What is power in a nutshell. See what "Power" is in other dictionaries. Political power structure
POWER
POWER
A management tool used to achieve set goals. Goals can be group, class, collective, personal, state, etc. V. is called upon to do everything in order to achieve those goals that must be preserved, but at the same time improve and change management. The concept of V. is multifaceted and multifaceted. It covers relationships that are manifested both at the macro level (V. state-va) and at the micro level (V. of parents over children).
V. - biosocial, the makings of V. are inherited by people from nature. Already in the animal world there is a certain "". The leader of the herd of monkeys has a huge "B." over all the other monkeys, and they feel it well. Without such a leader, any herd can die, because it will lose its bearings and in the harsh conditions of the struggle for it will not be able to adapt to new living conditions. She herself made sure that someone from the herd of animals needs to have a “V.”, which allows him to play the role of leader in different situations. Being stronger, the leader subjugates all the others.
All people by nature have dominion over their own kind. Lust for power is inherent in everyone, but in some it is manifested more strongly, while in others it is weaker. The realization of power inclinations depends solely on social conditions. For example, Napoleon would not have become emperor of France if Corsica had not been annexed to France three months before his birth and if the country had not broken out.
For the implementation of V., at least it and the object are necessary: one gives orders, they are carried out. The subject orders the object, and the object obeys, for disobedience entails.
The state, political parties, individuals, groups, through their representatives, act as subjects of V.. The same applies to object B. Subject and object B. can change places. Subordination to the subject of V. presupposes such forms of relationships in which his orders are carried out with necessity. At the same time, the subject of V. must have the appropriate authority, giving him orders to the object of V. and require him to carry out orders.
Power assumes the implementation of the decisions made. Failure to comply with the decision should result in punishment, which can be economic, administrative, criminal, etc.
Political warfare is also coercion. Naturally, many do not like her, despise and reject. Anarchists, for example, believe that V. exists and must be disposed of by any means. V. is, however, an immanent feature of society, and it cannot function normally without appropriate power structures. People are afraid of V., but at the same time, if anomalous phenomena take over in society - crime, theft, robbery, etc. - they complain about the absence of V. Anarchy leads either to the disintegration of all aspects of social life and, ultimately, to its death, or to the establishment of a dictatorship.
V. is not identical with authority. The subject may have V., but not authority, although the possession of V. does not exclude the presence of authority. The subject acquires it gradually and deserves it through his activities that benefit society, collective, group, political party, mafia, etc. The subject of authority gives advice and recommendations that can be taken into account or ignored, which is unacceptable in relation to the orders of the subject B. Many prominent people (writers, scientists, artists, etc.), without any V., enjoy great authority in society . As for the V. haves, they must earn authority by their deeds, and not by promises.
There are different classifications of the types of V., which depend on social life, on the nature and content of V. itself, and so on. First, in a general form, internal, external, “natural” and institutional V. can be distinguished. Internal V. follows from the internal nature of the V. object. External V. is V. that does not follow from the internal nature of its object. It involves submission to someone else's will, imposing one's own vision of the world, one's own order and way of life. Thus, the victorious state forces the defeated one to submit to it, to restructure its own in accordance with the ideas of the victorious state. By “natural” V. is meant V., which, as it were, is given by nature. For example, the leaders of primitive tribes had a large V., but they received it in a natural way, i.e. thanks to their natural gifts, their devotion to the tribe, etc. As for the institutional V., it is based on legal laws and norms. Depending on the spheres of public life, V. can be distinguished as economic, political, spiritual, and so on. In turn, economic V. can be divided into subspecies (V. within an enterprise, corporation, firm, etc.). Political warfare also manifests itself in various forms (democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, personal warfare regime, legislative, executive and judicial branches of warfare, etc.).
Each generates his own social V. In primitive society, such a type of V. (leaders, an assembly of the clan) dominated, which most adequately corresponded to the low level of productive forces and production relations. But already with the transition to a class society, another type of war appears, appearing in various forms (monarchy, democracy, tyranny, etc.). The forms of its manifestation depend on concrete historical conditions. So, in Athens in the era of Pericles, a developed slave-owning system functioned, in antich. Rome's republican government was replaced by a dictatorship. Monarchy is typical of feudalism. As for the capitalist mode of production, the typical form of war for it is the republic, although dictatorial regimes appear under certain historical circumstances. But sooner or later they give way to the republican form of government.
Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .
POWER
in a general sense, and the ability to exercise one's will, to have a decisive influence on the behavior of people with the help of c.-l. means - authority, law, violence (economic, political, state, family and others) .
Scientific approach to the definition of V. requires taking into account the multiplicity of its manifestations in society, and therefore, clarifying the specific. features otd. its types - economic, political (including state, public), family; delimitations of class, group, personal V., which are intertwined with each other, but are not reduced to each other; delimitation of features, forms and methods of manifestation of V. in various social, economic. and political systems. If in antagonistic society ch. characteristic of V. are relations of domination and subordination, then in the socialist. society, they are increasingly being replaced by relationships based on persuasion, leadership, influence, and control.
The most important type of V. is political. V., the real ability of a given class, group, individual to carry out his will in politics and legal norms; it is characterized by social domination and leadership of certain classes. Although now political activities are carried out within the various components of the political. systems: parties, trade unions, intl. organizations (UN, NATO and others) , Centre. political institute. V. is a state. State. V. has a class, relies on specialist. the apparatus of coercion and extends to the entire population of a given country; it means defined. organization and activities in the implementation of the goals and objectives of this organization.
V. is one of main concepts of politics. science and practice. V. I. Lenin wrote that “the transfer of state power from the hands of one class to the hands of another is the first, main, fundamental revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political sense of this concept” (PSS, t. 31, with. 133) that "the root of any revolution, the question of power in the state ..." (ibid., t. 32, with. 127, cm. also, t. 34, with. 200) .
Societies. V. existed before the appearance of the state, it will remain in one form or another after its disappearance. Criticizing the position of P. B. Struve, who argued that it would remain even after the abolition of classes, Lenin wrote: “First of all, he completely wrongly sees the distinguishing feature of the state in coercive power: coercive power exists in every human community, and in the tribal structure, and in the family, but there was no state here ... A sign of the state - a special class of persons in whose hands power is concentrated ” (ibid., t. 1, with. 439) .
State. V. can achieve its goals by various means - ideological. impact, economic incentives and other indirect means, but only she has a monopoly on coercion with the help of specialist. apparatus in relation to all members of society.
Dominance suggests abs. or relates. subjugation of some people (social groups) others. Leadership denotes the ability to exercise one's will by influencing in various direct and indirect forms on guided objects. It can be based solely on authority, on the recognition by the governed of correspondences. powers of managers with a minimum implementation of imperiously-compels. functions. So, the leadership from the communist side. or the workers' party relies mainly on the ideological influence on the masses, on the strength of authority. The effectiveness of leadership depends on the correctness of the party's policy, on the extent to which its ideas and concrete decisions meet the interests of the masses, the objective needs of societies. development.
It is also important to distinguish between the concepts of political. leadership and management. Yes, in modern imperialist monopoly groups exercise a leading role in society and the state. However, they do not take on the functions directly. controls that are carried out prof. political figures, the administrative apparatus. The monopolies exert their decisive influence on the policy of the capitalist. states by various means: the very fact of concentrating in their hands the key levers of the economy, the direction of activity, financing determined. parties and political campaigns, influence on the nature of constitutional regimes, on the formation of societies. opinions, on the activities of various pressure groups in parliaments, in state institutions and t. Lenin emphasized that under the conditions of parliamentary regimes he leads society indirectly, but all the more surely. “That special stratum in whose hands is power in modern society,” wrote Lenin, “is. The immediate and closest relationship of this body with ... the bourgeois class is also clear from history ... from the very conditions for the formation and staffing of this class, to which access is open only to bourgeois "come from the people" and which is connected with this bourgeoisie by a thousand strongest threads. (ibid., with. 439-40) .
The leading force in the socialist countries advocates, which exercises its leadership primarily through the communist. or a workers' party, and specialists working in the field of economy, culture, education and others Communist and workers' parties, exercising leadership of society, are at the center of all political. systems. They influence, firstly, by developing an ideology and policies, programs for the activities of society; secondly, shaping and organizing the implementation of these programs internal and ext. politicians; thirdly, by nominating their representatives to key positions in the areas of management, teaching them how to manage; fourthly, controlling the implementation of the planned line. directly with them. business and others processes are handled by farms., state, societies. and other organizations. The distinction between the concepts of leadership and management in the conditions of socialist. society has not only theoretical, but also practical. . This approach helps to properly distribute functions, rights and responsibilities between various political units. systems of the socialist countries, to avoid parallelism in their activities, to make management as efficient as possible.
Under communist conditions societies. self-government will wither away the main institution politich. V. - state, however, leadership and management will be maintained, which will be carried out by the whole society.
F. Engels, On Authority, K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, t. eighteen; e ss, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, ibid., t. 21; Lenin V. I., On the social structure of V., prospects and liquidationism, PSS, t. 20; his own, Tasks of the proletariat in our revolution, din, t. 31, with. 162-65; him, Gosvo and the revolution, in the same place, t. 33; his own, Prolet, the revolution and the renegade Kautsky, ibid., t. 37; Materials of the XXIV Congress CPSU, M., 1971; Materials of the XXV Congress CPSU, M., 1976; Materials of the XXVI Congress CPSU, M., 1981; Burlatsky F. M., Galkin A. A., Sociology. Politics. International relations, M., 1974; Veselovsky V., Classes, elephant and V., per. with Polish, M., 1981.
F. M. Burlatsky.
Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .
POWER
in contrast to physical violence, which affects the soul and penetrates them, subordinating another to the law of its will. In essence, it is similar authority. Its correlate is respect; it is ethical if and only if it guides the one who respects it in such a way that he is able to realize more and higher values (cf. Ethics), without being directly affected by the authorities. Power needs justification, and these attempts are an essential part of history. Power inherent demonic. “Truly, this is demonic power: even where it fights for the ideal in the highest degree selflessly, considering success to be lasting only when it defends its own with exceptional vitality, it resolutely carries out its own, linking the passionate desire for its own significance directly with its deeds. . Whoever has power is possessed by it” (Gerh. Ritter, Die Dämonie der Marcht, 1947). Therefore, power in the understanding of orthodox Christianity is sinful under all circumstances.
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
POWER
POWER is the ability to influence something or someone. Power is closely related to dominance and authority. M. Weber defined power as follows: “The power lies in individual A to achieve from individual B such behavior or such refraining from actions that B would not otherwise accept and which corresponds to the will of A.”
In modern political science, four models of power are best known.
Voluntarism is based on the traditions of the social contract, social atomism and methodological
skom individualism (see Social contract. Atomism). In this model, power is viewed through the prism of intentions and passions. All social life is essentially reduced to the claims and relations of individuals. Anyone is presented only as a collection of individual wills. For the first time this model of power relations was formulated in the works of the classics of the English political - T. Hobbes, J. Locke. D. Hume showed that “power” is close to the concept of “cause”, but unlike the cause, power is also associated with the result.
The modern political scientist R. Dahl considers power as the ability to force others to do something that they would not do in the absence of pressure, that is, as the ability to bring things into, change the course of events. Imperious, in his view, consists of two main elements - stimulus and reaction. By analogy with Newtonian mechanics, it is assumed that all bodies are in a state of relative rest until some external force acts on them. That is the power that power is. In essence, Dahl is causal in nature.
This same model of power includes “rational choice” (see rational choice theory), which postulates the existence of hidden causes and structures. Public life consists of a chain of successive interactions between individuals and groups, in which a special role is given to motivation, incentives for participants in power relations.
Many critics of the voluntarist model of power have pointed out that it does not provide a theoretical explanation of how and why individuals are able to exercise power in the way they do it. In addition, this model does not take into account at all the ideological and cultural-historical prerequisites that determine the preferences and goals of human activity.
The hermeneutic or communicative model is related to phenomenology and hermeneutics. Its supporters believe that power is constituted due to the meanings shared by the members of a given social community. Beliefs are a central ingredient in power relations, and considerations of rationality are necessarily involved in social life. The interest of hermeneutics is directed primarily to the symbolic and normative constructs that form the practical data of social agents. This approach also includes the belief that people are by nature linguistic beings and largely determine the nature of society, including the forms of existing power. For example, Arendt Hanna in his work “On Violence” holds that power means the ability of a person to act, but to act jointly. Power, in her opinion, is never the property of an individual, but belongs to a group and exists only as long as it retains its own. Humans are uniquely communicative beings, and it is through their ability to share thoughts and relationships with others that their ability to dominate and obey is maintained.
