Any power needs legitimacy.
Legitimacy - political property of the body state power, meaning recognition by the majority of citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any power that is based on popular consensus is legitimate.
Concept "legitimacy" means recognition by the community of an indisputable basis for officials (rulers) to exercise power functions. It is opposed to the illegal seizure of power, its usurpation. Legitimacy implies trust in authorities and support for rulers, i.e. loyalty, on the part of the majority of community members, because in any society there are always people who are in opposition to the rulers.
The main thing in the concept of “legitimacy” is the nature (“tonality”) of the attitude towards power on the part of the population (people) subject to it. If the population (people) accepts and positively evaluates the government, recognizes its right to govern, and agrees to submit to it, then such power is legitimate. If this is not the case, and the people do not “love” the government and do not trust the government, although they submit to it for the time being within the framework of the instinct of self-preservation (primarily because of the fear of mass repression), then such power appears as illegitimate.
Understanding the question of the legitimacy of state power requires knowledge of the content and sources of not only the three classical types of legitimacy - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal (democratic) - but also such types as ideological, technocratic, etc. It is also necessary to answer the question of how the legitimacy of power and its effectiveness (effectiveness) are related to each other.
Technocratic legitimacy
Along with the traditional types of legitimacy of power (traditional, charismatic and rational-legal), there is also such a type as technocratic legitimacy.
For the simple reason that politics deals with the interests and destinies of millions of people and the cost of mistakes in this area often takes the form of tragedies of entire nations, the question of the effectiveness of politics and politicians is particularly acute. It is with this issue that technocratic legitimacy is connected, the core of which is the requirement for the authorities to be competent, to be professional. It should be borne in mind that for those who exercise power or hope to achieve it, politics takes on the character of a craft, a specialized occupation, which necessarily presupposes the presence of special knowledge and experience. If this is not so, then politics turns into politicking and loses its effectiveness. Russians express the essence of technocratic legitimacy very figuratively folk proverbs: “I picked up the tug, don’t say it’s not strong,” “If you don’t know the ford, don’t poke your nose into the water.”
As a formula reflecting the relationship (interdependence) between the legitimacy and effectiveness of power, the rule is: the degree of legitimacy of power is most often directly proportional to its effectiveness, i.e. the more efficiency, the more legitimacy. And vice versa. If this efficiency, as they say, “the cat cried,” then the initially legitimate government, which does not cope with the tasks assigned to it, over time loses the trust of citizens and turns into illegitimate in their eyes.
If we evaluate the government in post-socialist Russia through this prism, then it clearly lacks professionalism. It is known that Germany and Japan were defeated and thoroughly destroyed in the Second World War, in order to commit “ economic miracle“and to be reborn like a “phoenix bird from the ashes,” it took some 15-20 years. Over the same period of time (if we date the start of market reforms in August 1991), we have not yet even fully restored what we (through thoughtlessness or malicious intent) thoroughly destroyed.
It is no coincidence that October 26, 2006 - the day after the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin spoke in live with the people, during which he had to “take the rap” for all the “sins” of the executive powers—the then chairman of the federal government, M. Fradkov, gave members of his cabinet a disappointing diagnosis: “collective irresponsibility” associated with “organizational weakness and insufficient knowledge of the subject.” That is, what you lead and manage.
Types of legitimacy
Distinguish three "ideal types" legitimacy:
- traditional, based on a body of customs, the validity of which has been recognized since time immemorial, and on the habit ingrained in a person to adhere to such customs;
- charismatic, which is entirely characterized by the personal devotion of people subordinate to the cause of a person and their trust only in his person as a leader-chief;
- rational, arising from the correspondence of power to the rational principle with the help of which the legal order of the current political system is established.
In relation to this last type, the concept of “democratic legitimacy” is used as a synonym.
In addition to these three “ideal types”, other types of legitimacy are distinguished, namely:
- technocratic, which can be expressed by the Russian proverb: “If you take up the tug, don’t say it’s not strong,” i.e. power must be professional;
- ontological(ontology - the doctrine of being), which contains the correspondence of power to the universal principles of human and social existence.
Structural legitimacy
The most important factor in recognizing the validity of the board is the formation of authorities on the basis of legality. This structural legitimacy(first view). It is called so because it determines the structure of the political system. Such legitimacy can come in two forms. Firstly, this traditional legitimacy, which implies public acceptance rulers who received power in accordance with the traditions and customs of a given community: elders, chief (the most authoritative leader), monarch, etc. Secondly, this is more common in democratic communities legal legitimacy, i.e. public recognition of the transfer of power in accordance with established laws on elections of government bodies.
