Introduction

The relevance of the topic of the work lies in the fact that transformations of political systems, which have become an integral feature of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, inevitably affect the stability of political institutions and how they function. This is also true for the issue of power.

The problem of the legitimation of power in Russia is actualized as the transition to the democratization of relations between institutions and subjects of politics becomes more urgent. The increase in the channels of political participation marks the democratic nature of political discourse, but at the same time creates additional problems for the ruling regime. The legitimacy of the ruling regime is beginning to be challenged, due to the emergence and development of political competition. Power claims by various political actors become sufficiently conditioned, which gives rise to a competitive political texture. At the same time, the ruling regimes are interested in retaining the right to use power, in minimizing the risks of delegitimation in the face of increased activity of opposition groups. In this regard, legitimacy appears to be a very important attribute of power, because its presence helps the government survive periods of instability. A high level of trust in the subject of power contributes to overcoming the unfavorable political situation, which, in turn, is confirmed by the examples of a number of post-Soviet political regimes.

Despite the fact that various aspects of the legitimization of political power and the specificity of its reproduction in certain spatio-temporal continuums, one way or another, have already fallen into the research focus of the authors whose works have been presented by us above, according to the dissertator, in the Russian political discourse there are no complex studies of the legitimation of political power.

Objectiveconsists in a comprehensive study of the mechanisms of legitimation of political power, as well as their possible manifestations in Russia.

Realization of the set goal required the solution of the following tasks:

· studies of the formation and development of the definition of "legitimate power", as well as its possible discourses; determining the author's position regarding the meaning of the definition of "legitimate power";

· analysis of existing theoretical models on the problem of legitimation and development on their basis of a theoretical construction that reflects current trends in the development of political processes in the post-Soviet space;

· systematization of the mechanisms of political legitimation and determination of their features and ways of functioning in the post-Soviet space;

· introducing the method of political hermeneutics into political analysis, which allows considering the legitimation of power through the mechanism of a political text;

· identifying the source base of crises of the legitimacy of political power.

1. Elections as a way of legal legitimation of state power

.1 The concept of legitimation of state power

legitimation political power hermeneutics

Legitimation of political powerrepresents an interdependent process, on the one hand, of “self-justification” and rational justification of one’s own power by the “managers”, on the other hand, of “justification” and recognition of this power by the “managed”.

There are always social groups in society that do not agree with the current government, so the legitimacy of state power cannot be universal.

Currently, the term "legitimation" is quite actively used in various humanities (philosophy, political science, sociology, jurisprudence, etc.), each of which fills the category under consideration with a special semantic content. As a result, we have at least a dualism in the understanding of legitimation, which, while acceptable in principle, nevertheless invariably gives rise to difficulties of both epistemological and practical nature. Every time there is a need to clarify in which of the two or more senses a given term is used in a particular context.

The most acutely indicated problem reveals itself in jurisprudence, within which special requirements are imposed on the certainty of the categorical apparatus. Therefore, from the standpoint of methodology, it is first of all necessary to determine the concept of legitimation and its relationship with related categories.

When exploring the concept of legitimation, one should first of all proceed from the fact that the term in question has a legal origin (“legitimus” - legal). However, later, thanks to the efforts of representatives of other social sciences, this category began to be understood more widely.

From the point of view of a broad approach, the concept of legitimation of state power includes two elements: political (recognition of power) and legal (its legalization). In this case, the first is the main one, and the second is optional. Thus, legitimation here is a process not so much of legitimization as of recognition of power. A broad approach is typical not only for representatives of political science, sociology, but also for jurisprudence.

In a narrow sense, the legitimization of state power is the legally regulated activity of citizens, public authorities, their officials, as well as public associations for the legal certification (legalization) of state bodies and officials institutionalized by them. With this approach, the legitimation of state power appears as a proper legal phenomenon.

“Putting order” in the categorical apparatus of jurisprudence by no means means a refusal to use a broad approach to the concept of legitimation in this science. It is only a matter of ensuring that the existing dualism does not create confusion. At the same time, the understanding of legitimation as a process of recognition of power by the people is not only of independent scientific importance for understanding the subject of the theory of state and law, but also complements and enriches the actual legal aspect of this phenomenon.

The relationship between the concepts of legitimacy and legality is the same as the relationship between the concepts of legitimation and legalization, with the only difference being that legitimation and legalization are a process, while legitimacy and legality are properties.

Legitimacy means the support of power by the population. Legality indicates a legally justified type of government. In some states, power can be legal and illegitimate, as, for example, during the rule of metropolises in colonial states, in others it can be 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 free and fair elections.

1.2 Ways of legitimizing state power

Over the past twenty years, there has been a transition of the system of power in Russia from the Soviet state of "thinking on behalf of the people and for the people" to the state of "thinking on one's own behalf and within one's own jurisdiction." Those. the government becomes an independent actor, and the people cease to be a single social entity and are transformed into civil society.

However, the transition to this situation did not occur immediately. Russian authorities in the 1990s there were quite a few problems with legitimacy, despite the emerging prospects for the population to gain long-awaited freedom and improve their living standards.

An important factor of legitimacy was the recognition by the "world community", "civilized countries" of the order that was being created in post-Soviet Russia. This order was distinguished by the spread of liberal values ​​and a market economy. Support by Western countries for such a course was perceived by the majority of the population as a necessary condition for further successful development.

The concept of "legitimate power" was first introduced by the prominent German political scientist Max Weber. He also showed that legitimation (acquisition of legitimacy by the authorities) is not in all cases the same type of process that has the same roots, one basis.

In political science, the most popular classification was compiled by M. Weber, who, from the point of view of subordination motivation, distinguished the following types:

traditional legitimacy, formed on the basis of people's belief in the necessity and inevitability of submission to power, which in society (group) receives the status of tradition, custom, habit of obedience to certain individuals or political institutions;

rational (democratic) legitimacy arising from the recognition by people of the justice of those rational and democratic procedures on the basis of which the system of power is formed;

charismatic legitimacy that develops as a result of people's belief in the outstanding qualities they recognize as 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 in all the actions and plans of a charismatic leader, people uncritically perceive the style and methods of his rule.

In addition to these ways of supporting power, a number of scientists single out 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 such types of legitimacy as:

"consent under the threat of violence", when people support the authorities, fearing threats from her side up to the threat to their security;

legitimacy based on the apathy of the population, indicating its indifference to the prevailing style and forms of government;

pragmatic (instrumental) support, in which the trust rendered to the authorities is carried out in exchange for the promises given by it of certain social benefits;

normative support, which implies the coincidence of political principles shared by the population and the authorities;

and finally, the highest normative support, which means the complete coincidence of such principles.