For supporters of this model, power is included in the system of values that constitute, as well as the possibilities for the activities of social agents.
The “material” aspects of power relations remained essentially out of their interest.
The structuralist model of power is associated with the names of K. Marx and 9. Durkheim. It rejects the methodological approach, and does not accept a purely approach. Power, according to this model, has a structural objectivity that is not recognized in either the voluntarist or the hermeneutic model. The power structure makes human behavior possible and limits it at the same time. It may have a normative character, but it is not limited to the views and beliefs of people.
The structural approach defines power as the ability to act. Social agents have power by virtue of the stability of the relationships in which they participate. It has a certain "materiality" because it follows certain structural rules, has its own resources and relationships. This is the dual nature of structures: social structures do not exist independently of the activity and people's ideas about it, and at the same time they act as the material conditions of activity. This structure does not arise simply from relations, for example, between the capitalist and the workers, is not reducible to the views of the capitalist on the workers, but is inherent in capitalism as a whole. Participants of interactions rely on it, realizing certain goals, including those of an imperious nature.
The postmodern model of power has variants, ranging from M. Foucault to modern feminism. Rejecting individualism and , postmodern theorists believe that language and symbols are the central elements of power. From their point of view, the scientific does not have sufficient cognitive reliability. Thus, Foucault sees it in "stirring up the revolt of enslaved knowledge", which is obscured, if not disqualified, by generally accepted knowledge. In the genealogical analysis of power, he proceeds from the fact that power is concentrated not only in the political sphere. Power relationships are found everywhere: in personal relationships, in the family, at the university, in the office, in the hospital, in the culture as a whole. The asymmetry of influences, which consists in the fact that A has a stronger influence on B than B on A, suggests that power is a universal social relation. Therefore, the task of a politician is to take off the mask from power, especially in those areas of life where the relationship of domination and subordination is not evident. Power, according to Foucault, is certain structures or discourses that have both positive and negative. Social agents are created due to the power relations in which they participate, and no matter how "resistance" to this power may be, social agents are always limited to those structures in which they appeared.
Postmodern theorists emphasize the local analysis of "micro-power". Any globality or approach to the study of social power always presupposes a totalitarian discourse. Moreover, it is the local that is anti-epistemological. Based on the ideas of F. Nietzsche, Foucault tries to ontologize domination in one form or another. The right must be considered not from the point of view of the legitimacy of its establishment, but from the point of view of the enslavement that it provokes.
The concept of power in everyday life and in the scientific community is used in various meanings. Philosophers talk about power over the objective laws of society, naturalists talk about power over nature, politicians talk about political power, psychologists talk about a person's power over himself, parents talk about family power.
Power - it is a special kind of behavior based on the possibility of changing the behavior of other people.
Power It is a special kind of relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
Power - it is the achievement of certain goals, the achievement of intended results.
Power - it is the ability to impose and enforce decisions. This is a form of social relations that allows one social element to influence the behavior of another.
P r i z n a k i v l a s t i:
1) power is a relationship involving at least two partners;
2) the order of the exercising power must be accompanied in a hidden or explicit form, the possibility of applying certain situations in case of disobedience to the prescribed behavior;
3) subordination of the one over whom power is exercised to the one from whom it comes;
4) the existence of social rules that establish the order in which the one who gives the orders has the right to do so, and the one whom these orders affect is obliged to carry them out.
Power resources:
1) economic resources - material values;
2) social resources - the right to raise or lower social status or rank;
3) cultural and information resources - knowledge, information;
4) power resources - means of physical coercion, people specially trained for this;
5) demographic resources - the people themselves, who create material wealth, act as the basis for power, administrative resources, participate in the transfer of knowledge and information.
Political power exists in every organized community of people, arises with the formation of human society itself, exists throughout its history. Each society is a controlled and reproducing system that requires the coordination of its parts and elements.
Power- this is a form of social relations, characterized by the ability to influence the nature and direction of the activities and behavior of people, social groups and classes, through economic, ideological, legal mechanisms, also with the help of authority, tradition, violence. The essence of power is the relationship of leadership, domination and subordination.
Power in a general sense is understood as the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to influence the activities, behavior of people with the help of any means - authority, law, violence (economic, political, state, etc.). The most important type of power is political power, that is, the real ability of a given class, group, individual to carry out his will in politics and legal norms.
Each social community organizes its joint activities with the help of a power-administrative system, including domination and subordination, management and execution. This is manifested in the subordination of the will of the individuals and groups included in a given community to a single will developed in this community. Such an attitude means the imposition of a single will on the subject and the subordination of those subject to this single will. Thus, the power-volitional mechanism of the functioning of any society is a system of relationships in which one side forms and implements the guiding will, performs the functions of social control, and the other submits in accordance with the requirements.
Power-administrative relations always have a "personal coloring", that is, they are identified with a specific person. "Showing up" through the personality of the leader (president, mayor, minister), they outwardly act as the power of the individual, standing above the ruled. At the same time, power relations remain public, do not become relations of specific individuals. However, the individual qualities of a leader have an impact on the functioning of the power-administrative structure that he represents: the personal qualities of a leader (will, outlook, cruelty, lust for power, culture, adherence to principles, honesty) can affect the functioning of the power-administrative body headed by him, and through him to other structures. The measure of such influence depends on the place and role of this body in the structure of power relations.
Thus, power as a social phenomenon is characteristic of any organized society. Without power in various forms of its manifestation (a leader over a tribe, leaders of public organizations over ordinary members, state bodies over citizens, and so on), none of the communities could exist.
Power arises from the natural historical need for an organization that is able to realize the interests of the whole society or individual social communities. It is the need for a certain organization that causes power activity.
Power is considered not as a certain quality or property, but as a relationship between subjects, as a functional relationship between them, that is, it appears in the form of powers and abilities to carry out control, regulatory actions that are important for the entire political system. According to this approach, there are two sides of the "power medal" - the leader and the subordinate, the leader and the follower, the master and the subject. If there are no two subjects, then there is no power. In this case, the essence of power is the relationship of leadership and control, domination and subordination.
It should be noted that not only the commanded depends on the ruler, but the ruler also depends on the commanded. After all, you can obey in different ways. For example, formally it seems to accept orders, but in fact evade their actual implementation. This is how the phenomenon that is called "the strength of the weak" and the impotence of power arises.
From the equality of fellow tribesmen, the most powerful, smart, cunning and capable of influencing others stand out. Then power and its institutions begin to be inherited. At the stage of emergence of private property, economic power is born, the state is formed, etc. Relations of control and subordination are established and function in society, which are based on different principles of legitimacy. Thus , power- this is a form of social relations, characterized by the ability and ability to influence the nature and direction of the activities and behavior of people, social groups and classes through economic, ideological, cultural and organizational and legal mechanisms.
Political power is exercised to achieve certain goals:
harmonization of social processes, satisfaction of the interests of people, social groups in the process of social production;
maintaining the sustainable functioning and development of the social system;
Giving social relations a certain direction in accordance with the goals of society or the ruling strata;
implementation of coercion in the cases provided for by the norms.
Power is exercised by various methods and means, has many types and forms.
Methods of domination are methods, techniques, means of influencing those in power on subordinates in order to achieve their obedience.
Power activity is carried out by two main methods:
· coercion;
· persuasion.
Compulsion- This is a specific property of any power. It involves the achievement by the subject of power of his goal in spite of the disobedience of the object of power influence by using force or the threat of force and depriving him of the opportunity to choose between submission or disobedience. Forms of coercion are fines, expulsion from the organization, imprisonment, terror, repression, etc. History shows that as soon as there is a threat to the ruling elite, they resort to methods not authorized by law: repression, terror. Coercion takes the form of open arbitrariness.
Belief as a method of domination involves the use of various techniques to ensure the proper behavior of subordinates. This is influence, restraint, motivation, activation of responsibility. If methods of persuasion prevail in a society, this indicates the authority, legitimacy and flexibility of power.
The effectiveness of power is related to how it is perceived and reflected in the minds of citizens, that is, how legitimate it is. legitimacy is the recognition by citizens of the validity and necessity of this power as legitimate. If a society takes into account common interests and values, legitimacy is manifested in the voluntary recognition and acceptance of power by the majority of the population. Much more often, legitimacy is achieved in the daily struggle for justification before the society of the holder of power.
The legitimation of power depends on what it relies on, what is its source. The most used is the classification of sources and legitimacy of political power, given by M. Weber. In other words, we are talking about the answers that power can give to the question: “In whose name do you rule?”. From the point of view of M. Weber, only three answers are possible. First, the consent of the governed may be conditioned by the authority of the past; secondly, by the personal will of the exclusive head, the leader; thirdly, obedience to lawful, reasonable rules.
Thus, it is possible three types of power:
traditional;
charismatic;
Rational-legal.
traditional power relies on faith in its sacred character, eternity, inviolability. The actions of persons exercising such power are considered legitimate if they are in accordance with tradition. If the leader breaks tradition, legitimacy can be denied by the masses. Traditions also prevent the arbitrariness of power.
Charismatic power. The name of this type of power comes from the Greek term "charisma", meaning a special property that gives a person magical power. Charismatic power is based on the personality of the leader, to whom supernatural powers are attributed. The bearer of charisma usually asks for support from the people. In its activities, it relies not on traditions or laws, but on its own premonition, energy, clairvoyance. The masses obey the leader as long as he is able to "prove" his exclusivity. Charismatic leaders usually appear in conditions of crises, transitional states of society. They seek to change the existing social order, relying on the enthusiasm of the masses. Charismatic power can arise in any historical setting. M. Weber emphasized the importance of charismatic moments in the formation of democratic institutions in the West during the period of primitive accumulation of capital.
Charisma is based on the power of one person with outstanding qualities, therefore it cannot be permanent and transmitted. Companions of the leader usually have a desire to maintain their power and influence. Therefore, there is often a struggle for the right to inherit power. Sometimes the outstanding properties of the leader are transferred to his entire clan - a tribal charisma is created, and if it is for his position - institutional charisma is created. Such charisma is reminiscent of traditional authority.
legal power arises at that stage of historical development when certain norms have developed in society that regulate relations of domination and subordination. A developed form of this type of power is a rational state, in which the activities of rulers are determined by laws (the Constitution). The constitution defines the rules and norms of social behavior, which must be observed by the rulers, bureaucracy, citizens. Laws in such a state are made by politicians, and their execution is carried out by the bureaucracy. M. Weber wrote that bureaucracy existed in civilizations of different types, but rational management is formed from the moment when the state begins to pay for the work of officials in cash, and not in kind, characteristic of the traditional type of power.
The legal type of power is characterized by the following features:
firstly, the existence of law regulating all spheres of public life;
secondly, the formation of social management as a process of applying law;
thirdly, the existence of bureaucracy as a subject of management;
fourthly, the presence of the elite as a subject of power, whose activities are limited by law;
fifthly, the subjugation of the masses to the rules of law that they accept.
All these types of power (traditional, charismatic, legal) do not exist in their pure form; in life, power is various combinations of their elements, depending on the specific historical situation.
Thus, political power is inherent in any organized society. It is a complex, dynamic and multifaceted phenomenon. In real life, it is a certain way organized activity of people, aimed at reconciling various and conflicting interests, by subordinating them to the unified social will that is being formed.
Starting a conversation about power, we will immediately focus on the fact that this term is very vague, and there are many definitions for it. The situation is more complicated than it seems. This is due to the fact that many people answer the question of what power is in an extremely subjective way. For some, it is a way of enslavement, for others it is a means of restoring order, which is necessary for the successful development of people and society.
What is power
It manifests itself in various aspects of our lives - people are ruled not only by other people, but also by emotions, instincts, feelings and much more. All this is important, but in this case we will talk more about the political aspect.
What is power? This is a regulatory-control, organizational and central principle of politics, this is a problem of political knowledge, culture and man, known since ancient times.
Which we are considering, is understood in different ways. In one of the main interpretations, it is defined as specific relations that arise between various kinds of social subjects. It is possible only where there is under which one of the parties depends on the other. Addiction is an important factor. G. Lasswell argued that power is a specific means of improving living conditions. He also called it an end in itself, which allows you to enjoy the possession of it.
What is power? A fairly broad definition of it is given in theological interpretations. In them, it is understood not only as a phenomenon that occurs in the human environment, but also when people begin to interact with the outside world: both a person controls the world, and the world is a person.
T. Parsons defined this concept as the ability of a system to compel elements to a certain activity that allows them to achieve specific goals.
Yes, the points of view in this case really differ from each other. The main conclusion can be drawn as follows: power cannot be regarded as an exclusively natural or political phenomenon.