However, the acquisition of powers by rulers on a legal basis does not yet guarantee them the preservation of trust and support, that is, legitimacy. Abuse of power, violation of laws and citizens’ ideas about justice, ineffectiveness of authorities in managing society can cause political crisis, undermining trust, i.e. loss of legitimacy. In established democracies, crises of legitimacy are resolved in a civilized manner. For this purpose, procedures are provided for the removal from power of a ruler who has lost his authority. For example, the growth of extra-parliamentary forms political activity(rallies, protest marches, etc.) can lead to the voluntary resignation of political leaders, early elections, a referendum, etc.
Charismatic legitimacy
Charismatic legitimacy is based on faith in the special talent of the leader, who claims access to political power, my charisma - a Divine gift, grace. Citizens' trust in this case is emotional in nature and is based on personal sympathy for the leader. At the same time, the importance of legal norms is belittled on both sides. The charismatic method of legitimizing rulers is often used during periods of revolution, when new authorities cannot rely on law or tradition.
The named types of legitimacy are ideal models. In political practice they are intertwined and complement each other. New types of legitimacy are currently emerging. The rise of nationalism led to the emergence of the so-called ethnic legitimacy— formation of power structures along national lines. This variety can be classified as a type of legal legitimacy, when the qualification of nationality is explicitly or implicitly used in elections.
Degree of legitimacy, i.e., trust in rulers, is quite difficult to establish quantitatively. However, there are certain indicators that can be used for this purpose. Among them are: the level of coercion necessary for the performance of managerial functions on the part of rulers; the nature of attempts to replace government representatives, manifestations of civil disobedience (riots, strikes, etc.); election results; survey results; and etc.
Legitimacy of political power
Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. The word “legitimacy” itself comes from Lat. legitimus- law. But not every legitimate power can be legitimate. Already in the Middle Ages, theoretical justifications emerged that a monarch who becomes a tyrant and does not fulfill his destiny deprives his power of legitimacy. In this case, the people have the right to overthrow such a government (F. Aquinas, in particular, spoke about this).
Legitimacy is the confidence of the people that the government will fulfill its obligations; recognition of the authority of the authorities and voluntary submission to it; an idea of the correct and appropriate use of power, including violence. Legitimate power, as a rule, is able to ensure stability and development of society without resorting to violence.
M. Weber identified three main types of political domination and the corresponding forms of legitimacy:
- traditional domination - legitimacy based on the traditions of a patriarchal society, for example, monarchy - traditional legitimacy;
- charismatic dominance - legitimacy based on real or imaginary outstanding qualities of a ruler, leader, prophet - charismatic legitimacy;
- domination based on rationally created rules— rational and legal legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in a democratic society.
In addition to those listed, there are other types of legitimacy, for example: ontological, ideological, structural, etc.
Ontological legitimacy is most characteristic of ancient and traditional societies, when existing norms of existence are perceived by people as a naturally (non-human) established order, and its violation as a catastrophe, anarchy, chaos. This is the recognition by a person (society) of the existing order as the norm of existence, which applies not only to society, but to all space. Such legitimacy is closely connected with the life and death of the canonized political leader of the nation. His life represents power and order, and his death represents anarchy and chaos. History knows many examples when, after the death of their leader, people experienced fear of the future. As an example, we can cite the death of V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, Kim Il Sung ( North Korea) and etc.
At the core ideological legitimacy there lie certain ideological “constructs” - attractive ideas, promises of a “bright future” or “new world order”, religious dogmas, etc. Thus, communist ideology and promises of the rapid construction of communism largely provided legitimacy to the Soviet regime of power; The ideas of National Socialism contributed to the legitimization of the fascist regime in Germany. Some countries in the Near and Middle East have elevated Islam to the rank of state ideology.
Structural legitimacy is based on the rules and norms established in society for the establishment and change of power, for example, the constitution (constitutional legitimacy). If the majority of citizens are dissatisfied with the existing political power in society, then they “tolerate” it until new elections.
The legitimacy of power is closely related to its effectiveness. The government, which has legitimate grounds for dominance in society, as a result of its ineffective policies may lose the trust of citizens and become illegitimate. On the contrary, power that has no legal basis, as a result of effective policies, can gain the trust of the people and become legitimate. The process of recognizing the legitimacy of power is called se legitimization, and its loss of legitimacy - delegitimization.