Some scholars also identify an ideological type of legitimacy that provokes support for the authorities from public opinion as a result of active agitation and propaganda activities carried out by the ruling circles. There is also a patriotic type of legitimacy, in which the highest criterion for the support of the authorities is the pride of a person for his country, for its domestic and foreign policy.

.3 The concept of elections. The principles of elections underlying the legitimation of state power

Elections include the following:

Elections legitimize power. Through elections, the people determine their representatives and endow them with a mandate to exercise state power. As a result of elections, state power acquires the properties of legitimacy (recognition by the population) and legality (legality).

Elections are a special volitional phenomenon of social and political life. They are designed to reveal the will of the voters and legitimize this will, so that on its basis the daily activities of state authorities are carried out.

Elections are a special type of legal activity as a set of actions and operations (deeds) aimed at the formation of legitimate public authorities in the relevant territory.

Elections are a special political and legal relationship. The essence of elections is that it is, first of all, the relationship of civil society and the state, the relationship of civil society to the state.

Elections are a kind of socio-political contract of mandate between voters, on the one hand, and state authorities, on the other.

Thus, elections are one of the most important ways of legally legitimizing state power, which consists in empowering the people (population) of their individual representatives with power, as well as the activities of citizens, public associations, state bodies and local governments in compiling voter lists, nomination and registration candidates, voting and summarizing its results, carrying out other electoral actions.

Election principles are mandatory requirements and conditions, without which any election cannot be recognized as legal and legitimate.

Not all election principles identified in the literature are the basis for the legal legitimation of state power. In particular, it does not affect the process of legalizing state power at all: direct suffrage is valid in the country or indirect. The indirect election of the President of the United States is no less democratic and legitimate than the direct election of the President of the French Republic. Indirect elections as a system weed out random individuals more reliably, leaving more mature and reliable candidates. The same applies to the principle of voluntary participation in elections. Moreover, the establishment of the legal obligation of voters to take part in the voting helps to solve such a problem as absenteeism (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Italy, etc.).

The principles of legal legitimization of state power include only the following:

· The principle of freedom of elections is the main, fundamental principle. On the one hand, freedom of elections is the personal freedom of each voter, the so-called freedom of expression: a citizen expresses his will in elections absolutely freely, without any coercion from outside. On the other hand, this is objective freedom - free conditions for the preparation and conduct of elections: freedom of election campaigning (of course, in its legal forms), independence of election commissions from any illegal interference in their activities, an effective system for protecting the electoral rights of citizens, etc. .

· Alternativeness as a necessary condition for free elections refers to the very essence of the electoral right. If by the voting day there is not a single candidate left, or the number of registered candidates remains less than or equal to the established number of mandates, or only one list of candidates is registered, the elections shall be postponed by decision of the relevant election commission.

The requirement for alternative elections can lead (and often leads in practice) to unfair use by other persons of their electoral rights, not in order to exercise their right to hold an elective position, but in order to prevent free elections, hinder the free expression of the will of citizens. It has become a technique of "black" electoral techniques for the rest of the candidates to withdraw their candidacies in order to prevent the election of a clear leader of the electoral race within the prescribed period. And this is possible not only in the second round of elections. The norms of the Federal Law “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation), which allow the use of such methods, do not correspond to the constitutional principles of holding elections. At the same time, elections cannot be considered free, since voters are deprived of the right to elect a person worthy of their trust within the prescribed period, only because other candidates have refused to participate in the electoral process. Thus, Part 3 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is violated.

· Secret ballot. The requirement for elections to be held by secret ballot is based on Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that elections “should be held by secret ballot or by other equivalent means ensuring freedom of voting”. The procedure for secret voting should have been described in more detail in the electoral laws. At present, the anonymity of voting may be violated.

· Mandatory elections. This principle means, first of all, that elections are an imperative way of forming government bodies elected by the population. Other options for the seizure of elective powers are contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the current federal legislation and cannot be qualified otherwise than as a violation of the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian state. The obligatory nature of elections also implies that the competent state and municipal bodies are not entitled to evade their appointment and holding within the time limits established by law, as well as to cancel already scheduled elections or postpone them to a later date.

· Periodicity. Free and fair elections in accordance with international standards should be held periodically. This is a very important provision, since one-time elections (for example, during the period of independence of a country or during the transition from an authoritarian regime to democracy) are not enough to ensure the stable democratic development of the state.

2. Political problems of ensuring the electoral legitimization of state power

.1 Problems of legal regulation of elective legitimation of state power

Political power in Russia, in order to be legitimate, must correspond to one degree or another to different cultural types: archaic - ancient Russian folk type; traditionalist - Orthodox-Slavic and socio-socialist; modern - liberal-Western type of culture.

In modern Russia there is a need for a moral policy. A situation is developing in the country when the idea that all the difficulties experienced by the country are directly related to dishonesty, deceit, corruption and theft at all levels of the socio-political hierarchy begins to prevail in public opinion, which is confirmed by corruption scandals in power structures. On the wave of mass moral indignation, the idea is born that it is worth putting an end to the plundering of the country and the robbery of the people, as everything will work out and all problems will be resolved by themselves.

A number of circumstances encourage people to view political power through the prism of moral values: the low standard of living of a significant part of the population, causing discomfort, irritation and anger; confidence that political power is losing the ability to change anything "from above"; society's conviction that it is not involved in "trouble" and "troubles" in the country; the presence in society of demagogic political forces and figures who expose the immorality of politicians in power. A significant part of the population in our country is beginning to turn to the idea of ​​"honesty" of power as the only possible means to improve life and restore order in the country.

It seems that the main reason for the inability of the authorities to perform their public functions is the gap between the authorities and the people. But this gap is not only due to power, which is evidence of a one-sided approach. Power becomes what a person makes it, based on their needs, understanding of the essence of power and the corresponding expectations from it.

Power must manage adequately to the requirements that are placed on it in accordance with the dynamic and qualitative changes in the modern world. Russia is moving to a new stage of social self-organization, with increased demands on the individual, state and public institutions. As a result of new tasks, the system of power must be built in such a way as not to suppress the diversity of interests in society, strive for the consent and solidarity of all its members, and citizens must show tolerance and mutual understanding.

The provisions of the domestic electoral legislation, fixing only two electoral qualifications - age and residence - are too liberal and do not correspond to the modern level of development of Russian society and the state. There are no such liberal legislative provisions even in such developed countries as the USA, Great Britain, Iceland, etc. It is possible that the list of electoral qualifications should be expanded. Thus, it is necessary to introduce educational and language qualifications in the elections of the President of the Russian Federation and other senior officials, as well as establish a ban on running for these positions by citizens who have a criminal record and citizenship of a foreign state. It makes sense to think about the possibility of introducing other qualifications, taking into account the experience of foreign countries (prevention of clergy, military personnel, civil servants, bankrupts, persons convicted of electoral fraud, etc.) from participating in elections.