In the primitive communal system, it had a social orientation. Its basis then was the authority of the elders. Over time, the above system fell apart, and the authority of the elders fell. With the advent became public. Apparatuses began to appear, as well as special coercive institutions that had the authority to apply various kinds of sanctions to persons who did not want to fulfill the imperious demands of authoritative persons.
The political nature of power appeared precisely at the moment when the state was formed. Without such relationships and power itself, its existence would be simply impossible.
The described term is often understood as social relations, which are expressed in the ability of a particular individual or their group to make any decisions for others. In such cases, it often comes down to management. Power and control have a lot in common. These terms are sometimes confused. This approach is incorrect, since the difference is still there. The first is broader in meaning and content, while the second follows from it. The concept of "power" is more abstract than the concept of "management".
Summing up, I would like to emphasize that power is really important. Only it allows you to maintain order in a society that always needs management. Organization is an important element of development; without it, chaos ensues. Ideally, those who have the right to influence the behavior of other people should act deliberately, and their goal should be to achieve some. This does not always happen, since people tend to use power for the most part to achieve their own goals.
power) V. is defined as the ability or ability to influence others while counteracting their influence and refers to the most important motives of people. activities and relationships. In combination with other variables (such as affiliation, inhibition, and aspects of maturity), according to DeCharms and Muir, the concept of V. can explain a significant part of people. behavior. These authors in their definition of V. emphasized motivational aspects, describing it as a need to influence and preoccupation with the influence of Dr. McClelland, for example, put forward a hypothesis about the existence of an important relationship between V. and social. maturity. He postulated 4 stages of power, to-rye, as he believed, are associated with the levels of maturity of the individual. Among other things, these efforts helped to voice an opinion important for objective psychology: such a concept as V. is neither a good nor a bad characteristic. See also Aggression, Locus of control, Violence S. Berent
POWER
1. Appointed and legitimate authority operating within the social system. 2. An individual who is endowed with such power. Sociologists and social psychologists distinguish various forms of power; some basic types are given below.
Power
in social psychology) - correlation of domination and subordination in relations between people. V. is a socially necessary condition for management, is accompanied by a directed transfer of information and is realized in behavior. V. is really effective only with constantly functioning feedback, which ensures the flow of information about how effective and expedient decisions of power are. In a totalitarian society, this information flow is limited, and V. functions with a weakened or absent correction. In such circumstances, V. is surrounded by the halo of the guarantor of social stability and the leading force in political life; B.'s mistakes are usually downplayed, overlooked, or kept secret. In social psychology, studies of authoritarian leadership show that many psychological characteristics of an individual endowed with self-determination are transformed: his self-attitude is characterized by reduced criticality, and the level of claims increases inadequately. Power is one of three factors (along with attraction and authority) that characterize the "significant other". A.A. brudny
Power
a) a system of correlation of domination and subordination in various systems of relations between people, groups, organizations; b) in the "narrow" sense, the realization of one's right or possibility of globally social and specifically interpersonal pressure. Within the framework of social systems, power acts as a prerequisite for the performance of managerial functions of leadership and is expressed, first of all, in the organization of a directed information flow and a coercive system of controlling, authorizing, coercive guiding actions “along the vertical”. Within the framework of social psychology, the phenomenon of not only formal, official, in fact, institutionalized power, but also informal power, not set and not specially supported from the outside, but being the product of direct and indirect interpersonal relationships, is considered as a valuable subject of research, quite spontaneously, spontaneously. emerged and established in a particular community, whether we are talking about large or small groups. In any case, the effectiveness and community-building nature of the exercise of power depends almost to a decisive extent on the style features of "leading" activity. The authoritarian way of influence of power holders on subordinates and its absolutization in relation to a wide society, as a rule, is denoted by the term "totalitarianism", and in relation to small groups - by the term "autocracy". Both in a totalitarian society and in an authoritarian, and even more so autocratically controlled contact community, the relationships of group members are built in such a way that information flows are limited, and the controlling and sanctioning instance itself, in other words, power, exercises its powers in such a way that it does not subject to corrective action on the part of subordinates or, if we talk about informal power - leadership, then followers, or followers. Moreover, under these conditions, as a rule, a kind of “cult of role”, “cult of power” is formed. Here it would be useful to take into account that the systems of relations "head - subordinate", "leader - follower", if they are described as effective, are most often denoted through the use of the concept of "authority". True, in the situation just indicated, it is legitimate to mention not the authority of the individual, but the authority of the role, not the authority of authority, but the authority of power. Under the conditions of non-intervention tactics domination in the leadership of one or another community, the bearer of power not only tries to block the information flow "down" the hierarchical power ladder, but also seeks to isolate himself from the requests coming "from below". Practically the only scheme for the effective implementation of the power management of the community is carried out in the case of the dominance of democratic leadership, built on the logic of genuine cooperation, "setting" the conditions and free exchange of information "from the bottom up" and "top down", and the same two-way correction and mutual influence of high-status, middle-status and low-status members of the community. It should be emphasized that the democratic style of exercising power in a community, as a rule, develops only in groups with a high level of socio-psychological development. Among other things, one should not forget that power is one of the three factors (along with attraction and referentiality) that act as the fundamental foundations of the significance of one person for another.
For obvious reasons, the problem of power is given the most attention in such applied branches of social psychology as organizational psychology and management psychology. At the same time, empirical studies of power in a particular social structure are a very difficult task, because, as E. Donelon quite rightly notes, “power is a complex phenomenon that is quite difficult to understand, including because it is very dynamic” one. Based on the analysis of the results of a number of studies, he identified six sources of power that allow one to quickly assess the real resource, which consists of formal and informal power, of a particular member of the community, namely: position, resources, information, knowledge of the subject, success and personal attractiveness. At the same time, the first three sources are determined mainly by the position of the subject in the official hierarchy, and the three final ones are determined by his personal qualities, i.e., they are more related to the informal status.
According to E. Donelon, “the official position (or position) in the organizational structure determines the set of duties of a person, the circle of people with whom he interacts in order to fulfill his duties, and the authority to act and direct the actions of other people. Position often gives access to sources of power and influence such as resources and information. For example, a manager position usually provides resources such as the ability to promote employees, increase their salaries, distribute tasks .... Positions of ordinary employees also provide an opportunity to manage resources and information. So, employees of the purchasing department sometimes have very important information about what material resources people need and at what time they are available. They also have the ability to choose sources of supply - this can help or, conversely, hinder the employee who uses them in their work. Employees who manage the distribution of rooms have the right to decide who gets which rooms and how they use them. The secretaries of influential bosses control their schedule and decide which of the visitors to let them through. Even temporary workers—those who are contracted for one-off jobs, for example, or secretaries of committees—can provide information and access to those with broader powers.”2 When analyzing a position in its relationship with access to resources and information, E. Donelon recommends paying special attention to its following characteristics: key character, significance, visibility and flexibility.
The key nature of the position is determined by “...how often employees need the one who occupies this position, how many people have to apply to him, how many similar positions there are in the organization and how important this position plays in the production process. For example, the person who is responsible for the operation of the computer network in the office ...is in a key position, especially if there are no (or few) other people who can do this work, and computers regularly break down. The significance of a position is determined by how important it is for the main, priority activities of the company. ... Visibility is the extent to which powerful people in an organization pay attention to a given position. ... The position of executive secretary to the president may not be significant or key in the organization, but it is very visible and therefore gives some power to whoever holds it. ...
Flexibility is the degree of freedom of action that a given position represents to the person occupying it. If a position is flexible and, therefore, offers the opportunity to offer new and take the initiative, this strengthens its key character, significance and visibility.
Despite the widespread stereotype that the listed sources of power directly related to status are the most significant, certain personal qualities of an individual can not only significantly enhance his personal power, but in some cases also compensate for the weakness of the position, limited access to resources and information: “Knowledge of a subject is something that a person acquires through studies in higher educational institutions and work experience in a specialty. This is a particularly important source of influence in organizations where core business knowledge plays a large role. ... However, knowledge in the "peripheral areas" can also be a source of influence: when the budget is approved, financial analysts become very influential people in any organization. Knowledge of a subject is often the main source of influence for new hires in an organization. Since they lack the resources, information, organizational experience and network of contacts within the company, they will have to rely solely on knowledge of the subject in the first place, other sources of influence will come later. Success can be an important source of influence for experienced professionals. ... Good performance strengthens... a reputation among colleagues, which makes it possible to make new business contacts and gain access to additional sources of influence.
Personal attractiveness... is not only good looks. This concept includes both attractive personality traits and endearing behavior. Researchers have found a number of behaviors and personality traits that increase an individual's attractiveness. Among them are qualities such as honesty, the ability to understand and support other people, the ability to be admired, the similarity of values and interests, the ability to overcome difficulties and solve problems in a way that maintains positive relationships. People who are considered attractive speak well, and, as a rule, if there are doubts about the success of their actions, these doubts are interpreted in their favor, and bosses are more likely to encourage them than punish them.
Despite the fact that not only in organizations, but also in almost any social community, as a rule, all of the listed sources of power are involved to one degree or another, often due to traditions, characteristics of corporate culture and the action of other factors, some of them turn out to be hypertrophied, defining the entire power structure. In addition, depending on the situational context, different sources of power may come to the fore in the same organization. In this regard, the classification of forms of power developed by French and Raven seems to be very convenient for practical work. Within this classification, the following positions are distinguished:
"one. Power based on coercion. The performer believes that the influencer has the ability to punish in a way that will interfere with the satisfaction of some urgent need or in general can cause some other trouble.
2. Power based on reward. The performer believes that the influencer has the ability to satisfy a pressing need or give pleasure.
3. Expert power. The performer believes that the influencer has special knowledge that will satisfy the need.
4. Reference power (power of example). The characteristics or properties of the influencer are so attractive to the performer that he wants to be the same as the influencer.
5. Legitimate authority. The performer believes that the influencer has the right to give orders and that it is his or her duty to obey them. He or she carries out the orders of the influencer, as tradition teaches that obedience will lead to the satisfaction of the needs of the doer. Therefore, legitimate authority is very often called traditional authority.
The substantive relationship of the listed forms of power with the sources of power identified by E. Donelon is quite obvious. It is no less obvious that each of these forms has certain advantages (even such a generally destructive form of power as coercive power can be extremely effective in a situation where rapid changes are required in an organization built on the principle of a hierarchical pyramid) and characteristic disadvantages. This means that a truly effective exercise of power is possible only if all sources of power, both status-role and personal, are available and purposefully used.
This is all the more true if we take into account the so-called paradoxes of power, which are increasingly manifested in modern conditions. E. Donelon formulated them as follows: “Although many perceive the power in the organization as an unbridled and hostile force, in fact, the more common and serious problem in business is not an excess of power, but anarchy. ... Most organizations were built with an emphasis on predictability and reliability. They have a lot of rules and procedures that should ensure this. ... Workers feel limited and zealously defend the few resources of autonomy and influence they have. This can lead to "political games", parochialism and bureaucratic intrigues, which significantly reduces labor efficiency.
The second paradox of power is that its excessive use can reduce a manager's ability to exert influence. Studies have shown that the tactics of threats and manipulation of time arouse the resistance of those who have become the object of such influence.
The third paradox relates to the changes that happen to a person in power as he increasingly uses the power of power and influence. As you know, over time, this leads to a distortion of his self-esteem and a misperception of subordinates - those whom he influences. ... The tendency to exalt oneself and belittle others leads to abuses of power. And according to the second paradox, the excessive use of power causes resistance and, as a result, leads to failure.
Now about the fourth paradox of power: the more a person is willing to share power, the more he wins. ... Managers who share power with subordinates thus strengthen their loyalty and strengthen decision-making skills to increase the success of the entire group. Great performance usually increases the manager's credibility and visibility in the organization, resulting in more resources and better access to information, which are the basis of power.
Note that all of the above is true not only for organizations, but also for virtually any social community, with the exception of absolutely closed antisocial groups.
A practical social psychologist working with any really functioning community must have a complete understanding of the hierarchy of power relations in a group, since without taking into account the real “allocation” of forces in the logic of universally significant intragroup structures, he cannot adequately solve his professional tasks.
The nature of political power.
- Power as a public phenomenon
In this regard, it is important to emphasize the operation of the principle of public sovereignty, meaning recognition for the state of the embodiment of a single order, the right to suppress anarchy, exclusive monopoly states on violence in society; independence of state structures in relation to any non-state entities and persons; the rule of law in the regulation of all relations, the independence of the foreign policy of the state.
