constantly. Power as influence is exercised either in the form of persuasion (influencing the rational level of consciousness) or in the form of suggestion, which involves the use of special manipulation techniques (influencing the subconscious).

Authority is considered as a possible form and source of power. Authority is a leadership that is voluntarily recognized by the subject of power as having the right to power due to his moral qualities or business competence.

Political power, like any other power, means the ability and right of some to exercise their will in relation to others, to command and control others. But at the same time, unlike other forms of power, it has its own specifics. Her distinctive features are:

supremacy, the binding nature of its decisions for the whole society and, accordingly, for all other types of power. It can limit the influence of other forms of power, placing them within reasonable limits, or eliminate them altogether;

universality, i.e. publicity. This means that political

power acts on the basis of law on behalf of the entire society;

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

monocentricity, i.e. the existence of a national center (system of government bodies) for decision-making;

the widest range of means used to gain, retain and exercise power.(8)

The subject of attention of such sciences as political science and jurisprudence in different periods of development became both general issues theories of power and various aspects content, structure and correlation of the concepts of “political” and “state” power. As noted by M.I. Baytin, “the question of power in this aspect became the subject of special development in Soviet legal science relatively recently, approximately from the beginning of the 60s, and needs further in-depth study.”(1)

Now let us consider the question of the relationship between the concepts of “political” and “state” power. In general, there are two polar points of view on this issue: the first is that its adherents insist on the identity and synonymy of these concepts. In particular, M.I. Baytin objecting to Yu.A. Dmitriev insists: “... political, or state, power is a type of public power that is either exercised by the state itself or delegated or sanctioned by it, i.e. carried out on its behalf, under its authority and with its support.” This approach to this issue has become decisive for many Soviet legal scholars; it is based on the views of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, in K. Marx’s article “Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality,” we find a direct indication of the identity of the concepts of “state” and “political” power." It should be noted that under the conditions of an authoritarian regime, the above interpretation corresponds to reality, since both public organizations and state bodies are carriers of one dominant ideology, which has become the core of social life, serve the general goals of protecting the state system and ensuring the dominance of party-state structures. Such an approach, acceptable for periods of revolutionary change of political regimes, transitions from one socio-economic formation to another, is unlikely to be universal for any political situation, especially peaceful, calm development.

Proponents of another point of view use the concept of “political power” in a broader sense than “state power” - this is power exercised not only by the state, but also by other parts of the political system of society: parties, public organizations and other public associations. A prominent representative of this point of view is the mentioned Yu.A. Dmitriev. The fact is that Marx’s identification of state and political power was based on the fact that he did not separate the state and civil society. The state and all its various institutions, in particular the electoral system, according to Marx, is the political existence of civil society. “Such a view no longer corresponds to modern ideas about such an institution as civil society. In world science today, the approach to civil society as a complex of social relations, independent of the state, but interacting with it, has gained recognition.

It includes:

voluntarily, spontaneously formed primary self-governing communities of people (family, cooperation, associations, business corporations, public organizations, professional, creative, sports, ethnic, religious and other associations);

a set of non-state (non-political) economic, social, spiritual, moral and other social relations;

industrial and private life of people, their customs, traditions, mores;

the sphere of self-government of free individuals and their organizations, protected by law from direct interference in it by state power and politics."(5)

Thus, the following differences between state and political power are distinguished: " Firstly, consisting of subjects with appropriate powers of authority. The direct subjects of state power are federal government bodies and government bodies of the constituent entities of the federation. And the subjects of political power are political parties, other political public associations and subjects of the electoral process (electoral associations), as well as local government bodies. The classification of the people as subjects of a particular type of power depends on which part of the people acts as a participant in this power relationship. If we are talking about the multinational people of the Russian Federation, exercising power in the forms of direct democracy enshrined in law, then they act as a subject of state power at the federal level.

It must be emphasized that the difference between subjects of state and political power, when it comes to the totality of citizens, is very conditional and depends on the specific regulatory framework. For example, the set of citizens participating in a referendum is a subject of the exercise of state power, and the same set of citizens forming a political party is already a subject of political power.

Taking into account the fact that any political organization (such as a party or movement) reflects the interests of a certain social group, it seems objectively more fair (in the universal sense) the non-political interpretation of state power and the provision of functions of regulation and balancing to state institutions in meeting the interests of all social groups. Consequently, it is optimal to define political power as “a mechanism for identifying and satisfying certain political interests existing in society, realized through the activities of all organizations of the political system” (9), and state power as “an institutional mechanism for coordinating and coordinating socio-political interests and imparting political will, reflecting a compromise of these interests, of a generally binding legal nature, enshrined in the laws of the state" (9).

Introduction

1. Basic approaches to the concept of “power”

2. Definition of political power

3. Political and state power

4.Features of political power in Russia

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Political power is undoubtedly the central, most complex and even somewhat mysterious object of political science, as many scientists admit. As A.I. writes, for example. Yuryev, politics is a constant struggle “with the unknown of the laws of power and the technology of its production.” The problem of political power is a kind of muse of political research. It is safe to say that without a conceptual interpretation of this phenomenon, politics as such loses its objectivity and content.

In addition to purely substantive difficulties, the theoretical interpretation of the concept of “political power”, more than in any other issue, was so dependent on the influence of political circumstances and ideological pressure, which essentially interrupted the very tradition of studying this phenomenon in Soviet times and made creative exchange with foreign scientists as difficult as possible.