Equal suffrage means that voters have the same opportunities to influence the voting results in elections.

A violation of this principle is the possibility and permissibility of deviations in the number of voters in different constituencies, which are laid down in the legislation. In practice, this leads to the fact that the share of the vote in some subjects of the Russian Federation is 10-20 times greater than in others. It seems to us expedient to conduct an election campaign in territorial single-mandate constituencies formed with an equal number of voters, without taking into account the federal aspect. In this case, it should be taken into account that the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have equal representation in the Federation Council.

It is hardly possible to recognize the existing principle of “double balloting” of deputies of the State Duma as complying with international electoral standards, which means the possibility of running for candidates nominated by “electoral associations simultaneously on the federal list and in single-member constituencies. In this case, preference is given to candidates from electoral associations based on compared with independent candidates nominated in single-member districts, since the entire party propaganda machine works for such candidates.Probably, when adopting this rule, the legislator was guided by political considerations of the formation of a multi-party system in the country.Certainly, a multiparty system is a fundamental element of free, fair and genuine elections.However, By developing political pluralism in the country, the legislator encroaches on equal suffrage, recognized by the world community as the basis of suffrage.

Improving the electoral legislation is one of the priority areas for the development of the Russian electoral system. It seems that the most promising in this regard may be the implementation of the following measures:

· raising the hierarchical level of legislative regulation of the basic principles and categories of suffrage by giving them a constitutional form and meaning. For this, in the structure of the Constitution of Russia, it is necessary to allocate a special chapter dedicated to the electoral system.

· overcoming conflicts within the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Thus, Article 32 enshrines the right of citizens to elect and be elected. This rule is not without internal contradictions and inaccuracies. In particular, it notes that persons recognized by the court as incapable and in places of deprivation of public service and their right to participate in the administration of justice, enshrined in parts 4 and 5 of the same Article 32, do not have voting rights. From a formal point of view, it turns out that since the restrictions established by Part 3 of Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation relate only to the electoral rights of citizens, then in other forms of exercising the right of citizens to participate in the administration of state affairs - the administration of justice, public service and a referendum, incapacitated people have the right to participate citizens, as well as citizens who are in places of deprivation of liberty by a court verdict. According to the author, it would be expedient to extend restrictions on citizens' electoral rights to other political rights and freedoms. In addition, the text of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and electoral laws should be clarified: citizens who are in places of deprivation of liberty by the verdict of a court that has entered into legal force do not have political rights.

· empowering the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation with the right to initiate legislation on matters within its jurisdiction, the right to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request, as well as strengthening the role of the Central Election Commission of Russia as a kind of scientific and methodological center for improving electoral legislation.

· creation of a special chamber in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or a separate judicial structure that will deal with the resolution of electoral disputes and consider cases of violations of the electoral rights of citizens, since the issues of electoral rights are quite complex and require special qualifications.

2.2 Political and legal analysis of federal elections in Russia (1999-2007)

To a greater extent, the legitimacy of political power in modern Russia is acquired thanks to the legal way of forming power institutions. These were the presidential elections of 1996, 2000, 2004, the parliamentary elections of 1993, 1995, 1999 and 2003, during which, to a certain extent, there was a distancing of the position from its holder, personal authority from the authority of the position, because in maintaining the position of President, many Russians see the guarantee of a successful reformation of Russia. The state power, which has found support among the population of the country, has a chance to be effective in its political, economic and social activities, since it enjoys support, authority and does not encounter opposition in its functioning.

Another direction of legitimation is connected not so much with the setting and justification of "great goals", but with the search for effective ways to solve the pressing problems of Russian society. The measures taken by the political authorities related to the implementation of national projects, overcoming poverty, fighting corruption of officials, and increasing the efficiency of the state apparatus, contribute to the restoration of its legitimacy. But since such initiatives come, as a rule, from the President, whose rating of public confidence is consistently high, the level of legitimacy of other branches of power is low.

Let us evaluate at least the most recent elections of 2007. Elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federationthe fifth convocation was held on December 2, 2007. This is the first election in which the barrier for parties entering the Duma on party lists has been raised from 5% to 7%. In addition, the lower turnout threshold and the ability to vote against everyone have been removed by law, the majoritarian system and voting in single-member districts have been abolished, members of one party are prohibited from being on the lists of another, and parties are prohibited from uniting in elective blocs; independent Russian observers were banned (left only from parties). Observers from European structures (OSCE and PACE), as well as Russian opposition parties and public figures, assessed the elections as not free, unfair and held with numerous violations; opposition parties accuse the authorities of falsifying their results. Observers from the CIS countries and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization assess the elections as free and fair. The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation also does not consider that falsifications took place.

According to the voting results, there were no major changes in the distribution of seats in the State Duma. "United Russia" retained a qualified majority, sufficient for the sole adoption of any decisions in the State Duma without taking into account the opinions of other deputies.

Opposition representatives argue that against the heads of cities and regions in which United Russia received a relatively low percentage of votes, measures will be taken, up to and including deprivation of office. In Udmurtia, Glazov Mayor Vladimir Pereshein submitted his resignation. In Glazov, United Russia received 41% of the vote. However, among the heads of regions with relatively low support for United Russia were Yuri Luzhkov (54.15%), Valentina Matvienko (50.33%), Boris Gromov. According to the political scientist, these regions in these elections could not boast of 100% turnout and the same support for Putin, since in megacities there is a problem of total mobilization of the electorate, which distinguishes them from some Caucasian republics.

According to the results of these elections and the fact that the United Russia party was politically headed by V.V. Putin, a political system with a dominant party has been consolidated in Russia, under which United Russia can single-handedly make any decisions in the Russian parliament without taking into account the opinions of other parties. Portugal, which held the presidency of the European Union in 2007, spoke on behalf of the EU with a statement that the elections held in Russia on December 2 did not meet international standards and the obligations assumed by Russia. German Chancellor Merkel criticized the Russian elections. She stressed that the authorities “constantly limit the ability of human rights defenders to express their own opinion.

This situation can be explained by different grounds for legitimation. The presidential power as the supreme power is legitimized mainly by the cultural archetype and correlates, first of all, with the moral ideal of Pravda, based on patriarchal etatism, belief in a “miracle” on the part of a moderately authoritarian leader endowed to a certain extent with charismatic features. The qualities of the President are judged not on the basis of what qualities he really possesses, but on the basis of what the highest power should have. Because of this, the level of legitimacy of presidential power in Russia will always be higher than the level of legitimacy of other branches of government.