Initially sovereignty identified with the unity of power, its unlimitedness by positive law. This meant that the power is concentrated in the king, who is the sovereign. The sovereign is not bound by the laws he makes. The idea of sovereignty was formulated as a way of resisting the dangers of a single authority, the claims of the papacy to power in European countries, the strife of the aristocracy, civil wars and peasant uprisings. The modern content and meaning of the concept "" has gone beyond these limits, changed under the influence of humanistic and democratic ideas. With the adoption of the principles of the republican system, separation of powers, federalism, and representation, sovereignty is no longer understood as the sovereignty of only a separate body of the state, it is not identified with a centralized, unitary state. With the adoption by political practice of the idea of a constitutional state, the principle of sovereignty is limited to inalienable human rights and freedoms. For the authorities, the possibility of standing above the law is excluded.
In our days, the supra-legal unlimited power is no longer considered a sign of the sovereignty of a democratic state. is seen in a strong government acting exclusively within the framework of the law, its modern understanding does not oppose political pluralism, does not set limits on the practice of the plurality of political wills of the authorities. The principle of sovereignty does not exclude the right to self-determination. However, the right to secession is incompatible with it. The right to use violence is determined by law and is the prerogative of the state. After the Second World War, the principle of sovereignty played a positive role in establishing the principle of the inviolability of borders, resolving disputed territorial issues between states through negotiations.
Recognition of the priority of civil rights has influenced ideas about the limits of sovereignty; today the principle of non-interference in the affairs of another state is no longer considered as a reason to refuse to assess the state of human rights, the legitimacy of power in a particular country by the world community, and to put pressure on it by non-military means. It can be assumed that in the future, as integration processes deepen, the significance of borders will also weaken. Principle monopoly state to issue and apply laws remains a guarantee of order, legality, democracy.
Priority> There are two known invariants of the measure of state activity in the life of society: etatist and liberal. In life, however, a mixed type of activity is now more common.
The liberal type of activity resulted in the operation of the principles of non-intervention of the state in the affairs of civil society. The essence of etatism is the active intervention of the state in the life of society, which is typical for states formed on the basis of the psychology of paternalism, as a result of the strong influence of the Christian and Islamic religions on the state. In the Republic of Germany, etatism was developed in the 17th century. X. Wolf. The state, in the name of human improvement, can interfere in all spheres of life, including private ones. It must fight against idleness and wastefulness, ensure that young people marry early, have many children, in order to attract more intelligent and educated foreigners to the country and not let skilled workers leave the country. The state organizes academies, builds churches, establishes holidays, is in charge of the education system. The state was seen as the organizer of the entire economy - from the management of production to the distribution of people according to the areas of application of labor. Etatism is a traditional component of the policy of the German state. So it was in the days of the Kaiser Federal Republic of Germany Hitler's Nazism, and so it continues in the post-war period. Statism was traditionally characteristic of the Russian autocracy. The state actively participated in the development of industry, the construction of railways, the company of academies, universities, hospitals, shelters, schools.
Etatism in some cases can facilitate the onset of totalitarianism, in others it can switch to the practice of a welfare state. In the 20s-30s of the XX century. traditions of etatism in Russian Federation and Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) favored the formation of a totalitarian regime and, at the same time, the introduction of socialist motives into state policy (wage equalization, the elimination and prevention of unemployment).
However, as G. Belov emphasizes, statism should not be identified either with totalitarianism or with the social nature of state policy. Totalitarianism means the complete subordination of everyone, all aspects of life to a single principle, the transformation of society into a monotheistic one. Etatism expresses the tradition of special responsibility for the state of the nation, for the development of culture, science, the protection of moral principles, and the prevailing ideas about the breadth of the sphere of state activity. The practice of etatism partially facilitated the transition to the principle of a welfare state that satisfied the modern needs of the masses in protecting the social rights of citizens, the policy of guaranteeing a living wage. Modern society cannot do without elements of etatism, but it assumes the existence of civil society, the rule of law. The concept of a social and legal state expresses the search for an optimal combination of the principles of social justice, etatism and the liberal idea of a legal state.
World practice has developed two basic principles of state structure: unitary and federal, but along with them there are some subspecies.
The form of government is the administrative-territorial and national structure of the state, which reveals the nature of the relationship between its constituent parts, between central and local government bodies.
The form of government most fully reveals and shows the internal structure of the state. Of all the known forms of government, there are:
unitary states;
Federations;
Confederation.
Although the confederation cannot be attributed unambiguously to the forms of government, since the confederation is union several states that have united for a while to solve some common problem.
A unitary state is a single integral state formation, consisting of administrative-territorial units that are subordinate to the central authorities and do not possess signs of state sovereignty.
A unitary state has a number of features that characterize it from various aspects.
On the territory of a unitary state, there is one, unified system of legislation, one. It has a unified monetary system, a common tax and credit policy, which is mandatory for all administrative-territorial units.
A unitary state presupposes uniform representative, executive and judicial bodies common for the whole country, which carry out the supreme leadership of the relevant bodies of local self-government or local governments. For example, in France, the supreme and unified legislative body is a bicameral parliament, consisting of the National Assembly and the Senate. The highest judicial power in this country belongs to the Court of Cassation, and the highest executive power is exercised president.
In addition, the constituent parts of a unitary state do not have state sovereignty. They do not have their own independent military formations, legislative bodies and other attributes of statehood. However, local authorities have a very significant degree of autonomy. According to the degree of dependence of local authorities on the central ones, the unitary state structure is divided into centralized and decentralized. The state is considered centralized if the heads of local authorities are officials appointed from the center, to whom the authorities are subordinate (for example). In decentralized unitary states, local governments are elected by the people. But there are also mixed systems (), where the heads of administrations are partially appointed and partially elected. In unitary states, national and legislative autonomies can be organized. This is due to the residence in the territory of this state of small nationalities. All interstate issues are decided by the central body, which officially represents the country in the international arena.
Another sign of a unitary state is the presence of a single monetary and, accordingly, financial and economic system, as well as the presence of a single state language of communication.
The state has a unified armed forces and a security service. It should be noted that in a unitary state, culture is often the same, that is, cultural and social values.
Concerning federations then it is voluntary association of enterprises several previously independent state formations into one union state
The federal state structure is unique. First, it is not uniform. Second, it's varied. This is determined by the difference in the population, more precisely, the national-ethnic composition of this population, historical processes and geographical location. However, despite this, there are a number of features that are typical for most federations.
1. The supreme legislative, executive and judicial power belongs to the federal state authorities.
2. Constitution delimits the powers of the subjects and the federation itself.
3. The territory of the federation consists of:
a) Subjects that are called differently.
b) Accordingly, subjects from administrative-territorial units.
4. Subjects of the federation may adopt their own fundamental law of the state, laws, regulations and other regulatory legal acts (NLA). They have their own supreme bodies of representative, executive and judicial power, which operate only on the territory of the subject of this federation.
5. Often there is a double citizenship, that is, the subject of the federation endows a citizen living on its territory with his citizenship, and citizenship this person already has a federation. Therefore, a citizen has two citizenships: a subject and citizenship of a federation.
6. Usually, representatives are allocated from the subjects of the federation who are members of the representative government; these representatives in their totality form the legislative body of the federation, or rather one of its parts (the chamber). The second part (chambers) is always elected by the people.
7. Foreign state activities are carried out by federal bodies. They act in the international arena on behalf of the federation.
Federations are built on territorial and national grounds.
Territorial is characterized by a significant limitation of the state sovereignty of the subject of the federation.
The state formations that make up the territorial federation are not states, since the internal and external relations of a given subject are regulated by federal authorities. The legal and actual delineation of competence between the subject and the federation is determined by constitutional norms. Usually, the main law of the country establishes a list of issues that are subordinate only to the highest federal authorities. And all other issues not specified in the Basic Law of the State are regulated exclusively by the subject. But in the country's fundamental law, a list of issues of joint jurisdiction of the subject and the federation is sometimes compiled. Such issues are usually resolved by the subject with the federation by agreement.
The subjects of the federation are deprived of the right of direct representation in international relations.
In territorial federations, it does not provide, and in some countries even prohibits secession from the federation without the consent of all other subjects.
The armed forces in the territorial federation are united. They are controlled by the allied states. The head of the federation is also the commander-in-chief. The subjects of the federation in peacetime should not have their own armed forces. (An example of a territorial federation is Germany).
National federations are the most complex formations. They have all the features of a federation, but apart from them there are many features. Such federations have a number of features:
1) The subjects of such a federation are national states and national-state formations that differ from each other in the national composition of the population, culture, way of life, traditions and customs, religion and beliefs.
2) This kind of federation is based on the principle of voluntary trust its constituent subjects.
3) The highest state bodies of the national federation are formed from representatives of the subjects of the federation, that is, the central government is created to solve the problems of each nation and nationality living on the territory of the federation.
4) The national federation ensures the state sovereignty of large and small nations, in other words, their freedom and independent development.
5) In a national federation, a feature is the legal status of its subjects. In this kind of federation there is a concept - "The right of nations to self-determination." That is, the right of a national subject to secede from the federation at its own discretion if it no longer wishes to be in an alliance with other subjects of the federation. Moreover, the consent of the subjects of the federation for this, as a rule, is not required.
What are the differences between territorial and national federation?:
These federations, first of all, differ in the degree of sovereignty of their subjects. The central government in the territorial federations has supremacy in relation to the highest state bodies of the members of the federation. The nation state is limited by the sovereignty of national state formations. If in a territorial federation the subjects cannot establish diplomatic relations with other states, then the subject of the national federation can easily arrange this.
A confederation is a temporary legal union of sovereign states created to secure their common interests.
Its signs are:
a) The Confederation does not have its own common legislative, executive and judicial authorities. Joint confederal bodies are created to resolve economic, social, defense issues, but not to manage the confederation.
b) The Confederation does not spend the citizenship of those states that are in a temporary union of companies.
c) This kind of association of enterprises of sovereign states does not have a single army, a single budget, a single system of taxes. These issues can be resolved by single confederal authorities.
d) The Confederation can agree on a single monetary system, common customs rules, as well as a single interstate credit policy on period existence.
e.) Usually, confederations create “transparent” borders, crossing of which does not require special documents.
e.) But confederations are short-lived. They disintegrate upon reaching common goals or turn into federations.
Under a confederal structure, the member states of a confederation retain their sovereign rights, both in internal and external affairs.
The structure of political power.
There is probably no more complex and confusing issue in political theory than the elucidation of the structure of power relations. As already noted, the concept of "power" hides dozens of different semantic shades, reflecting the most diverse aspects and components of this most complex social mechanism.
But most researchers of the problem of power are unanimous in the fact that the generally recognized source of power is force. Therefore, power in the minds of people is often identified with violence. Sources of power can be wealth, position and possession of information, as well as knowledge, experience, special skills, and often. The role of those who organize and direct the efforts of specialists, professionals, and experts is highly valued, because it allows them to exercise power. acts as an environment for the formation of relations that contribute not only to the mobilization of resources and people, but also to the implementation of decisions made. Both the position, and experience, and knowledge make sense and are realized through the company: what is beyond the power of one, is achieved by the efforts of the company.
Charisma is also a source of power, i.e. leader personality cult. It has great flexibility, does not require either a long time for its formation, or a rational set of generally recognized norms. The head of the charismatic type often becomes a national hero, symbolizing the ideals of the country.
Realization, the exercise of power implies the interaction between many of its constituent elements. The legal right to develop and implement decisions on which the creation and distribution of value depends is the most important attribute of state power. The task of the government is to provide the values necessary for the vast majority of society: peace and order within the country, stability, prosperity, equality. It thus stimulates self-support and obedience to laws. An important factor for power is trust, which allows you to actually influence the minds and behavior of people who must believe that the government shares their ideals and values and, defending them, is able to punish or encourage. Disbelief in the ability of the authorities to solve issues related to ensuring normal living conditions and life of the population, causes its resistance to state power. Of course, the possibilities of power depend on its resources.
The following basic components of the structure of communication within the state-public authorities are distinguished: 1) agents; 2) values; 3) methods (instrumental-institutional) and 4) resources. The interaction between them determines the entire palette of relations expressed in the Russian language by the concepts of “dominion” and “subordination”, “will” and “strength”, “ the control and "distribution", "leadership" and "leadership", "management" and "pressure", "dominion" and "influence", "authority" and "violence", etc.
Thus, the relations of “dominion and subordination” of agents of power constitute the central link in the mechanism of social communication between people, in which its participants recognize the established order of power relations as legitimate, i.e. socially significant and necessary way and stereotype of interaction of people in society. “It should be emphasized,” P. Berger and T. Lukman note on this occasion, “that the conceptual mechanisms for maintaining the universe are themselves products of social activity, like all forms of legitimation, and very rarely can they be understood regardless of the activity of the community in question. It is noteworthy that the success of certain conceptual mechanisms depends on the power vested in those who manage these mechanisms.