Any political power, even the most reactionary, strives to appear effective and legitimate in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the world community. Therefore, the process of legitimizing power is a subject of special concern to the ruling elite. One of the most common techniques is to hush up the negative results of one’s policies and “stuff out” real and imaginary successes in every possible way. Often, independent means become an obstacle to such substitution of negative factors for positive ones. mass media. Illegitimate and ineffective authorities are afraid to enter into dialogue with society and with their opponents, so as not to completely reveal their inconsistency. Therefore, it strives in every way to limit the activities of independent media or put them under its control.
In this section we will take a closer look at the basis for the functioning of state power. In order for the authorities to normally perform their functions, i.e. was capable, it must be legitimate. The legitimacy of state power is the main condition for its effectiveness and successful functioning. Legitimacy reflects the attitude of citizens towards government.
So, the Legitimacy of power (from the Latin legitimus - legal) is a state of power in which it is recognized by the majority of the people as legitimate and fair. Those. the people voluntarily recognize its right to make decisions, which subsequently become binding on all members of society. Legitimacy and authority of power are to a certain extent similar phenomena. The lower the level of legitimacy and recognition of power, the more often power will rely on force.
Let me draw your attention to the fact that legitimacy should be distinguished from the legality of power. Legality is understood as the legal consolidation of power as such in legislation. However, legal power is not always legitimate, because in history there are many cases of rigged elections, when a ruler who really does not have the support of the people came to power. Also, a legitimate government may lose its legitimacy as a result of undesirable reforms and growing discontent among citizens. In this case, a process of delegitimation of power is observed.
Naturally, there is no such thing as 100% (i.e. ideal) legitimacy. Any government has opposition, even if it is prohibited by the established political regime, it still exists. Therefore, the current government needs to constantly maintain its authority, confirm its right to power, constantly proving that it is the best way serves the interests of its citizens.
The process by which the government gains trust from the population is defined as legitimation. The legitimation of political power is a mutually dependent process, on the one hand, of “self-justification” and rational justification of one’s own power on the part of the “managers”, on the other hand, “justification” and recognition of this power on the part of the “managed”. The question immediately arises: how does this process take place, or in other words, how does power acquire legitimacy? The German political scientist and sociologist M. Weber identified three possible types of legitimacy depending on its sources.
1) Traditional legitimacy is based on tradition, on a once established order. The following types of traditional power are distinguished: gerontocracy (power of the elders); patriarchal (the power of tribal leaders); patrimonial (the power of the monarch, which can be sanctified by religious norms); sultanism, where the use of violence is a tradition, and the power of the ruler is freed from traditional restrictions (ancient eastern despotism); V modern society traditional power is manifested in such phenomena as loyalty to the oath, code of honor, etc.
2) Charismatic legitimacy (from Greek charisme - divine grace) is based on faith in the ruler, the leader. This type of power is characterized by attributing super-outstanding personal qualities to the leader: wisdom, holiness, heroism. Religious prophets, revolutionary and totalitarian leaders have such power. Charismatic legitimacy is built on unconditional trust in the leader. Weber saw examples of charisma in Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, etc.
3) Legal (rational) legitimacy is based on legality, i.e. power in this case is based on rational laws. This type of legitimacy is most widespread in countries with a democratic regime, where government operates in accordance with the constitution and specific legal norms.
M. Weber's typology of legitimacy has become widespread, although many scientists identify other types of legitimacy, thus complementing this one.
Thus, the American political scientist D. Easton highlighted:
1) ideological legitimacy (the most effective type of legitimacy) is based on the people’s faith in the correctness and value of the ideology proclaimed by the authorities;
2) structural legitimacy, the basis of which is the population’s trust in existing government structures and the established norms of the regime;
3) personal legitimacy is based on citizens’ faith in the leader’s competence and his ability to use power in such a way as to best satisfy their interests.
French political scientist J.L. Chabot identifies such types of legitimacy as: 1) democratic (based on the will and desires of the people); 2) technocratic (associated with the ability to rule); 3) ontological (which is based on the correspondence of power to the universal principles of human and social existence).
However, the legitimacy of power is a fickle phenomenon, so it is worth mentioning the factors for maintaining the legitimacy of power. So, to maintain legitimacy, the government must:
1. improve legislation in accordance with new requirements determined by current conditions.