1. Basic approaches to the concept of “power”

Most scientists agree that the concept of power in the social sciences plays as fundamental a role as, for example, the concept of energy in physics. However, in views on the nature and essence of power, the degree of agreement that is necessary for a stable foundation of the theory of power on its own conceptual basis has not yet been achieved.

However, at the moment, two main theoretical approaches to understanding power have already clearly emerged. According to the first of them, the traditions of which go back to T. Hobbes, power is some individual property, ability of some individuals achieve their goals by influencing other individuals in a specific way. According to the classic definition of M. Weber, power is “the ability of an individual to carry out his will within given social relations, even despite resistance, regardless of what such an opportunity is based on.” This approach can be called " causal" (V.G. Ledyaev).

According to the second approach, which is now increasingly used and which can be called “systemic” (T. Parsons, X. Arendt, M. Foucault, etc.), power is not a property of individuals. She represents something systemic a property that exists only within and within a group or society as a whole only until"as long as this group acts in concert."

Proponents of the first approach emphasize the insignificance of the means by which it is achieved in determining power, and consider physical force and violence to be the most effective of them. Proponents of the second approach, on the contrary, oppose power to force. Where they resort to violence (force), they emphasize, they sign the absence of power. This approach sometimes leads to paradoxical conclusions: “Tyranny... is the most violent and least powerful form of government” (X. Arendt).

In domestic literature on this moment the most complete and detailed analysis of the main Western concepts of power is given in the monograph by V.G. Ledyaev "Power: conceptual analysis". Convincingly criticizing the “systems” approach for its inadequacy existing in the field of theory and common sense general ideas about power, the author gives preference to the first, “causal” concept of power, within the framework of which (after a thorough analysis of all the most well-founded points of view) he formulates his definition of power. It looks like this: “Power is the ability of a subject to ensure the subordination of an object in accordance with his intentions.”

2 . Definition of political power

Ideas that take over people's consciousness can be religious, moral, aesthetic, technical, economic, etc., but also political. The specificity of political ideas is that they express some device, some order social life, and above all that which concerns the implementation by members of society of their physical, intellectual and economic authorities over things and other people. In other words, all forms of natural power in society are matter for the idea of political power, which reforms in my own way.

People infected with political ideas become like-minded people, comrades. Like metal filings in a magnetic field, such people clearly oriented along the “power lines” of the political idea they have perceived and begin to act and think synchronously. By virtue of the very (political) content of these ideas, they become a political organization - party.

Any organization of people united for the sake of practical goals, requires unity of will, and therefore, a certain division into managers and controlled, those who give orders and those who carry them out, etc. Embodied in political organization the power of ideas, thus, subordinates people to each other, but not as natural individuals and personalities, but as ministers their general ideas in such a way that, serving each other, they thereby serve only the idea that unites them. Political power, therefore, is spiritual power, more precisely - fundamentally spiritual, and not physical or intellectual. Political power exists only within the framework and, so to speak, “under the auspices” of the corresponding ideas. Where there is no spiritualizing general political idea, there is no political power there.

Supporters of the “systemic” concept of power (X. Arendt, J. Habermas, M. Foucault, A. Gidens, etc.) come very close to this point of view. Nevertheless, their definitions of political power (and this is all they call “power”) lack the necessary precision and clarity. Very often they illustrate their understanding with the same example - a scene with a traffic controller. The policeman, with his whistles and gestures, gives orders (precisely orders, not requests) to the drivers, who obey him unquestioningly. With this example, these authors want to emphasize two things: firstly, nonviolent the nature of “real” power (if a traffic controller controlled drivers with a service weapon, for example, then he would thereby demonstrate that he has no power, but only naked force); secondly, with this example they want to emphasize the special, "communicative" the nature of power (the traffic controller rules over the drivers within the framework of a certain “language” common to all of them, in which they can give generally understandable orders, and outside of this language there is no manifestation of “real” power).

The following must be objected to these arguments. Firstly, force is also power, albeit non-political. Moreover, force is the most important “matter” of political power. The very essence of any political idea is how it should be organized. force(and natural power in general) in society and power serves as a guarantor of the maintenance of this organization. And political ideas themselves win only when it takes hold of enough people - mass, thereby becoming insurmountable by force.

Secondly, in the case of political power, the matter is not at all about any special role of communication, communication, etc. The traffic controller in this, which has already become a classic example, can be completely replaced by an ordinary pole, a traffic light, the “orders” of which drivers will obey” as unquestioningly as the orders of a policeman. The point is not at all in “communication” with this pole, but in the fact that everyone drivers are controlled by the same order of behavior on the roads accepted by all of them. They obey not the policeman as a person, but the order common to all of them (including the policeman). Power actually “sits" not in the policeman, but in the consciousness drivers in the form of managers of all common rules.

Thus, under political power is understood as a special type of social interaction of political subjects, as well as a specific form of social communication between subjects and objects of political activity regarding the receipt, storage, reproduction and transformation of political information in order to develop decisions that are adequate or inadequate to the political values of society.

3. Political and state power

Above we have already given a general definition of the power of V.G. Ledyaev as “the ability of a subject to ensure the subordination of an object in accordance with its intentions.” Political power is defined by him, accordingly, as “the ability of a subject to ensure the subordination of an object in the sphere of politics.” Consequently, in order to understand what political power is, according to V.G. Ledyaev, you must first understand what politics is. Obviously, in this case, the very definition of politics should not contain references to the political, otherwise we will have a definition based on the principle of “the same through the same,” or “butter and butter.” Let's see how he succeeds.

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

Political and state power. Distinctive features of state power

Introduction

Political power: concept, relationship with state power.