Let us touch upon the institutional basis of the power structure, which is based on the principle of separation of powers. It was based on a powerful tradition of ensuring stability and balance, the synthesis of autocracy and collectivism in decision-making. However, in the ancient and Middle Ages the idea of balance was reduced to questions: who rules, how the ruler takes into account the interests of all who can influence power.
The authors of the theory of separation of powers invented institutional warranty balance. J. Locke distinguished three types of power: legislative, executive, federal or union. The supreme power should be vested in the legislature. Executive - to the monarch, who can simultaneously exercise the allied power. The monarch in Locke remains the guarantor of the unity of the state, therefore he partially has prerogatives and in legislative activity the right of legislative initiative. The idea of separation of powers was developed by C. Montesquieu. Like Locke, he sees the separation of powers as a way of structuring a compromise between political forces, royal power, the nobility, and the developing bourgeoisie. But the construction of the division is more clear-cut, Montesquieu distinguishes three powers: legislative; executive, in charge of international affairs; executive in charge of civil affairs. The relative independence of state bodies is envisaged both in relation to each other and in relation to the methods of their formation. Each body has its own sphere of activity, and thus its power is limited. Each body has its own opportunities to resist another body, partially prevent it from realizing its will, but there is no right to replace the decision of this body with its own decision (such are the right of veto, the presidential right to dissolve, under the legality of acts of governing bodies). Parliament has the right to determine the scope of the government's activities in cases provided for by law, to check how laws are implemented, to hold ministers accountable for their violations. Montesquieu identifies two chambers of parliament. The second chamber is made up of the nobility and has the power to override the decisions of the House of Representatives. But the rights of the upper chamber are limited. It can cancel some decisions of the lower house, but not replace them with others.
The idea of an upper chamber has become an unshakable reality for American practice. In Britain, France the upper houses played a big role in the last century. In the 20th century, especially in the post-war period, their role declined.
An essential aspect of the theory of separation of powers, which Montesquieu singled out, is the distinction between state activity and political life. Courts are not political power. Their task is the punishment of criminals, the resolution of conflicts between individuals. Subsequently, European practice developed a new political institution - the constitutional court, which has the right to recognize the constitutional decree President, a law passed by Parliament that does not comply with the basic law of the state.
The formation of the classical theory of the separation of powers was the result of a search for forms to ensure compromise and moderation in changes in political courses. The immediate result of the liberal interpretation of the state was the criticism of absolutism and the rationale for a limited monarchy. J. Locke thereby justified the constitutional monarchy, which took shape in Great Britain with the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1688. However, the theory of separation of powers was ahead of its time. The combination and balancing of hereditary and representative institutions with each other proved to be beneficial for political development Britain in subsequent centuries. Moreover, even in the XX century. in a large group of countries in Europe, the king is not only a tradition, but also a symbol, and sometimes a real force for maintaining the unity and stability of society in transitional periods.
Hegel considered the point of view of the independence of the authorities to be false, allegedly justifying the hostility of the authorities, preventing its unity as a whole.
Marx also failed to see the democratic value of the theory of separation of powers. He replaced the division of powers with a prosaic, business-like division of labor. In the Leninist-Stalinist postulates about the state, there was no place for the idea of separation of powers. Practice has shown that the denial of this principle expressed the essence of the communist regime, based on a monopoly on power, an unlimited dictatorship of a narrow circle of people. The value of the separation of powers lies in the fact that powerful institutional guarantees are established against the tendency towards absolute power of one of the institutions of power. There is a rule of incompatibility of a deputy mandate with holding a leading position in the government.
In my opinion, it is impossible to absolutize the separation of powers. If this term is taken literally, then it turns out that one must choose between the principle of the integrity of the state, the unity of power in society, and the division of power according to some principle. The logic of political struggle contradicts the separation of powers. As you know, a political party, having come to power, shared it with other political parties to the extent that their victory was relative or was the result of the creation of coalitions, electoral blocs, associations. Under the conditions of the majority principle, the party that has a stable party majority in parliament forms the government. The winner of the presidential election determines the directions of domestic and foreign policy within the powers granted by the fundamental law of the state and federal laws. In other words, the principle of separation of powers should not be simplified, let alone interpreted literally. Where this principle is accepted, we are talking about the existence of mechanisms that guarantee the dispersal of power in different institutions.
The separation of powers facilitates the mutual control of the activities of state bodies. The theory of separation of powers is also defined as a system of control and balance. It turns out that each government has its own sphere of authority, closed to others, but also affects the adjacent sphere, since there are issues of joint jurisdiction.
In European countries, the separation of powers is not strictly consistent. In the United States, the separation of powers is not always sustainable. From time to time there was a tendency to replace the Congress with the president, the intervention of the Supreme Court in solving not only legal, but also political issues. The victory of one political party in the elections of both the president and the congress means that the separation of powers between the president and the congress is a norm that does not require a special political burden. However, the separation of powers is maintained as opposed to the concentration of power in one hand, as a potential means of compromise if sharp disagreements arise.
What is the purpose and place of each branch of government in the exercise of power?
Legislature. It is based on the principles of the fundamental Law of the country and the rule of law, formed through free elections. The legislature amends the constitution, determines the foundations of the domestic and foreign policy of the state, approves the state budget, adopts laws binding on all executive authorities and citizens, and controls their implementation. The supremacy of the legislature is limited by the principles of law, the fundamental law of the land, human rights. The legislature and other authorities (judicial and executive) are under the control of the voters through a system of popular representation and free democratic elections.
In democratic states, the legislature is the legislature, which is bicameral and unicameral. The most common is a unicameral parliament. A number of countries have a so-called simple bicameral parliamentary system, in which one chamber is formed as a result of direct elections, and the other on the basis of territorial proportionality.
Unlike the other two branches of government, the judiciary has an invariable function - it ensures the observance of the legally established political order. It follows from this that it is not an element that determines the entire political regime, because it does not directly participate in the implementation of the legislative act. Therefore, the classification of political regimes - presidential, parliamentary, assembly regimes and authoritarian - is based on the structure of relations between the representative and legislative authorities. As J. Chabot notes, there are both regimes with a distinction between these two powers, and regimes characterized by their mixing. In the first variant, this distinction may take the form of a strict separation. Then there is the presidential regime. If the division is flexible or both branches of government cooperate, then we are dealing with a parliamentary regime. The balance in mixed-type regimes can tilt in favor of the body that holds legislative power (assembly regime) or in favor of the body that holds executive power (authoritarian regime). Chabot offers the following table to illustrate his words:
Executive and administrative power. It is distinguished by dynamism, increased susceptibility to public life, and is carried out by the government. The peculiarity of the executive power is that it not only executes laws, but also issues normative acts itself or comes up with a legislative initiative. If we take into account that this power carries out its activities mainly behind “closed” doors, then in the absence of proper checks, the executive power will inevitably crush both the legislative and judicial powers. Executive and administrative activity should be based on the law and within the law. It does not have the right to assign powers to itself and demand that citizens perform any duties, unless this is provided for by law. Its containment is achieved through regular accountability and responsibility to the people's representation, which has the right to control the activities of the executive branch.
Judicial branch. It includes institutions that represent an independent structure of the state company. The state of the judiciary, the attitude towards it in society, the directions of its development have a significant impact on all aspects of society: economic, political, cultural, the status of a person, ensuring and protecting his rights and freedoms. Each person must have a firm conviction that his appeal to the judiciary will be completed by a fair decision, because the protection of human rights and freedoms, the resolution of conflicts and disputes by civilized means is the norm of the rule of law. The court is called upon to be a defender of the law, suppressing offenses.
The judiciary influences the legislative and executive. Legislative power is controlled through a system of courts. Thus, with the help of the Constitutional Court in the country, the constitutionality of not only by-laws, but also the laws themselves is ensured.
The next aspect of the power structure that I want to dwell on in more detail is its resources. The main resources of society, the regulation and distribution of which is the real object of power communication, include those material objects and spiritual goods that are able, firstly, to satisfy the needs and interests of people, representing a certain value in social relations and, secondly, increase the potential of influence and the power of influence of agents of power. According to a number of American political scientists, power is, first of all, the distribution of society's resources, and politics, respectively, is the sphere of resource exchange or regulation of resource exchange.
The most important social reason for the subordination of some people to others is the uneven distribution of power resources. The resources of power are very diverse. There are several classifications of resources. According to one of them, resources are divided into utilitarian, coercive and normative. Utilitarian include material and other social benefits; to compulsory - measures of criminal and administrative influence; normative include means of influencing the inner world, value orientations and norms of human behavior. They are designed to ensure the approval of the actions of the subject of power, the acceptance of its requirements. The second classification is the division of resources in accordance with the most important areas of activity into economic, social, political power and cultural information.
Economic resources are the material values necessary for social production and consumption (food, minerals, etc.).
Social resources - the ability to increase (or decrease) the social status or rank, place in the social hierarchy (position, prestige, education, etc.).
Cultural and information resources - knowledge and, as well as the means of obtaining them: institutes of science and education, mass media information and others. Power resources are weapons and apparatus of physical coercion, people specially trained for this.
The specific resource of power is the person himself (demographic resources). People are a universal, multifunctional resource that creates other resources.
The use of power resources sets in motion all its components, makes it a reality, which occurs in the following stages (forms); power, leadership, and control.
The resources of society are limited and unevenly distributed, which leads to a constant struggle of individuals and groups for their redistribution, as well as to mutual rivalry and pressure on each other in this area of the state and society, the confrontation of power managers and the influence of the ruled. Managers have organized control over state resources and the administrative apparatus, while the ruled have only their own private resources; the potential to mobilize citizens from political parties and movements, which, along with regulated distribution "from above", are constantly fighting for the redistribution of public resources that is beneficial to them and strengthening social control over them "from below".
Another aspect of the structure of power communication affects the relationship "management (leadership) - pressure (participation)", associated with the very institutional mechanism of "power", methods of government, as well as with the "feedback" mechanism, i.e. support and pressure " from below" civil society groups. These opposite sides of power communication are mutually directed force vectors. In this aspect, the ability of the potential of power and influence to be revealed in a specific political context is very clearly manifested, not only in the form of managerial and administrative decisions, but also in the form of forceful and moral pressure of the ruled.
It is one thing to acquire power, another thing to dispose of it. The latter presupposes the art of integrating into the ever-high pace of life changes and forming the instruments of their control, carrying out direct and indirect regulation of people's interactions and maintaining the optimal rhythm of social existence. It is useful to adhere to some primordially essential principles of power. V. V. Ilyin in his work"power", gives such principles on which, in his opinion, solid power lives: So, among the basic principles of power, the following stand out.
The principle of conservation. Attitude to power as a predominant, almost the only true value. Similar to the traditional laws of conservation, this principle expresses the requirement of stability, reproducibility, prolongability of power, its independence, resistance to any kind of restructuring, disturbances, changes. The main thing here is the retention and multiplication of power in every possible way.
The principle of effectiveness. The ruler does not analyze the circumstances, he copes with them. Politicians need action, not talk about it.
The principle of legitimacy. Limitless tactics that ensure the implementation of the first principle (the principle of conservation) should not turn into tactics of lawlessness. The best way to retain power is reliance on the law, lawmaking. always stronger than power.
The principle of secrecy. Only a bad government does not know any other way than the direct one. The authorities must skillfully use a wide arsenal of implicit, latent means and tools (secret diplomacy, secret correspondence, closed meetings, congresses, forums, hearings, etc.), aimed not so much at protecting state, political or party secrets, although this is important as on compliance with the rule: the most dangerous thing for the authorities is to tell the truth ahead of time.
The principle of reality. The internal lack of freedom of the ruler, which manifests itself in his dependence on circumstances, excludes a priori motivation for power actions. The latter are always and everywhere resultant, emerging as a balance of forces in a given political space.
The principle of collegiality. The strength of power in partnership, cooperativeness: it is preferable to be the first among equals than the first without equals.
The principle of tolerance. High tolerance, benevolence of the ruler is a sign of the breadth of views, the difference between a far-sighted mind, resisting reckless aggressive actions.
The principle of the prefix "with": complicity and participation, co-thinking and assistance. Civilian power as dominance, arising not from the right of force, but from the force of law, is based not on servility, but on legal, voluntary cooperation.
The principle of conjuncture. The logic of power is situational, which makes it difficult to follow the rules and principles in it. The necessity of deals, compromises, blocs, associations, demarcations makes power an entirely self-serving occupation.
The principle of self-criticism. Power withers from arrogance, from frequent and undeserved victories, and arrogance.