2. take care of the creation of a political system of power, the legitimacy of which is based on the traditions of the population, and which, therefore, is more stable.
3. successfully implement government policy, ensuring the maintenance of law and order. The personal charismatic traits of a political leader are also considered important.
But there are cases when these factors do not work, and as a result, the legitimacy of the government is weakened or may be completely lost. In such cases, we can talk about crises of legitimacy or the delegitimation of political power.
The causes of power crises can be:
1. the inability of government bodies to properly carry out their power functions;
2. use of illegitimate violence by the authorities;
3. military conflicts and civil wars;
4. destruction of established traditions and constitutional order;
5. the inability of the government to adapt to changing external or internal conditions.
In addition to the factors of delegitimation, there are also sources of crisis, which include high level discontent of the population, determined to overthrow the current political regime, indicating distrust of the authorities in the results of elections and referendums. These indicators indicate the “lower” limit of the crisis of legitimacy, beyond which the collapse of the current regime and, possibly, a complete change of the constitutional order already begins. To the factors that determine the “upper” limit of the crisis of legitimacy, i.e. the current, dynamic change in likes and dislikes for the authorities, include: functional overload of the state system and limited resources of the authorities, a sharp increase in the activity of the opposition, constant violation of the established rules by the regime political game, the inability of the authorities to explain to the population the essence of their policies, the widespread spread of social diseases such as rising crime, falling living standards, etc.
A feature of the crisis of the legitimacy of state power in Russia is also the loss of the national-state idea, or the cessation of this idea’s fulfillment of its direct task: to integrate the population, justify the existing political regime, and formulate the consolidating goals of society.
In conclusion of this point, I would like to say that the resolution of crises of legitimacy should take into account the specific reasons for the decline in legitimacy for a given case. The most common means of exiting the situation of delegitimation of political power are: increasing the efficiency of communication between government and society; use of legal methods to achieve the goal; mutual control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; establishing control over the state by civil society; formation and strengthening of democratic values in society.
from lat. legitimus - legal) is a concept characterizing the degree of agreement between the governed and the managers. The power of L., if the governed recognize the right of managers to govern, in general, and exactly the way they do it, in particular. This recognition is realized by both the managed and the managers. The first seems to be the power itself and the institutions and rituals associated with it. The second expects submission from the governed, as well as approval of their actions to suppress and condemn dissidents who do not want to obey and show verbal or effective resistance. Max Weber distinguished three types of L.: L. based on tradition, L. based on law, and, finally, L. based on CHARISM. In the first case, power is based on custom, power relations are regulated by traditionally established institutions. The second case - the rule of law - means that people follow certain codified rules, recognizing precisely this behavior as optimal for reconciling interests, for resolving conflicts and, in general, for ensuring social interaction. The third type of leadership - charismatic - is based on the recognition of the exclusive right of this particular person or this particular group to govern people.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Legitimacy of power
from dates legitimus - legal) - recognition of the established order of exercise of political power in society as natural, normal, correct, legal. In contrast to legality, which means compliance of the activities of political organizations and institutions with current laws, legality presupposes the actual recognition by the population of the country, the international community, of the political order actually established in the country as corresponding to the interests of the people of this country. The signs of legitimate political power are: 1. an increase in the proportion of those who obey the authorities, act in accordance with political norms, but not out of fear of being punished, but because of the convictions they have formed that it is reasonable, correct, or because they are used to to do so; 2. reduction of the repressive apparatus, which ensures coercion of citizens to comply with the laws, to carry out the decisions of the authorities; 3. dominance in the mass consciousness of ideas about the naturalness, necessity and expediency of the existing political order. Why do the masses in some cases recognize and support political order, and in others they reject it, fight against it? The answer to this question is rooted, according to the famous German sociologist M. Weber, in some features social behavior person. People can reproduce political relations and institutional norms in their actions because a) they are accustomed to them; b) sincerely believe in the leaders who set these standards; c) are confident that the political normative order corresponds to their value orientations, ideals; d) are convinced that political institutions and the political system as a whole create rules of interaction that are common to everyone, etc. Thus, contribute to the achievement of each person's personal goals. Depending on which of the listed motives for the population’s support of the political normative order prevails in society, it is customary to distinguish the following types of laws: traditional; charismatic; value; rational. The main consequence of L. is that political power relations begin to be reproduced by members of society due to internal motives, without visible violence and coercion.