The executive power (government) in Russia is expected to have social efficiency, which is sanctioned by the mentality and is of a consciously evaluative nature. Currently, this concept hides the ability of the government to implement policies that meet the expectations of various groups of the population and maintain social order in society.

The legitimation of representative institutions of state power in the Russian mentality is carried out through the correlation of their activities with the principle of catholicity as “the will to consent”, and not “the will to power”. The majority of the population does not pin their hopes on the legislature.

The legitimacy of the judiciary is low due to its bias, susceptibility to corruption, as a result of which the hopes of citizens for fair justice are low.

The legitimacy of political power in modern Russia is based, first of all, on the expectations of the people associated with the personality of the president, the establishment of political stability, the demonstration of the power of their steps aimed at improving the living standards of people, the formulation of such a problem by the President of Russia, the acceleration of the economic development of the country, the redistribution of money funds from the rich to the poor, the creation of a legislative framework necessary for these transformations in society, the effective work of the legislative and executive branches of government. Such steps, supported by real results, are a necessary condition for the citizens of Russia to recognize the right of the authorities to lead the state.

3. Legitimation of political power in modern conditions of development of federalism (on the example of St. Petersburg)

1 Reflection of electoral processes in the mass consciousness of modern Russian society (on the example of St. Petersburg)

The effective formation of the "corps" of political parties that were supposed to compete for seats in the State Duma in 2007 is impossible without taking into account the political preferences of citizens, especially in such significant subjects of the Russian Federation as St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. The authorities are really interested in the so-called "democratic legitimation", when the population must be convinced of the correctness of all actions taken by the authorities a priori, which will serve as an additional guarantee of maintaining political stability even in the event that active "oil injections" into the country's economy stop. In addition, the decision taken by the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg to form the next composition of the deputy corps on the basis of party lists makes it relevant not only to carefully monitor voters' party preferences in the monitoring mode based on polls using a "simple structure questionnaire", but also to reconstruct the semantic space of their political consciousness (assessment of the combination of different political values ​​in their minds).

Research conducted in 2007 in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region made it possible to determine the level of support for the current party in power, which has positioned itself predominantly as conservative or centrist over the past year and a half. In 2007, in the mass consciousness of the inhabitants of the two regions, the positions of United Russia were the strongest, which formally (according to one-dimensional distribution) enjoys the greatest trust and support of the adult population of St. Petersburg (about 35%) and the Leningrad Region (about 22%) . Taking into account the fact that the majority of people who expressed confidence in the ruling party are active voters, the share of those who “vote for it today” approaches 50%.

However, one cannot but take into account that a significant part of the inhabitants of these two regions - 67 and 60.3% of voters in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, respectively - believe that none of the existing parties is close to them and does not express their interests, that they are outcasts, whose interests and needs are not important to any political force. In addition, the total number of actual members in all political parties is less than 2% of the population of these regions. Finally, in St. Petersburg, "United Russia" is "rather distrusted" - 14.1% of residents and "not trusted at all" - 37.1%. This means that the party in power has such a high anti-rating that the possibility of continuing a significant real growth in the ranks of its supporters raises reasonable doubts. In fairness, we note that the anti-rating of the trust of the population of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region in other political parties represented in the current composition of the State Duma is even higher (? 74% - for the Communist Party,? 72 - for the LDPR,? 69% - for Rodina ).

In addition to the fairly high ratings of trust and support for United Russia by the population of the two regions (with “over the top” indicators of general distrust of all parties, including the party in power), there is also a common trend in the social structure of its supporters. It is important that more and more often people with higher education tend to give preference to this party. Among the supporters of variants of parties in power in the 1990s - early 2000s. a significant preponderance was among people with secondary vocational and specialized education, and holders of higher education (including the notorious "state employees" from among the humanitarian intelligentsia and technical specialists) focused mainly on liberal or opposition parties, regardless of whether they are represented in the State Duma .

Both among St. Petersburg residents and among residents of the Leningrad Region, to a greater extent than other categories of the population, men with a complete secondary education, people over 60 years old, and non-working pensioners tend to distrust United Russia (the costs of the first and second stages of the “monetization of benefits continue to affect "). More precisely, although at least 26% of pensioners of all ages support this party, the actual share of pensioners who consider it “their own” is less than expected (this is strongly evidenced by the standardized balances).

However, the main factor in the support of United Russia in both subjects of the federation in the North-West remains loyalty to the president and governors, that is, this political organization is perceived by residents not only as the ruling party, but precisely as the “face” of the executive branch. This is particularly evident from the attitudes of older people living in the Leningrad region, where the conviction that “the governor has done a lot for the region” directly correlates with voting for United Russia in 2003 and the idea of ​​it as a party, better everything that expresses their interests.

To determine the attitude of pensioners to the work of the governor in the analysis, the following indicators of aspects of life in their area were taken into account as independent evaluation variables: the transport situation (public transport operation), public services for residential buildings (the state of the housing and communal sector), heat and electricity supply to the housing stock, availability of telephone communications, the availability of jobs in the district (the authorities' fight against unemployment), the state of schools and kindergartens, the quality of work of district authorities (overcoming bureaucracy, red tape), the state of clinics, the organization of medical care for the population, social protection of the poor, the crime situation in the district ( crime level). The analysis showed that the dissatisfaction of older people with the activities of the Governor of the Leningrad Region is associated with low assessments of the quality of life in their own area (where they live) to a greater extent than with a negative assessment of their own lives. The accuracy of the model with the inclusion of the listed independent variables was 77.1%, the values ​​of the canonical correlation coefficients and Lambda Wilks were very high, however, according to the indicators of the significance level, it became clear that such parameters of the quality of life of pensioners in a particular area as the state of schools and kindergartens, the level of telephony and the quality of communication, the social protection of the low-income and the quality of the work of district authorities, do not have a strong influence.

After excluding these variables, the estimation accuracy for the entire final model as a whole was 76.4% (it meets the standard, as it exceeds 74%), and specifically for determining the group dissatisfied with the work of the governor - 91.1% (very high).

Let us single out the most significant differences in the attitude towards the current party of power in two neighboring regions of the Russian Federation. The first difference concerns the fundamentally different attitude towards the "United Russia" of the humanitarian intelligentsia, engineering and technical workers in general (for example, representatives of the education and health care systems). These groups in St. Petersburg continue to treat the party in power with distrust, while state employees living in the Leningrad region from these areas increasingly stand up “under the banner” of its supporters. Such a discrepancy is due, in our opinion, to the differences in the economic development of these regions and the peculiarities of the metropolis, where state employees have more opportunities to find additional income, and therefore are less dependent on the policy of the ruling party.