The principle of coercion. The more arbitrary the power, the more unpredictable and aggressive it is. Sympathetically referring to the principle of crime formulated by Machiavelli as the basis of politics. Bakunin spoke of the complementary principle of "artificial and mainly mechanical force, based on a carefully designed, scientific exploitation of the wealth and vital resources of the nation, organized so as to keep it in absolute obedience."
The principle of culture. Power is not a gift to make everything insignificant. The reason for the decline of power is the lagging behind the culture of the rulers from the popular culture. Since the social history of people is always only the history of their individual development, the indicator of the cultural capacity of the holders of power is extremely important.
measure principle. Personal security factor: the ruler is not a schemer, not an ascetic, nothing human is alien to him, but he is a moderate person, avoids excesses, satiety, controls himself, counteracts the destructive dependence on his own effects and passions. The ruler, therefore, has a measure in everything except the service to society.
The principle of positivity. The strength of power lies in the ability to cultivate - to preserve, transfer, multiply.
Substitution principle. The power of power lies not in publicity, but in the strength of ties, the ability to wait, to evade an answer, to possess secrets, to sting painfully and prudently. For the purpose of self-preservation, the ruler surrounds himself with a protective belt of all sorts of close associates and trusted persons authorized to preliminaries; they dampen his relationship with society.
The principle of hardness. Power is revered for logicality, consistency, inflexibility, coherence of actions, for the readiness, if necessary, to go to the last and extreme conclusions.
Apparently, non-compliance with these basic principles ultimately led to such an impoverishment of power in our country. The situation in which we find ourselves in power requires a closer look at this, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
Features of the functioning of power in the conditions of reforming the Russian Federation. Institutions of power of the modern Russian Federation.
The reform of the political system in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics () revealed the bankruptcy (bankruptcy) of many traditional ideas about the essence of the political, about power and power relations in society.
First of all, as already noted, the irreducibility of political power to the power of the state was revealed. Power turned out to be dispersed throughout the field of political space, formed by the interaction of political subjects.
In order to transform this political system, which is based on the “party-state” tandem (in which state functions related to decision-making are usurped by the party, and therefore are in no way subordinate to the non-party majority of citizens), it was necessary to free the state from the hands of the party apparatus, to make it the carrier political decision makers. This was necessary so that citizens who elect their representatives to the bodies that form state structures become involved in the exercise of political power and control over it.
AT Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (CCCP), this line of transformations was tried to be implemented in stages. The first step was the implementation of the slogan “All power to the Soviets!”, put forward at the 19th Party Conference of the CPSU, when, after preliminary measures to democratize the adoption of party decisions, the task arose to return all the fullness of political power, state decision-making to state bodies. To accomplish this task, democratic elections of people's deputies were held, which formed new state structures. After these elections, the first official opposition arose in the legislature. The decisive step in this direction was the abolition of the sixth and amendment of the seventh articles of the main Law of the State of the USSR. This paved the way for the formation of a multi-party system. It seemed that the process of democratization was successful, but the introduced changes were no longer enough without fixing the ongoing political changes in the country's main law. In addition, it turned out that it is not enough just to copy the democratic structures of the state system of Western countries and fix them in the main Law of the state. No democratic law and no democratic structure will come into existence unless it is accepted by the people and carried out by them.
According to the fundamental law of the country of the Russian Federation, our political life at the top level of power is subject to the principle of separation of powers as the antipode of autocracy or absolute power of any structure or group. The separation of powers is manifested in the fact that; 1), everyone is endowed with his powers and cannot go beyond them; 2) no body can ignore or suspend the activities of constitutionally enshrined institutions. Uncontrolled administration of power functions is excluded. The Federal Assembly, being a representative body, accumulates in itself different types of representation: proportional and equal in rights from the subjects of the federation. The Federation Council, by the nature of its representation, is called upon to be closely connected with the localities and the interests of the regions.
It should also be noted that the proclamation of the principle of separation of powers as the dominant state-building in Russia did not rule out the predominance of executive power structures headed by President B. Yeltsin in the federal center. He tried to create a strong executive vertical (heads of administrations appointed by him and representatives of the president in the field), laying the foundation for the emerging mechanism of state administration on the unitary principles of Russian statehood. It is no coincidence that at the end of 1991 it was decided to form a government endowed with emergency powers. The highest representative legislative institutions had a greater influence on the process of lawmaking, but even there, by issuing the relevant Decrees, he blocked those initiatives of parliamentarians that, in his opinion, were in conflict with the direction of political and socio-economic transformations he had outlined. As you know, some aspects work governments (responsibility only for macroeconomic problems, the rejection of state regulation of many processes in the country's economy, the attitude that the central state leadership only coordinates economic activity) contributed to an even greater loss of controllability of the economy from a single center, the destruction of ties that have developed over the years. This contributed to the strengthening of the republican-regional political and administrative-economic elites, the composition of which turned out to be more stable than that of the federal bodies. Local bureaucratic and political circles, united by informal ties and certain organizational structures, strengthened their influence on the population of the subjects of the federation, having gained control and regulation of the processes of the medium and micro economic levels. The population, having lost a partner for negotiations at the federal level, found it at the level of republics, territories and regions in the person of republican-regional political representatives interested in local support in the face of inevitable confrontation with the central authorities.
According to the fundamental law of the state of the Russian Federation, the president determines domestic and foreign policy. But the political and legal possibilities of the president are not unlimited. Thus, the president must take measures to protect the sovereignty of Russia in accordance with the procedure established by the fundamental law of the state. In particular, the status of the Security Council, which is formed and headed by the president, should be determined by federal law. The Prime Minister is appointed by the President with the consent of the State Duma, and Deputy Prime Ministers and Federal Ministers are appointed by the President at the proposal of the Prime Minister. represents, but the State Duma appoints the Chairman of the Central Bank. The President represents, but the Federation Council appoints judges of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court, and the Prosecutor General. After consultation with the committees of the Federal Assembly, the president appoints and recalls diplomatic representatives. According to the fundamental law of the country of Russia, the legislative body is the Federal Assembly, consisting of two chambers - the Federation Council and the State Duma. The Federation Council consists of two representatives from each subject of Russia: one each from the representative and executive bodies of state power. The State Duma consists of 450 deputies working on a permanent professional basis.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation provides for a system of checks and balances. Based on the fact that the president is endowed with great powers (he is the head of state, the guarantor of the fundamental law of the state, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen of the sovereignty, independence and state integrity of Russia), a link has been built: president-government-federal Assembly. The President appoints the Prime Minister with the consent of the State Duma. The President may dissolve the State Duma in the following cases: 1) after a threefold rejection of the submitted candidates (not the same, but three candidates) of the Prime Minister; 2) after the State Duma twice expressed no confidence in the government. The President cannot dissolve the State Duma within a year after its election, within 6 months before the end of term her powers.
In turn, the Federal Assembly is endowed with certain rights to influence the president. Thus, he may be dismissed from office by the Federation Council on the basis of an accusation brought by the State Duma of high treason or otherwise; serious crime, confirmed by the conclusion of the Supreme Court on the presence of signs of a crime in the actions of the President and the conclusion of the Constitutional Court on compliance with the established procedure for bringing charges.
The State Duma has the right to express no confidence in the government. The president has the right both to agree with this decision and dismiss the government, or to dissolve the Duma itself, provided that it reaffirms its unwillingness to work with such a government.
The constitutional bond between the president and the government is necessary for the stability of the country and the security of the state.
The Basic Law of the country of the Russian Federation emphasizes that the judiciary is an independent and independent branch of state power. This provision appears to be an important constitutional guarantee for the exercise of legislative and executive powers. At the same time, the existence of the judiciary itself has constitutional guarantees. They are expressed in the basic principles of the activities of the courts: the independence of judges and their subordination only to the law, the irremovability of judges and their inviolability. The independence of the court as a public authority is ensured by the fact that courts are financed only from the federal budget.
The Basic Law of the State outlines the main contours of the judicial system, which is established not only by the Basic Law of the country, but also by the Federal Constitutional Law. Such a norm, firstly, allows the formation of the judicial system to take into account the main provisions of the judicial and legal reform, and, secondly, excludes the possibility of going beyond the limits of such reform established by the fundamental Law of the state. For example, the creation of emergency courts is not allowed. The procedure for appointing judges by the highest bodies of the judiciary is essential. They are appointed by the Federation Council on the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation. The new norm of the main Law of the country allows other branches of government to participate in the formation of the judiciary.
In the Russian Federation, the problems associated with the introduction of a jury trial are being actively discussed. According to its supporters, this court is an important guarantee of objectivity and impartiality in the administration of justice. There is another point of view. The jury in the Russian Federation arose in 1550 under Ivan IV; then it was abolished and revived in 1864. At that time, many cases related to minor violations of the order, the relationship of citizens, were decided by a magistrate, and more complex ones were transferred to the district court, where they were considered by 3 judges and 12 jurors, including, as a rule, included representatives of the propertied strata of society. The jury rendered a verdict: "guilty" or "not guilty." Jury trials had both positive and negative sides, as the prominent lawyers of their time spoke about. “Our jurors,” emphasized A.F. Koni, “were a very sensitive echo of the public mood ... This is their dignity, but this is their great drawback, because all the instability, haste and changeability of the public mood are reflected in the jury. Sincerity is not yet truth, and the verdicts of Russian jurors, always respectable in their sincerity, did not always satisfy the feeling of strict truth.
Let us add to this that in recent decades the functions of the jury in the West have been steadily reduced. For example, if in pre-war Great Britain about 50% of all claims were considered by a jury, then in the early 90s - less than 1% of civil and 3% of criminal cases. Supporters of the revival of the jury in the Russian Federation hope to use it to prevent pressure on judges by local authorities, do away with the notorious "telephone law", weaken the influence of judges on assessors, and bring to the forefront in solving criminal and civil cases not the norms of law, but legal awareness the public. Time will tell if their arguments are valid.
What problems does the Russian government face today?
The first problem is the power structure. The old system, called the command-administrative system, was broken, but a new one has yet to be created. The system that exists today could be described as administrative-Soviet. The weaknesses of the current government are obvious: fragmentation, lack of operational communication, the virus of incompetence, the weakness of feedback, the lack of a clear separation of powers.
The second problem is personnel. The Democrats didn't decide. And those few who are nevertheless nominated do not find their niche in power structures. The arrival of new people to power did not take place in principle. What is the social base of the current government? The democratic layer is small. Entrepreneurship is not developed. Where, if not from old sources, to draw personnel. Therefore, the reforms are going with such a creak. A civilized market economy has two pillars: democratic governance and free enterprise. And the Russian Federation will have to create them, and this takes a lot of time.
The third problem is the implementation of the decisions made. In the old days, the execution of decisions rested on the fear of prison and even execution, later on the fear of losing a party card, a prestigious position, and the benefits that accompany it. Now there is no fear, but there is also no civilized mechanism that would ensure the implementation of the decisions of the authorities. Most of the decisions made today are not based on economic interests.
The fourth problem is the rights of the authorities. In the days of the command-administrative system, the nomenclature felt the limits: this is possible, even this will do, but this is not, we must stop here. Today, those in power have little to stop. The press raises the question of the corruption of power, the cynicism of the “tops, the mafiosi who feel at home in the corridors of power”, etc.
All over the world there are quite effective ways of public influence on the mores of those in power. This is the publicity of what is connected with their activities and way of life. However, the situation in Russia today is such that everyone does what he wants: newspapers - pee, readers - read, and those about whom they are talking - do not read. The immorality of power begins with the inability (or unwillingness) of its representatives to follow the law. And the further they are from the law, the further from the people.
What are the main trends in power relations? Research has revealed consistent trends. The first is the strengthening of state, national executive and bureaucratic power. Practice shows that state bodies and the bureaucracy seek to expand their power and functions, using all available means for this. The conflict between the legislative and executive authorities in the Russian Federation arose, of course, not by chance. The Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation sought to limit the sphere of influence of the executive branch.
Another trend is the shift of political power from its lower levels, levels towards central, national governments. This is typical for all civilized countries. The same process is going on in the Russian Federation. However, in the first years of the reforms, the thesis was proclaimed that the lower levels of government were given greater powers. It may have made sense at the time, but it was a purely political move, because without resources (firms, finances, competencies, information, experience) it is impossible to solve the problems. Today there is a concentration of power in the hands of central governments and the expansion of their functions. Subordinate bodies are increasingly playing the role of conductors of state policy, recipients of federal funds. They make decisions within the framework of national policy. Basically, this trend is associated with the complexity of modern society, which is often a national community. To solve the problems facing modern society (economic recession, inflation, ecology, etc.), a nationwide approach is needed. In addition, it is not always possible to solve many problems at the local level, for example, social protection of the population, public security, health care, provision of energy resources, transport, etc. Therefore, only political demagogues can call for the transfer of all power to local authorities, leaving functions to the center coordinator.