One of the main specific properties of political power is legitimacy. It represents a form support, justification of the legitimacy of the use of power and the implementation of (a specific form of) government either by the state as a whole or by its individual structures and institutions.
Etymologically, the word “legitimacy” originates from the Latin legalis - legality. However, legitimacy and legality are not synonymous. Since political power is not always based on law and laws, but always enjoys some form of support from at least part of the population, legitimacy, which characterizes the support and support of power by real political subjects, differs from legality, indicating a legal, legislatively based type of government, i.e. on recognition of its competence by the entire population. In some political systems, power can be legal and illegitimate, as, for example, under the rule of metropolises in colonial states, in others - legitimate, but illegal, as, say, after a revolutionary coup supported by the majority of the population, in others - both legal and legitimate, as, for example, after the victory of certain forces in elections.
In the history of political thought, many contradictory views have been expressed regarding the very possibility of legitimating power. Thus, scientists who stand on anthropological positions and the platform of natural law proceed from the fact that legitimacy is possible and real, since in human society there are certain absolute values and ideals common to all. This gives citizens the opportunity to support the government.
At the same time, many scientists believe that it is precisely the absence of such common ideas in a segmented society that is the reason for the impossibility of the emergence of legitimacy. Thus, according to the Austrian scientist G. Kelsen, human knowledge and interests are extremely relative, and therefore everyone is free both in designing their lives and in relation to power. At the same time, supporters of contractual theories argue that support for the government is possible as long as there is a joint agreement among citizens regarding its goals and values. Therefore, “any type of legitimacy presupposes the existence of a minimum social consensus regarding the values that are accepted by the majority of society and which underlie the functioning of the political regime.”
A different approach back in the 18th century. proposed by the English thinker E. Burke, who separated the theoretical and practical aspects of legitimacy. He did not analyze legitimacy in itself, but connected it only with a specific regime, with specific citizens. In his opinion, only positive experience and the habit of the population can lead to the construction of a model of power in which it would satisfy the interests of citizens and, therefore, could enjoy their support. Moreover, this experience and the corresponding conditions must be formed and accumulated evolutionarily, preventing the conscious construction of legitimacy.
Currently, in political science it is common to take a more specific approach to the concept of legitimacy, recording a much wider range of its sources and forms. Thus, as a rule, three subjects are considered as the main sources of legitimacy: the population, the government and foreign policy structures.
Legitimacy, which means support for power from the general population, is the most cherished goal of all political regimes. It is precisely this that primarily ensures the stability and sustainability of power. A positive attitude of the population towards the policies of the authorities and their recognition of the competence of the ruling elite are formed on any problems that come into focus public opinion The population's approval and support of the authorities are associated with various political and civil traditions, mechanisms for the spread of ideologies, processes of formation of the authority of values shared by the “tops” and “bottoms,” and a certain organization of the state and society. This forces us to treat legitimacy as a political-cultural characteristic of power relations.
The population, as already noted, can support rulers even when they manage the state poorly. Because of this, such legitimacy can be formed even in conditions of decreased efficiency of government. Therefore, with this form of legitimacy, the real disposition and complementarity of citizens towards the existing regime, which does not depend on formal legal provisions, is placed at the forefront.
At the same time, legitimacy can be initiated and formed not by the population, but by the people themselves. state (government) and political structures (pro-government parties) encouraging mass consciousness reproduce positive assessments of the activities of the ruling regime. Such legitimacy is based on the right of citizens to fulfill their duties in maintaining a certain order and relations with the state. It directly depends on the ability of the authorities and elite structures to create and maintain people’s beliefs in the fairness and optimality of the existing political institutions and the line of behavior they pursue.
For the formation of such legitimacy, the institutional and communicative resources of the state acquire enormous importance. True, such forms of legitimacy often turn into excessive legalization, which ultimately makes it possible to consider any institutionalized and legislatively formalized government as the legal right of the authorities to use coercion. Thus, legitimacy is essentially identified with the legality, legality, legal validity of state power and the consolidation of its existence in society.
Legitimacy can be formed external political centers– friendly states, international organizations. This type of political support is often used in the election of state leaders and in international conflicts.