The second difference concerns potential voters aged 25-29. If this group of young people living in St. Petersburg tend to trust and support United Russia, then a similar part of the inhabitants of the Leningrad Region falls into the group of staunch opponents of the party. For example, the willingness to vote for United Russia among residents of the region under the age of 30 is one and a half times lower than among people belonging to the middle age group (19 and 27.5% in the corresponding age groups).

The third difference concerns the potential for expanding the social base of support. In St. Petersburg, United Russia still has the prospect of some increase in the ranks of supporters at the expense of citizens with incomplete secondary education, workers, managers, trade workers, military personnel and students. United Russia is trusted by a significant number of people who consider themselves conservatives, social democrats, or those with mixed views. The ruling party should pay special attention to the servicemen, whose sympathies are divided between conservatives and communists.

However, a certain set of political values ​​must also correspond to the conservative views of the population. Awareness of one's views as conservative does not say anything about the real characteristics of political consciousness, in particular, about the attitude towards values. The political attitudes of Petersburgers who consider themselves conservatives are rather vague. First, the only canonical value that they certainly share is the preservation of traditions. Supporters of the party in power tend to recognize the priority of the interests of the state over the rights of citizens, but such values ​​as private property and wealth are not very significant for these people. Moreover, Petersburgers, who consider themselves conservatives, are not inclined to believe that the presence of a layer of rich people is an indicator of the prosperity of society as a whole. Secondly, in their minds there are elements of egalitarian attitudes, which should be present, rather, in the minds of supporters of the communist ideology. The conservatism of United Russia adherents is also manifested in their paternalism, since they tend to put the interests of the state above the interests of the individual. Thirdly, there is a powerful etatist dominant in the minds of the supporters of conservatism. They are ready to give up part of their civil rights and freedoms if it is necessary for the state to fight terrorism. Thus, the topic of state security is a win-win card, with the help of which the federal government can change the nature of the political regime without fear of a decrease in the level of social stability. Fourthly, the adherents of this party advocate at the same time for asymmetrical values. For example, most of them are characterized by an orientation towards a combination of human rights and justice, the preservation of traditions and the implementation of reforms.

3.2 Reforming the electoral system in the 2000s (on the example of St. Petersburg)

Changes in the electoral legislation were tested in the regional elections in 2007. Let us consider the features of these changes using the example of St. Petersburg. After the completion of the election campaign for the election of deputies of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, on the basis of the first copies of the protocols of voting results received from the territorial election commissions, the St. Petersburg Election Commission, after preliminary checking the correctness of the preparation of these protocols by summing up the data contained in them no later than 10 days after polling day determines the election results.

Lists of candidates are allowed to distribute deputy mandates, each of which received 7 or more percent of the votes of the voters who took part in the voting, provided that there were at least two such lists and that in aggregate more than 50 percent of the votes of the voters who took part were given for these lists. in the vote. In this case, other lists of candidates for the distribution of deputy mandates are not allowed.

Within seven days from the day of voting, a candidate in the list of candidates may refuse to receive a deputy mandate. An application for renunciation of a deputy mandate is not subject to withdrawal. The refusal of a candidate in the list of candidates to receive a deputy mandate entails a change in the procedure for placing candidates in the corresponding list of candidates.

The St. Petersburg Electoral Commission calculates the sum of the votes of voters cast in a single constituency for each list of candidates admitted to the distribution of deputy mandates. The number of deputy mandates distributed over a single constituency is 50.

The number of votes received by each list of candidates admitted to the distribution of deputy mandates is divided sequentially into numbers from an increasing series of natural numbers (divisors) from two to 50.

The quotients, determined up to the sixth decimal place, obtained from all lists of candidates admitted to the distribution of deputy mandates, are distributed in descending order in the auxiliary row. Next, the quotient is determined, the serial number of which in the auxiliary row is 50 (the fiftieth quotient).

If two or more quotients in the auxiliary row are equal to the fiftieth quotient, then first from these quotients the private list of candidates who received the largest number of votes is added to the auxiliary row, and in the event of a tie of votes, the private list of candidates registered earlier.

The number of partials of the corresponding list of candidates, located in the auxiliary row, whose serial numbers are less than or equal to 50, is the number of deputy mandates that the corresponding list of candidates receives.

After the distribution of deputy mandates, provided for in paragraph 2 of this article, they are distributed within each list of candidates between the citywide and territorial parts of the list of candidates. First of all, deputy mandates are transferred to the candidates included in the citywide part of the list of candidates, in the order of their placement in the specified list.

If, after the transfer of deputy mandates to candidates included in the citywide part of the list of candidates, there are still deputy mandates due to this list of candidates, these mandates are distributed within the list of candidates between its territorial parts in the following order: candidates included in the territorial part of the list of candidates in the territories where the list of candidates received the largest percentage of votes of voters in relation to other territories out of the number of those who took part in the voting (according to the number of valid ballots). The total number of deputy mandates distributed in this way should not exceed the total number of deputy mandates received by the electoral association as a result of voting, taking into account the distribution of deputy mandates among candidates who are in the citywide part of the list of candidates. The percentage of votes of voters is determined with an accuracy of up to six decimal places, and if it is equal, preference is given to the territorial part of the list of candidates for which the greater number of votes were cast.

Сумма1Число избирателей, внесенных в список избирателей на момент окончания голосования37026692Число бюллетеней, полученных УИК30895723Число бюллетеней, выданных УИК избирателям в помещении для голосования в день голосования11998174Число бюллетеней, выданных избирателям, проголосовавшим вне помещения для голосования в день голосов319755Число погашенных бюллетеней18576986Число бюллетеней, содержащихся в переносных ящиках для голосования319527Число ballots contained in stationary ballot boxes 11965768 Number of invalid ballots 375019 Number of valid ballots 119102710 Number of lost ballots 9411 Number of ballots not taken into account upon receipt12 Number of votes cast for each list121. St. Petersburg branch of the United Russia political party459047 37.36%132. St. Petersburg branch of the Communist Party196851 16.02%143. St. Petersburg Branch of the Party "FAIR RUSSIA: MOTHERLAND/PENSIONERS/LIFE"269050 21.90%154. St. Petersburg branch of "PATRIOTS OF RUSSIA"68798 5.60%165. St. Petersburg branch of the LDPR133742 10.88%176. UNION OF RIGHT FORCES63539 5.17%

Let us also cite the results of the federal elections to the Duma in St. Petersburg. The turnout in the elections of deputies of the State Duma of Russia of the fifth convocation in St. Petersburg amounted to 51.68%. As expected, United Russia became the leader of the voting - it gained 53.34% of the vote. The 7% barrier guaranteeing seats in the new parliament was also overcome by A Just Russia - 15.13%, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - 12.46%, the LDPR - 7.48%. 5.06% of voters voted for Yabloko in St. Petersburg, 2.59% for the Union of Right Forces, 2.41% for the Agrarian Party, and 2.21% for the Civil Force party. "Patriots of Russia" received 1.01% of the vote, the Social Justice Party - 0.25%, the Democratic Party of Russia - 0.14%.