At the same time, one should not dramatize the process of transferring power from legislative to executive bodies. It is known that decision-making and legislative initiative have always been in the hands of the executive bodies, and the legislative body served as a counterbalance to the executive, improving, ratifying or rejecting proposals coming from it.
“I know,” wrote A. Hamilton, one of the most influential drafters of the fundamental Law of the State USA- that there are people who can please the executive power only if it slavishly indulges the desires of the people or legislative bodies; but it seems to me that these people have a very primitive idea of the purpose of all government, and also of the true means of achieving the general welfare.
... Republican principles do not at all require submission to any breath of the breeze of popular passions or hasty obedience to any momentary desires of the majority, which may appear under the influence of the insidious actions of persons pandering to the prejudices of the crowd in order to then sell its interests.
The legal status of the president, who is both the highest official (that is, the head of state) and the head of the executive branch, does not fully comply with the principle of separation of powers. As the highest official, the president is obliged by his arbitration to ensure the effective functioning of public authorities, but as the head of the executive branch, directly leading the government, he is forced, first of all, to defend and implement the specific interests of the executive branch. It is the unresolved issue of the status of the president in the current fundamental law of the country that in many respects gives rise to conflicts and confrontations with the legislative power. The problem with the firm of authorities is a cornerstone in the course of the reform being carried out in our country. This issue should be resolved on the basis of an analysis of the actual practice of the functioning of the authorities in the Russian Federation and taking into account international experience.
Of course, we should not forget that the expansion of the functions of the executive power (this is clearly visible in the Russian Federation) leads to the formation of a bureaucratic state, and, consequently, to an increase in the powers of bureaucrats, who today are no longer simple administrators. Bureaucrats are strongly associated with the development of policy at the highest level, acting as advisers, consultants, lobbyists in the executive and legislative branches.
What kind of power should be in the Russian Federation? It must be legitimate, independent and strong. This is not a return to the past. Strong power is not the power of the sword and violence. The administrative-command system did not show the world a strong power, and the struggle for the "new" power actually led in mid-1993 to the undermining of the state company itself.
The Russian Federation needs a strong government that should not crush the freedom of citizens and claim omnipotence. Otherwise, it will inevitably compromise itself.
Power is strong in its rightness, its dignity and the support of the people, that is, their observance of the law, trust, respect and willingness to participate in the undertakings of power. It should have spiritual authority, and people should feel that this is their power, reflecting their interests.
The government must be independent of foreign capital, mafia structures, any international organizations, parties, lobbyists, churches. Strong power in state affairs must be the strong-willed center of the country.
Of course, the authorities, having at their disposal an apparatus of coercion (power structures), can realize their will by external force, but the latter will never replace the internal force of power. And in this regard, the Constitution of Russia is called upon to ensure overcoming the weakness of state power and to establish in the Russian Federation a strong democratic power, power based on the law, capable of ensuring the legal rights of citizens, and constitutional freedoms; to assert the law as the core of social relations and to be able to obey the law, to perform an economic and creative function.
In general, the Russian model of federation reproduces the common features of the federal type of government. At the same time, national characteristics emerged. In the Russian Federation, there is no great danger of secession of any subject of the federation, but there is a problem of reaching agreement between the center and the regions. As a rule, the subjects of the federation do not raise the issue of any division of sovereignty, but actualize the issue of delineation of powers and specification of the sphere of joint jurisdiction. The republics have developed their own traditions of relations with the center. However, with the collapse of the Soviet system, the accumulated experience is limited.
An important principle of the structure of the state is the prevention of one-sidedness and haste, the creation of a guarantee of solidity, thoughtful decision-making. This is the internal prerequisite for stability and constant orientation towards the consent of different political forces and a compromise between them. Western political systems have extensive experience in this area. Thus, parliaments and governments are independent in relation to their voters, they are not obliged to immediately respond to changes in their moods. Politicians have time to be consistent in their chosen course for their elections. The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 also focuses on this, since the article on the early recall of deputies on the basis of the fact that voters have changed their attitude towards them has been excluded. The requirement of stability is met by a procedure in which only a qualified majority can decide the most fundamental issues, dismiss those who are elected, and make changes to the Constitution. Specifically American traditions include the rule according to which the president is finally chosen by the electoral college, who can change their choice in connection with any newly discovered circumstances. The US Senate is also free from the dominance of moods of one year, it is not updated immediately, but gradually - by a third. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life. As a result, the political system USA restraint regarding radical changes is laid down, since any new position should be the result of the coordination of yesterday's and today's preferences and moods. If this practice were adopted in the Russian Federation, and the members of the Federation Council were elected for a longer term than the deputies of the Duma, and not all at once, if the authority of the Constitutional Court increased in the election of a judge for 12 years, then there would be reason to believe that we have developed one of the subsystems that guarantee stability.
Actual problems of reforming the Russian statehood.
Does the Russian Federation have a state? Of course, yes, however, as we now understand, the seemingly all-powerful Soviet state has gradually become weaker since the 1970s. By the end of the 1980s, it was in an extremely difficult position. His military "needs" were consuming the resources of an economy that had ceased to grow. The weakened center faced opposition from increasingly autonomizing regional elites. An attempt by the country's leadership to find a way out of the predicament gave rise to a crisis legitimacy of power, which increasingly weakened the state. More accurate, however, seems to us to be the definition of “a state in chaos”, in which old and new institutions coexist with difficulty, being in a state of conflict.
According to world standards or traditions, the Russian state can in some respects be considered as a national state: in general, the share of non-Russians in the Russian Federation does not exceed 20% and does not fundamentally differ from the share of ethnic groups in Spain, Great Britain, France, which are not considered polyethnic. However, according to the Russian constitutionally fixed tradition, our state is multinational.
The peculiarity of Russian practice is such that its life at different times has always been little subject to legal norms. As you know, many of the legal traditions that existed were rejected by the Bolsheviks from 1917. In May 1922 Lenin recognized that the country lives in a sea of lawlessness, the greatest opponent of legality is local influence, and common events, even in a narrow circle, are reduced to settling personal and local scores.
The Russian Federation, the legal successor of Soviet federalism, carries a lot of artificiality. Thus, the motives for the emergence of autonomous republics were not socio-economic and not socio-cultural, but only political. Moreover, as S. Avakyan emphasizes, the irrational principle prevailed in political motivation. The emergence of autonomous republics was not preceded by events that testified that the nationalities that gave the name to the republic came to the need to have their own state education. Autonomous statehood was not endured by the history of these peoples, but descended from above. The main political function was to demonstrate the equality of large and small peoples, to promote the wisdom of Lenin's national policy.
Under totalitarianism, the arbitrary inclusion of Russian-speaking regions into Kazakhstan and Ukraine, the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine, the declaration of the self-determination of nations did not have any political consequences, but helped to manipulate public consciousness.
For statehood (from the 20s - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (CCCP)) of the Russian Federation in the XX century. was characterized by a unitary-centralization model of government. The scale and depth of the nationwide socio-economic and political transformations carried out in these years required, as in the era of Peter the Great, the concentration of powers in the field of public administration in one center. But by the end of the century, the over-centralized, hierarchical, rigidly structured model of government began to falter. The leaders of the country began to modernize it. However, the process of transformation was complicated by the competitive struggle of "factions" in the upper strata of the political leadership.
The events of August-December 1991, the departure of the Union leadership from the political arena, led to the fact that the existence of a fully sovereign Russian Federation began in the conditions of an unformed central state apparatus and growing centrifugal tendencies. A number of factors had a certain influence on the process of the deepening disintegration of the Russian Federation. In particular, simultaneously with the collapse of the mechanism of administrative and economic management of the economy, a new mechanism was only beginning to take shape, capable of providing management through market levers, which seriously hampered the management of processes in industry and agriculture from a single center. The rupture of ties with the economies of the sovereignized union republics, which previously supported the activities of the interconnected and interdependent single economic machine of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (CCCP), forced the political, administrative and economic leaders of individual subjects of Russia to start looking for new economic partners. Moreover, such a process often occurs outside the direct influence of the central structures of state power. A feature of the revival of Russian statehood was that many of its institutions had to be created practically from scratch. At the same time, the Russian central and local political elites, being part of the all-Union one, sometimes turned out to be less influential and prestigious than the political elites of other national republics of the USSR.
It is quite obvious that the ability of the center to govern the territories, especially when it comes to a country with such vast lands, is decisive for the state. During the Soviet period, party, Soviet and economic officials of the regions were not sufficiently full-fledged politicians. They were appointed from the center and were more or less responsible to it. Today, the former relations of connection and subordination between the center and the regions have been broken, and the local bureaucracy has found itself in a completely new situation. A part of it has been transformed into a regional political elite with significant independence and striving to realize its own interests; the other is trying to solve for itself the problem of what is more profitable: to represent the central authorities on the ground or to become regional overlords. Under these conditions, the implementation of the decisions of the central government is often nothing more than an accident. The appointment of local heads of administration and representatives of the president testifies to the inability of the center to control the regions and only exacerbates the political and administrative confusion at the local level. The nature of the “deal” that the authorities of a particular region manage to conclude with the center, and, accordingly, the degree of their autonomy, largely determines the level of economic development of specific regions. The most controversial are the questions of who will collect national taxes, who will control the credit and financial sphere, who will be responsible for the functioning of public services.
At the end of 1991-1992. the process of splitting the country into two "states" continued. The fact is that earlier autonomies and territories with regions were equally deprived of rights before the central authorities, but now the republics have begun to have greater rights than other subjects of the federation. As a result, a federation with elements of a confederation began to exist at the level of “center-republic” relations, and a model of a unitary state was preserved at the level of “center-regions”.
With the collapse of the USSR, G. Belov notes, the right to self-determination turned into a powerful lever and resource for the ethnocracy's struggle for political power: in fact, the administrative borders of the borders became state ones. Not a single legal act aimed at preventing the collapse of the state has not only prevented this process, but has not even restrained it.
Federative March 30, 1992, somewhat reducing internal political tension in the country, consolidated the unequal position of the territories and regions in comparison with the republics, could not completely neutralize the disintegration processes in Russia. In an effort to counteract centrifugal tendencies, the President of the Russian Federation formed the Council of the Heads of the Republics. At the same time, he did not rule out the possibility of transferring rights to the republics, perhaps even more than in the Federal Treaty, in the process of preparing a draft of a new general federal basic law of the state. However, this, violating the fragile relationship between the republics, territories and regions, did not fully contribute to ensuring the guarantees of Russia's territorial integrity and suppressing the tendencies of the country's confederalization. At the end of October 1992 (after the start of clashes between Ossetians and Ingush), the head of the executive branch of Russia for the first time did not rule out the use of force to protect the country's territorial integrity and state interests, as well as the possibility of introducing direct presidential rule.
At the beginning of November 1992, two political decisions (in Moscow - on the introduction of a state of emergency in the two republics of the North Caucasus - North Ossetia and Ingushetia; and in Kazan - on the adoption of a new republican basic law of the country) turned the question of the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation the cornerstone of the country's political life. Thus, a working meeting with the participation of the chairmen of four Supreme Councils and ten regional Councils of the Big Volga Association, held in Samara at the end of October, showed concern about the infringement by the central government of the interests of the republics and regions protected by the recently concluded Federative Treaty. It became obvious that the sources of centrifugal tendencies are rooted not so much in the national as in the regional features of Russian life and in the lack of division of rights and competencies between the central and local political elites, between the center and the periphery.
The events in the North Caucasus and Tatarstan have shown that local political elites are ready to use military (Ingushetia) and peaceful (Tatarstan) methods to resolve the problem of the sovereignization of "their" state and determine its borders. And although the basic law of the state of Tatarstan adopted the principle of associated membership of the republic in Russia, by that time the issue that had largely provoked a clash between the center and the regions had not been resolved - whether new sovereign republics were being created on the territory of Russia, which implies the participation of the parties in negotiation process to determine the limits and order of redistribution, mutual rights, functions and competences, or they are revived, restoring the previously broken historical traditions of local statehood, and all the fullness of functions, competences and rights is a natural property of the reanimated state, regardless of the opinion of the central government. In the latter case, the growth of nationalist sentiments, the constant emphasis in state propaganda on the priority of the titular nation, etc. is great, if not inevitable.
Fears for the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation for some time lowered the intensity of the political struggle and reduced the pressure on the President of the Russian Federation and the structures of executive power from both the irreconcilable and constructive opposition. The federal center, seeking to "get around" the problem of inequality of republics and regions in the system of public administration of the Russian Federation, put forward a proposal made by the then First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers V. Shumeiko - to create 5-10 large regional associations, original centers for socio-economic transformations because there cannot be a single model of reforms for the whole country.