In other words, within the state, various political subjects may have different character and have different level support from public or international opinion. For example, the institution of the presidency in Yugoslavia enjoys broad domestic support, but is strongly condemned internationally, where many countries recognize Milosevic as a war criminal. Or, conversely, individual politicians or parties may be ostracized at home, but supported abroad as representatives of the democratic movement. Thus, the population can support parliament and protest against the activities of the government, or they can support the president and have a negative attitude towards the activities of representative bodies. Thus, legitimacy can have different intensities, making it possible to establish hierarchical connections between individual politicians and authorities.
The diversity of the ability of different political actors to support a system of government implies equally diverse types of legitimacy. In political science, the most popular classification was compiled by M. Weber, who, from the point of view of motivation for submission, identified the following types:
-traditional legitimacy, which is formed on the basis of people’s belief in the necessity and inevitability of subordination to power, which receives in society (group) the status of tradition, custom, habit of obedience to certain persons or political institutions. This type of legitimacy is especially common in hereditary types of government, in particular in monarchical states. A long habit of justifying one or another form of government creates the effect of its fairness and legality, which gives power high stability and stability;
-rational(democratic) legitimacy that arises as a result of people’s recognition of the fairness of those rational and democratic procedures on the basis of which the system of power is formed. This type of support develops due to a person’s understanding of the presence of third-party interests, which presupposes the need to develop rules of general behavior, following which creates the opportunity to realize his own goals. In other words, the rational type of legitimacy essentially has a normative basis, characteristic of the organization of power in complexly organized societies. People here are subject not so much to individuals embodying power, but to rules, laws, procedures, and, consequently, political structures and institutions formed on their basis. At the same time, the content of rules and institutions can change dynamically depending on changes in mutual interests and living conditions;
– charismatic legitimacy that results from people's belief in what they recognize as the outstanding qualities of a political leader. This image of an infallible person endowed with exceptional qualities (charisma) is transferred by public opinion to the entire system of power. Unconditionally believing all the actions and plans of a charismatic leader, people uncritically accept the style and methods of his rule. The emotional delight of the population, which forms this highest authority, most often occurs during the period revolutionary changes when social orders and ideals familiar to a person collapse and people cannot rely on any former norms and values, not on the still emerging rules of the political game. Therefore, the charisma of a leader embodies the faith and hope of people for a better future in Time of Troubles. But such unconditional support of the ruler by the population often turns into Caesarism, leaderism and a cult of personality.
In addition to these methods of supporting power, a number of scientists identify others, giving legitimacy a more universal and dynamic character. Thus, the English researcher D. Held, along with the types of legitimacy already known to us, suggests talking about its types such as: "consent under threat of violence" when people support the government, fearing threats from it, even a threat to their safety; legitimacy based on apathy population, indicating its indifference to the established style and forms of government; pragmatic(instrumental) support, in which the trust placed in the authorities is carried out in exchange for promises given by them of certain social benefits; normative support, which presupposes the coincidence of political principles shared by the population and the authorities; and finally, highest standard support, meaning complete coincidence of these kinds of principles.
Some scientists also highlight ideological a type of legitimacy that provokes support for the authorities from public opinion as a result of active propaganda activities carried out by the ruling circles. Allocate and patriotic a type of legitimacy in which a person’s pride in his country and its domestic and foreign policies is recognized as the highest criterion for supporting the authorities.
Legitimacy has the property of changing its intensity, i.e. the nature and degree of support for the authorities (and its institutions), therefore we can talk about crises of legitimacy. Crises are understood as such a drop in real support for public authorities or the ruling regime as a whole, which affects a qualitative change in their roles and functions.
Currently, there is no clear answer to the question: are there absolute indicators of a crisis of legitimacy or is it a purely situational characteristic of political processes? Thus, scientists who link the crisis of regime legitimacy with the destabilization of political power and governance name the following factors as such criteria:
Ø the inability of authorities to carry out their functions or the presence of illegitimate violence in the political space (f. Bili);
Ø the presence of military conflicts and civil wars(D. Jaworski);
Ø the ability of the government to adapt to changing conditions (E. Zimmerman);
Ø destruction of the constitutional order (S. Huntington);
Ø the absence of serious structural changes or a decrease in the effectiveness of the government in fulfilling its main tasks - budgeting and distribution of political functions among the elite. American scientist D. Searing believes: the higher the level of political participation in a country, the stronger the support political structures and leaders of society; he also points to maintaining the socio-economic status quo. Calculations of socio-economic indicators are also widespread, the achievement of which indicates that the system of power has gone beyond its critical values.