Conclusion

The main conclusions of the work are as follows:

Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. Legitimacy is associated with the belief of the vast majority of the population that the existing order is the best for a given country. "Legitimacy" and legality are close, but not identical concepts. The first is more solitary, ethical, and the second is legal. Several types of legitimacy have historically developed:

legal type of legitimacy - legalization of power by specific legal norms, the constitution, backed up by the activities of relevant institutions, including coercive sanctions; Basis - a common understanding of the norms established by law;

ideological type of legitimacy - recognition of power due to internal conviction or belief in the correctness of those ideological values ​​that are proclaimed by power; The basis is ideological values;

traditional legitimacy - the recognition of power as legitimate, since it acts in accordance with the traditions and traditional values ​​of the masses; The basis is traditions, traditional consciousness;

structural legitimacy - the legitimacy of power follows from the belief in the legitimacy and value of established structures and norms that regulate political relations; The basis is specific political structures;

personal (charismatic) legitimacy - the recognition of power is based on the belief of the masses in the special abilities of a political leader, leader; The basis is the personal authority of the ruler.

The analysis shows that different institutions of Russian power (President, Duma, regional authorities) have different forms of legitimacy.

List of used literature

1.The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted on December 12, 1993) M.: Prospekt, 2003 - 192 p.

2.Federal Law No. 67-FZ of June 12, 2002 “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation” (as amended and supplemented on September 27, December 24, 2002, June 23, July 4 , December 23, 2003, June 7, 2004)

.Federal Law of May 19, 1995 No. 82-FZ "On Public Associations" (as amended and supplemented on May 17, 1997, July 19, 1998, March 12, 21, July 25, 2002, December 8 2003 June 29, 2004)

.Federal Law of January 10, 2003 No. 19-FZ "On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation"

.Federal Law No. 175-FZ of December 20, 2002 “On Elections of Deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” (as amended and supplemented on December 20, 2002, June 23, 2003)

6.Federal Law of October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ “On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation” (as amended and supplemented on June 19, 2004).

.Baglay M.V. Constitutional law of the Russian Federation M.: Norma, 2002 - 800 p.

8.Blyakher L.E., Ogurtsova T.L. Adventures of the Legitimacy of Power in Russia, or Recreating the Presumption of Guilt // Polis. 2006. No. 3.

9.Volkov Yu., Lubsky A., Makarenko V., Kharitonov E. Legitimacy of political power: Methodological problems and Russian realities. M., 1996.

.Dahin A.A. The system of state power in Russia: a phenomenological transit // Polis. 2006. No. 3.

11.The Constitution of the Russian Federation: commentary / under the general editorship of B.N. Topornina, Yu.M. Baturina, R.G. Orekhov. M.: "Legal Literature", 2004 - 624 p.

12.Lyubimov A.P. “On public (public) control over computer vote counting during elections” // Legislation, 1998, No. 1, pp. 18-25.

.Lutzer V.L. State power and local self-government // Legislation, 2000, No. 9, pp. 44 - 49

.Scientific and practical commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation / Ed. ed. V.V. Lazarev M.: Jurist, 2005 - 400 p.

.Tolkachev K.B. Constitutions and charters of subjects of the Federation. Ufa: Tau, 2003 - 272 p.

Legalization state power. Laws and other normative acts issued on behalf of the state power legalize (from the Latin word "lex"), i.e. make legal or, on the contrary, illegal, illegal certain relations in society, allowing or forbidding them. In turn, the state power itself also needs to be legalized.

The legalization of state power is the legal declaration of the legitimacy of its emergence (establishment), organization and activity. Under normal conditions, the legalization of state power is carried out primarily by constitutions, especially if they are adopted by referendum, such as the Russian Constitution of 1993, which legalized the state power that emerged after the removal of the Communist Party from power, the actual dissolution of the two-member parliament (Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council ). Legalization can also be carried out by adopting a constitution by the Constituent Assembly elected by the people (for example, in Spain in 1978 after the liquidation of the totalitarian Francoist regime) or by the parliament (the Constitution of Ukraine in 1996). Constitutions fix the foundations of the social and state system, the procedure for creating and the system of state bodies, the methods of exercising state power, making them legal, lawful.

The legalization of state power, its bodies, their powers, the procedure for their activities is also carried out by other legal acts: laws (for example, laws on parliamentary and presidential elections, laws on the government, on the judiciary), presidential decrees, government decrees, court decisions (for example, the Constitutional Court and other courts considering disputes about powers between state bodies), etc.

In the conditions of various kinds of military and state coups, revolutionary events, the new government, its emergency bodies, in an effort to create a legal basis for their activities, adopt temporary basic acts (“Decrees of October” in 1917-1918 in Russia, temporary constitutions proclaimed by President Nasser in Egypt in the 60s, the proclamations of the military council in Ethiopia, which replaced the constitution for 13 years until 1987, etc.). Then the emergency (military, revolutionary, etc.) regime is gradually transformed into a regular, civil one, a constitution is adopted, and the leader of the former regime, as a rule, organizes his election as president. This was often the case in Asia, Africa, Latin America.

The legalization of state power is a legal concept. The rationale for power in this case is rooted in legal acts, although there are such constitutional acts that legalize (in fact, only externally) anti-people, anti-democratic, terrorist state power. Such were the legal acts of Nazi Germany, which proclaimed the undivided power of the "Fuhrer", the "institutional acts" of the Brazilian junta, adopted after the military coup of 1964, the laws of South Africa in the 50s - early 90s. In the 20th century, they established the apartheid regime, which excluded the colored population from among the citizens of the country. Therefore, when determining the legality or illegality of state power, the measure of its legalization, it is necessary to take into account not only external features (for example, the presence or absence of a constitution, another basic law that determines the limits of state power, the basic rights of citizens), but also how legal acts that legalize , correspond to universal human values ​​and principles of law, including international law.