But, as expected, the political elite of the Russian territories and regions proper did not agree with the reduced, “truncated” status of these territories and in November began an open struggle for equal rights for the subjects of the federation. In a number of territories, in particular in the Stavropol Territory, a desire was expressed to ensure that the regional administration be granted the rights of the republics that are part of the Russian Federation, at least in resolving issues of regional importance. The heads of 53 Russian regions have created a firm "Union of Governors priority through this representative structure to influence the central authorities. On November 24, the President of the Russian Federation adopted a decision, with which the members of the union of governors agreed, to include the head of this union in the Council of Heads of Republics.
These steps by the political elite of the Russian territories and regions have seriously narrowed the field of maneuver for the central federal government. They neutralized the idea of the then Secretary of State under the President of the Russian Federation, G. Burbulis, to create an "asymmetric federation", in accordance with which its various subjects would exercise their powers in different forms. During the November-December VII Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation, the influential head of the administration of the Irkutsk region K. Nozhikov said that "the territories of the territories and regions will never agree with their inferiority in the field of politics and economics."
It can be said that by the end of 1992, two approaches were identified in the central federal leadership in relations with the republican authorities. In the North Caucasus, the center enjoyed the support of local political elites who agreed with the existing state status of the North Caucasian republics, who at the same time counted on strong support from the Russian leadership in order to avoid an escalation of the conflict of internal political tension. At the same time, Moscow "did not notice" the steps taken by the republics of the Volga, Urals and Siberia aimed at changing their status, including contesting the existing intra-Russian administrative borders.
By the autumn of 1993, the disintegration tendencies had gone so far that the federal executive power apparently decided that in order to curb them, as well as to pacify the "disobedient" Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, methods of shock therapy are required. And in September-October 1993 they were demonstrated. Confirmation of the fact that adherents of the unitary structure of the Russian Federation came to the fore in the federal political elite was not only the Constitution adopted in December 1993, which ensured an over-concentration of rights in the hands of the head of state, but also B. Yeltsin's decree that the heads of administrations in the regions and regions will no longer be elected during the elections, they will be appointed and dismissed personally by the President of the Russian Federation.
The desire to create a rigidly hierarchical vertical of executive power and thus consolidate the state machine of Russia, as expected, confronted the president and the government with many problems.
One of the factors in strengthening the state structure is the strengthening of the influence of the state on the processes taking place in the economy. However, this provision is in conflict with the concept of economic reforms, which, starting from January 1992, was supported by B. Yeltsin and which was expressed by E. Gaidar. It is no coincidence that the latter was "forced out" from the chair of the Deputy Prime Minister already at the beginning of 1994.
The forceful removal of the highest federal legislative and representative body, legal pressure and economic sanctions against those subjects of the federation that continued to pursue a policy different from the central one, could not neutralize the centrifugal processes. Most of the republican-regional political and administrative-economic elites put forward the protection of the interests of their territories to the fore. In particular, in some republics, decisions were made to introduce the institution of the presidency in order to exclude the possibility of the appearance of a "viceroy" of Moscow, to strengthen the sovereignty of the subject of the federation.
As expected, K. Gadzhiev reasonably notes that the socio-economic and political contradictions that existed in Russian society before the September-October events in Moscow were not destroyed either by the bloody suppression of the resistance of deputies of the country's highest legislative and representative body, or by the December vote on the draft of the main Law of the country of the Russian Federation and elections to the Federal Assembly. Not only were they not driven into society, but they were not even pushed to the margins of political life.
The deepening of the structural crisis experienced by the country has not been stopped either. Currently, one of the forms of its manifestation at the level of the federal government is the growth of instability in the state structure of Russia.
First, tensions and contradictions between the head of state, his apparatus and the structures of the Russian government have intensified. The latter, at the same time, is losing more and more levers of influence on the situation in the republics and regions. The level of prices in the country for products that previously allowed the federal government to concentrate financial resources for subsequent redistribution is gradually approaching world prices. As a result, the federal prime minister and ministers have less and less opportunity to maintain the central administrative and distribution mechanism, which was the core of the "rigidly hierarchical" structure of the state machine.
Secondly, the presidential administration has also become restless. There is also no unity of opinion on many problems of the development of the state. In connection with the super-concentration of powers in the hands of B. Yeltsin, these contradictions manifest themselves in the struggle for everyday personal contact with the President of Russia, for influence on the head of state between his assistants.
Thirdly, the Federal Assembly, which was turned by the country's Basic Law in December into a low-impact institution of state power, is not yet actively participating in the ongoing political struggle. But, despite this, the President of Russia seems to intend to further limit the field of activity of the parliament, in which, as it turned out, the president's supporters were unable to form a strong coalition capable of neutralizing the efforts of opposition factions that gained control over a number of important committees and commissions in State Duma and Federation Council.
In conditions when the leadership of the subjects of the federation continues the policy of redistribution of rights, competencies and powers between the federal and republican-regional authorities, the hopes of the Center to ensure control over these processes by means of personnel “checks and balances” seem rather ephemeral. The fact is that the regions are increasingly successfully pursuing tactics that bring an economic base to their political demands. Their representatives not only make claims against the federal center due to insufficient, in their opinion, independence in the implementation of foreign economic activity, but also present to the government and programs for the development of a particular territory developed in interregional and macroregional economic associations, raise questions about the adequacy of foreign economic actions of the central power to the national-state interests of the country. Some of the local influential economic institutions are simultaneously advocating the exclusion of Moscow intermediaries and merchants from their structures, creating regionally "pure" business firms. In addition, the practice of delaying payments to social insurance funds, employment funds, as well as federal budget even in those regions and regions whose leaders are known for their loyalty to the Center.
Under these conditions, only the readiness to reach a compromise between the center and the periphery, to form a management system in which powers are reasonably and realistically divided between the leadership of the federation and its subjects, can prevent the disintegration of the Russian Federation. the country simply will not withstand the resuscitation of the model of a unitary state.
It seems to me that we are going too far in destroying centralization. Our Constitution has abandoned the principle of asymmetry and granted equal rights to all subjects of the federation. So it is written in article 5 of the main Law of the state. But already after the adoption of the main law of the country, there were several speeches, in particular, the speech of the presidents of Yakutia and Tataria, which spoke about the need to give the republics a certain priority. The national status of the republics was put forward as the basis for priority. And the unspoken basis is the idea that if you (the Center) don't give us good terms, then we'll think about whether we should remain part of the Russian Federation. It seems to me that it is very undesirable to speak such a language with the Center. Once united peoples must reckon with the fact that they live together. Of course, you can follow the path: first the USSR was destroyed, and there’s nothing to do, we live on, then we will tear away some republics and we will continue to live ... And, in the end, if you constantly note positively on this issue; “Can there be statehood of one nation in one state?”, then we will have the Moscow state, and the Novosibirsk state, and other small states. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a strategy for the commensurate development of national territories (especially considering that there are no purely national territories in the Russian Federation, that, as a rule, 50-70% of the Russian population lives in the national republics) and other regions. The fate of the Russian Federation is such that there is no purely Russian state and probably never will be. Human destinies and nationalities are so intertwined that it is impossible to “untie” this interweaving and create purely national states, and to cut it apart means to destroy Russia. And the government must finally say its weighty word on this issue.
Sources
priority g> Alyushin A. L., Porus V. N. Power and political realism. Power. Essays on contemporary philosophy of the West. M., Science 1989Amelin VN Power as a social phenomenon. Socio-Political Sciences. 1991. No. 2.
Amelin. VN Power as a Social Phenomenon. Socio-Political Sciences. 1991 №2
Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T.4, M., 1984.
Baytin. MI State and Political Power. Saratov, 1972.
Barnes. B. The nature of power. Political science yesterday and today. M., 1990
Belov. GA Institutional system of political power. Centaur #4 1996
Belov. G. A. Political science. M., Science 1994
Belov. G. A. Ways of evolution of the normative political system of the Russian society. Bulletin of Moscow State University Ser12 No. 1 1997
Berger. P., Lukman. T. Social Construction of Reality. M., 1995.
Weber. M. Selected works. M., Progress. 1990
Weber. M. Politics as a vocation and profession. Weber. M. Izbr., Prod., ed., Yu. N. Davydov M., 1990
Power in the transition from totalitarianism to democracy. Free thought 1993 №8
Hajiyev. K. S. Notes on the prospects of Russian Statehood. (National-territorial aspect.) Questions of philosophy. 1994 №9
Hobbes. G. Works. M., 1991. T. 2.
Goncharov DV, Goptareva IB Introduction to political science. Lawyer M., 1996
Degtyarev AA Political Power as a Regulatory Mechanism of Social Communication. Polis: Political Studies 96g. No. 3
Dmitriev. Yu. A. Correlation between the concepts of political and state power in the conditions of the formation of civil society. State and Law 1994 No. 7
Zdravomyslov. A. G Sociology of conflict. M., Aspect press 1996.
Dubov. I. From Montesquieu to our days. Dialogue #2 1993.
Ivanov. VN Russian federalism: what's next? Socio-political magazine №6 1997
Ilyin V. V. Power. Bulletin of Moscow State University, Ser. 12., Socio-Political Research., 1992. No. 3
Isaev. I. A. History of the state and law of Russia. M., 1994
Russian Constitution. M., 1993.
Krasnov. BI Power as a social phenomenon. Socio-political magazine. 1994. No. 7-8
Krasnov. BI Theory of Power and Power Relations. Socio-Political Journal. 1994. No. 3-6
Macauley. M. Formation of the new Russian statehood: the experience of forecasting. Policy No. 3 1993.
Marx K., Engels F. Soch., T. 23.
Melnikov. Y. Legitimacy of power. Power 1996 No. 4 (S 37)
Mironov. V. A. Russian state building in the post-union period (1991-1994) Centaur No. 4 1994.
Nietzsche. F. Full. coll. op. T. 9.M., 1990.
Osipov. G. V. and dr. Perestroika and radical reforms: ten years later. Socio-Political Journal 1996 No. 1
Panarin. AS Political systems of the present. Political science. M., 1997
Road. V. A. Power and Cognition. Power. Essays on the Modern Philosophy of the West. M.Nauka.1989.
Political science. Textbook for Higher Educational Institutions. Under the editorship of G. V. Polunina. M., "Akalis" 1996.
Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I. Introduction to political science. M., 1995.
Pushkareva GV Power as a social institution. Socio-political magazine. 1995 №2
Radugin. A. A. Political science. M., Center 1996
Silin. A. Philosophy and psychology of power. Free Thought 1995 №12
Solovyov. V. S. Op. V 2 T., T. 1. M., 1990.
Sorokin P.A. Social and cultural mobility. Sorokin P. Man, civilization, society. Paul ed. A.Yu. Sogomonov. M., 1992.
Tocqueville. BUT. People power In America. M., 1992.
Philosophy of power. Under the editorship of V. V. Ilyin. Publishing house, Moscow State University 1993
Holmes. S. What Russia teaches us. A weak state is a threat to freedom. Open policy. 1997 №11
- POWER, power, pl. power, authorities, wives. 1. only units The right and opportunity to subordinate someone to one's will, to control the actions of someone. Government. parental authority. Legislature. Executive power. ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of UshakovPOWER is a drug that politicians cannot live without and which they buy from the voters with the money of the voters themselves. Richard Needham The path from wealth to power is less reprehensible than from power to wealth. Tadeusz Kotarbinski Any legal ... ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms
power- (2) 1. The dominance of the ruler, power: And I no longer see the power of the strong, and rich, and many-times my brother Yaroslav, with Chernigov past, with Moguta, and with Tatras, and with Shelbira, and with Topchaki, and with Revuga, and with Olbera. 26 27. Then the verb ... Dictionary-reference book "The Tale of Igor's Campaign"
Power- Power ♦ Pouvoir An excellent definition of power is given by Hobbes: “The power of a man is his available means to achieve some visible good in the future” (“Leviathan”, chapter 10). Therefore, power exists in reality (in the present), ... ... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville
POWER- wives. right, power and will over what, freedom of action and orders; bossing; control; | superiors, boss or bosses. Everyone has been given dominion over his own good. The law determines the authority of each official, and the supreme authority ... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary
power- n., f., use. very often Morphology: (no) what? power than? power, (see) what? power than? power about what? about power; pl. what? power, (no) what? authorities, why? authorities, (see) what? power than? authorities about what? about the authorities management 1.… … Explanatory Dictionary of Dmitriev More
Loading...