Proponents of a situational consideration of the causes of crises of legitimacy most often associate them with the characteristics of the sociocultural features of the population, the role of stereotypes and traditions operating both among the elite and among the population, and attempts to establish a quantitative limit of legitimate support (using figures of 20–25% of the electorate). Perhaps such approaches are to a certain extent based on the ideas of L. S. Frank, who wrote: “Every system arises from faith in it and lasts as long as at least a minority of its participants retain this faith, as long as there is at least a relatively small the number of “righteous people” (in the subjective sense of the word) who unselfishly believe in him and selflessly serve him.”
Summarizing the most significant approaches, we can say that the main sources of the crisis of legitimacy of the ruling regime, as such, can be called level of political protest of the population, aimed at overthrowing the regime, as well as indicating distrust of the regime results of elections, referendums,
plebiscites. These indicators indicate a “lower” limit of legitimacy, followed by the collapse of the current regime and even a complete change of the constitutional order. To the factors that determine its “upper” limit, i.e. the current, dynamic change in likes and dislikes for the authorities can be attributed to: the functional overload of the state and the limited resources of the authorities, a sharp increase in the activity of opposition forces, the regime’s constant violation of the established rules of the political game, the inability of the authorities to explain to the population the essence of their policies, the widespread spread of such social diseases, such as an increase in crime, a drop in living standards, etc.
In general, the resolution of crises of legitimacy should be built taking into account the specific reasons for the decline in support for the political regime as a whole or its specific institution, as well as the type and source of support. The main ways and means of overcoming crisis situations for a state where public opinion is valued are the following:
Maintaining constant contacts with the population;
Carrying out explanatory work regarding your goals;
Strengthening the role of legal methods of achieving goals and constantly updating legislation;
Balance of branches of government;
Compliance with the rules of the political game without infringing on the interests of the forces participating in it;
Organization of control by the organized public over various levels of government;
Strengthening democratic values in society;
Overcoming the legal nihilism of the population, etc.
Legitimation is the process of establishing the competence or legitimacy of power within society. The essence of this phenomenon reflects the constant desire of persons with certain powers to confirm their political viability. Thus, the legitimacy of power is the recognition by the public masses of the legitimacy of force, which is based on the voluntary consent of the population to obey its decisions.
We can talk about the legitimacy of force if the methods of its establishment and the results of its activities are consistent with the moral and legal norms, views, principles and beliefs characteristic of the majority of citizens.
In political science, Weber's classification of legitimacy and legality of force is widely used. According to Weber's concept, legitimacy is traditional, legal and charismatic.
Traditional type legality and competence is based on the population’s faith in the inviolability of traditions and norms that have developed during a certain historical development specific society. These foundations regulate, empowering some and forcing others to obey. All members of society are required to follow the rules. In case of disobedience, certain sanctions approved in society are applied. The typical legitimacy of the type is reflected in monarchical regimes. At the same time, the transfer of powers from one person to another occurs in accordance with tradition.
Charismatic legitimacy of power is based on special personal qualities, charisma - determination, courage, courage and so on. Thus, political power becomes recognized and legitimate. Charisma can contribute to the formation of a leader, his idealization and deification. The legitimacy of this type of power can manifest itself in different The charismatic type of competence and legitimacy of power was characteristic of the Roman Empire under Julius Caesar, France during the reign of Napoleon, the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong.
The legal legitimacy of power is based on the legislative system established and used in society, in accordance with specific historical circumstances. Persons with political power are appointed (or elected) according to the existing legal procedure. At the same time, the rules for the activities of political figures are clearly stated in legal acts.
Legitimacy is an essential property of state power. The term originated in the early 19th century in France and was used as a characteristic of legality. It should be noted that at that time Napoleon’s power was considered arbitrarily usurped and, therefore, illegal and unauthorized (illegitimate). Subsequently, the scope of the concept's content increased significantly. Thus, legitimacy began to not only denote the competence and legality of power, but also reflect a state of society in which citizens recognize (agree or are convinced) that an established political force has the right to attribute to them one or another type of behavior in the state.
According to Weber's theory, the legitimacy and legitimacy of force are thus characterized by two characteristics. The first is the recognition of power, which is implemented by the relevant state institutions. The second sign is the duty of citizens of the state to obey the authorities.
It should be noted that it can remain competent and legal even if citizens express distrust of certain leaders of the system or certain institutions.
Speaking about legitimacy, we should mention its level (degree). The lower the degree of empowerment and legitimacy, the more violence is used to maintain political power.