State power must be legal. First, its very origin (establishment) must be legal. Usurpation, seizure of state power (As a rule, this is a violent act) is illegal, since state power must be handed over to its bodies in accordance with the procedures of the constitution. The Russian Constitution of 1993 establishes that “no one can appropriate power in the Russian Federation. The seizure of power or the appropriation of power is punishable under federal law” (Part 4, Article 3). Secondly, its organization should be closed. In a modern state, power cannot be exercised without the direct participation of the people, for example, through elections of the most important bodies, and if the country has not had an elected parliament and president for many years (the country is ruled by a person proclaimed president by the military council), there are no local representative bodies, there are emergency courts, the organization of such power does not meet the true principles of legality. Thirdly, the sphere of powers of the authorities of relations that it has the right and can regulate should be legal. State interference in the private life of citizens, for example, at one time in African Zaire it was forbidden to give foreign names to children, in Malawi for men - to wear long hair, in Burma (Myanmar) in 1995 - for women - skirts with a slit) is contrary to the principles of individual freedom, natural human rights, which are the postulates of true legality. For example, there should be forms and methods of government activity. They must be carried out in accordance with legal norms based on the recognition of universal human values. Mass terror of the state power in relation to the population of the country, deportation of entire peoples (as was the case in the USSR under the Stalinist regime), deprivation of the majority of the population of voting rights (5/6 of the total population, as was the case in South Africa until the 90s), persecution of dissenters, etc. deprives state power of genuine legality.

Violation of the principle of legality of state power implies legal responsibility - political, criminal, civil. It can be expressed in the resignation of senior officials, the bringing to trial of those who attempted a state, military coup (this happens, however, only in cases of unsuccessful attempts), in the removal from office (with the possibility of bringing to court later) the president, other high-ranking officials for abuse of power, betrayal of the state, in compensation for damage to citizens in the event of illegal use of state power by its various bodies and officials.

Legitimation state power. The term "legitimation" is based on the root of the same Latin word as when using the concept of "legalization", but the first term is given a different interpretation. This is also legalization, but legalization is not only legal, mainly not legal, often not related to law, and finally, sometimes contradicting legal norms. In contrast to the previous interpretation of the legitimacy of monarchical dynasties, in the modern sense, legitimacy is not a legal state, but an actual state, not necessarily formal, but more often informal. The legitimization of state power is the processes and phenomena through which it acquires the property of legitimacy, expressing the correctness, justification, justice, legal and moral legitimacy and other aspects of the compliance of this power, its activities with certain, primarily mental attitudes, expectations (expectations) of society, people , of people. Legitimate state power is the power that corresponds to the ideas of the society of a given country about proper state power. Such ideas are connected, first of all, not with legal norms, but with the material, social, political, spiritual conditions of social life, with the individual and social psyche of people and their collectives.

Legitimation is based on people's belief that their benefits (material and spiritual) depend on the preservation and maintenance of a given order in society, the belief that such an order expresses their interests. Legitimation is directly related to the interests of people, which are most often evaluated by them consciously, but sometimes they are of an unconscious nature (for example, a certain support in society for the fascist government, which ultimately led to the gravest disasters of the German people). Since the interests of people and different social strata are not the same, and due to limited resources and other circumstances (for example, pressure from other groups), state power cannot satisfy the interests of all members and all strata of society, it satisfies the interests of the majority, minority, certain groups of society, and only partially. Therefore, the legitimization of state power, with the rarest exceptions, apparently cannot be comprehensive. What is legitimate for some segments of the population (for example, for miners in Russia who demand payment of wages, sit on rails and stop traffic), is illegitimate and illegal for others (for example, for employees of those enterprises that do not receive goods necessary for life support ; for railway workers addressing appeals to miners). Therefore, the legitimacy of state power is usually assessed from the point of view of its compliance with the interests of the majority of the population, its ideas about power. The consequence of the legitimacy of state power is its authority among the population, the recognition of the right to govern and the consent to obey. Legitimacy increases the effectiveness of state power, based on the majority of the population.

The legitimacy of state power finds its expression in its support by the population. This support can be expressed by thoughts, feelings, but above all by actions. It finds its expression in the results of voting in elections of parliament, the president, and other bodies, in the results of referendums, in mass demonstrations of the population approving certain government measures, in mass demonstrations of the population in defense of state power during coups d'état attempts. Polls, questionnaires, various public events (for example, the organization of a nationwide discussion of the draft constitution) may indicate support for state power or its absence.

The most distinct form of legitimation of power is social and political revolutions, if they express the true interests of the population, overthrowing the oppressive anti-people power and establishing a new state power. Another thing is that revolutionary violence brings violations of the former legality, upheavals, often devastation and victims, and the new government does not always justify the aspirations of the people.

There are several basic forms of legitimation of state power. The German political scientist M. Weber first identified three of them: traditional, charismatic and rational. The first is connected with the customs and traditions of the population, often with the special role of religion, with personal, tribal, class dependence. The clearest example is the influence of customs and religion in many Muslim countries. In Great Britain, the preservation of the monarchical form of government (albeit with a virtually powerless monarch) is largely due to the special role of traditions in British society.

Charismatic legitimacy (charisma from the ancient Greek - "divine") is due to the special qualities of outstanding personalities, less often - their teams, to which qualities are attributed that can determine people's behavior. Such qualities may include natural abilities, prophetic gift, fortitude and words. Charisma was possessed by the great conquering commanders (Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, etc.), as well as Hitler, De Gaulle, and others. Charisma can be associated with a certain ideology (for example, the personality cult of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee I.V. Stalin in the USSR, "Socialist leader" Kim Il Sung in North Korea, Nkrumahism ideologue of the President of Ghana in Africa Kwame Nkrumah). To strengthen charisma, ritual ceremonies are widely used (torchlight processions in Nazi Germany, parades, demonstrations in certain uniforms and with certain banners, signs, etc.).

Rational legitimation is based on reason: the population supports or rejects state power, guided by its own assessment of the activities of this power. The basis of rational legitimation is not slogans and promises, they have a relatively short-term effect, although, for example, the promises of the coming communist society, where people will work according to their abilities and receive according to their needs, for a long time contributed to the legitimization of state power in the countries of totalitarian socialism. Such a basis is not the image of a benevolent and wise ruler, often not even fair laws (they are sometimes not fully implemented, for example, the law on veterans in modern Russia), but the practical work of state bodies for the benefit of its population, compliance by state leaders and officials established for all laws rather than creating privileges for themselves. Of great importance is the ethical behavior of the leaders of the country, other officials in society, an open and honest dialogue between the authorities and political parties, other public associations of citizens. The readiness of the authorities for dialogue, the ability to listen to the opponent (and not just the desire to command and threaten), to understand the arguments of other participants in the dialogue, to change, at least partially, their activities under the influence of these arguments is of great importance for the psychological impact on the population to legitimize state power.

There are other classifications of processes of legitimation and legitimacy as a result of these processes. The French author J. L. Chabot distinguishes between types of democratic, ideological, ontological (according to the cosmic order of the universe) legitimacy.

Legal and legitimate state power presupposes submission to it. At the same time, since the time of F. Aquinas, disobedience to oppressive secular power has been allowed. The right of the people to resist the oppressive government was enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 (it was an uprising of American colonists against the British royal government). Some modern constitutions of African countries that have experienced the brutal oppression of totalitarianism speak of the right to disobey the government, but using peaceful methods (including civil disobedience campaigns).

V.E. Chirkin, Chief Researcher of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation.

State and law. - 1995. - No. 8. – P.65-73.

Many turning points in recent years in Russia (the confrontation between the legislative and executive authorities, the 1994 Treaty of Public Accord, the ambiguous attitude towards the Chechen war of 1994-1995, etc.) sharply raise in society the question of state power, its legality and legitimacy,

Those. its legal validity, on the one hand, and fairness, recognition, support by its population, on the other. The severity of the problem is exacerbated by the conditions for the formation of nomenklatura-mafia capitalism in some areas, the lack of division in some cases of commercial, administrative, and even criminal structures, opposition from the local nomenklatura, the federal government, the frequent incompetence of the latter, the authoritarian features of the federal constitution, and some others, including including personal factors. There is also a theoretical ambiguity: in the works of lawyers, political scientists, politicians, the terms "legalization" and "legitimation" are often used in the wrong sense.

Legalization and legitimation: general and special

The term "legalization" comes from the Latin word "legalis", which means legal. References to legalization as the basis of power and proper behavior already in the 4th-3rd centuries. BC. were used by the Chinese legalist school in a dispute with the Confucians, who demanded such behavior that would correspond to universal harmony. Elements of a kind of legalization were present in the confrontation between the secular and spiritual authorities in Western Europe in the Middle Ages; supporters of the “legitimate monarchy” of the Bourbons referred to it in modern times, speaking out against the “usurper” Napoleon.

In modern conditions, the legalization of state power as a legal concept means the establishment, recognition, support of this power by law, primarily by the constitution, the reliance of power on the law. However, firstly, constitutions and laws can be adopted, changed, repealed in various ways. Military and revolutionary councils, which were created as a result of military coups in many countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, decreed the abolition (often suspension) of constitutions and often, without any special procedures, proclaimed new provisional constitutions. In fact, in Iraq, such a provisional constitution has been in force since 1970 to the present, in the UAE, the provisional constitution adopted by the emirs has been since 1971. In some countries, constitutions have been replaced by institutional acts (Brazil), proclamations (Ethiopia). The monarchs single-handedly “granted” constitutions to “their faithful people” (Nepal, Saudi Arabia, etc.). In Russia in 1993 the operation of the Constitution of 1978 (as amended) was suspended by presidential decree. Secondly, sometimes constitutions and laws adopted in accordance with established procedures, in their content, legalized openly dictatorial, anti-people power, a totalitarian system. Such were the constitutional acts of fascist Germany, the racist legislation of South Africa (before the adoption of an interim constitution in 1994), the “party-states” of Guinea, or the constitution of African Zaire (there were several), proclaiming that there was a single political institution in the country - the ruling party - movement, and the legislative, executive, courts are the organs of this party. The constitutions of Russia and the USSR, adopted during the Soviet period and proclaiming that power belonged to the working people, actually legalized the totalitarian and even terrorist regime at times.

Of course, under conditions of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, constitutions can be adopted by outwardly democratic means (by the Constituent Assembly, the Supreme Soviet in the USSR in 1977, a referendum in Cuba in 1976), they can contain democratic provisions, the rights of citizens (in the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 a wide list of socio-economic rights has been entrenched), etc. But these moments need to be assessed only in conjunction with reality. Thus, the very elections of the parliament that adopts the constitution are not free under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, and phrases about democracy serve as a cover for the real situation. Thus, if democratic procedures are violated by the adopted constitution, other acts of constitutional significance, if such procedures do not correspond to the ability of the people to exercise constituent power when adopting a fundamental law, if laws contradict the generally human values ​​of mankind, the formal (legal) law does not correspond to law. The legalization of state power under such conditions will be illusory; false legalization.

More difficult is the concept of legitimation of state power. Legitimus also means legal, legitimized, but this concept is not legal, “but actual, although legal elements may be its integral part. In essence, the Confucians proceeded from this in a dispute with the legalists mentioned, it was meant by supporters of both secular and spiritual authorities, interpreting the “will of God” in different ways. The modern meaning of this concept is associated with the studies of political scientists, primarily the German scientist Max Weber (1864-1920).

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

Illegitimate power relies on violence, other forms of coercion, including mental influence, but legitimation cannot be imposed on people from the outside, for example, by force of arms or by the monarch's enforcing a "good" constitution on his people. It is created by people's devotion to a certain social system (sometimes a certain personality), which expresses the immutable values ​​of being. At the basis of this kind of devotion lies the belief of people that their benefits depend on the preservation and support of a given order, a given state power, the conviction that they express the interests of the people. Therefore, the legitimation of state power is always associated with the interests of people, various segments of the population, and since the interests and needs of various groups, due to limited resources and other circumstances, can only be partially satisfied or only the needs of some groups are fully satisfied, the legitimation of state power in society, with rare exceptions , cannot have a comprehensive, universal character: what is legitimate for some appears as illegitimate for others. The total “expropriation of expropriators” is a phenomenon that does not have legality, because modern constitutions provide for the possibility of nationalizing only certain objects only on the basis of the law and with mandatory compensation, the amount of which in disputed cases is established by the court), and extremely illegitimate, not only from the point of view of the owners of the means of production, but also other segments of the population. In the views of the lumpen proletariat, general expropriation has the highest degree of legitimacy. One can cite many other examples of the different interests of various sections of the population and their unequal, often opposite attitude towards the activities of state power and towards power itself. Therefore, its legitimization is not associated with the approval of the whole society (this is an extremely rare option), but with its acceptance by the majority of the population while respecting and protecting the rights of the minority. It is this, and not the dictatorship of the class, that makes state power legitimate.

The legitimation of state power gives it the necessary authority in society. The majority of the population voluntarily and consciously submits to it, to the legitimate demands of its bodies and representatives, which gives it stability, stability, and the necessary degree of freedom in the implementation of state policy. The higher the level of legitimization of state power, the wider the possibilities of governing society with minimal "power" costs and the cost of "managerial energy", with greater freedom for self-regulation of social processes. At the same time, the legitimate authorities have the right and obligation, in the interests of society, to apply coercive measures provided for by law, if other ways to stop anti-social actions do not work.

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

The legitimation of state power is assessed not by the words of its representatives (although this is important), not by the texts of the programs and laws adopted by it (although this is important), but by practical activities, by the ways in which it solves the fundamental issues of society and each individual. The population sees a difference between slogans about reforms and democracy, on the one hand, and authoritarian methods of making decisions that are important for the fate of the country, the people, on the other. From this, as evidenced by systematic surveys of the population, the erosion of the legitimacy of state power in Russia (legitimacy was high after August 1991) occurs, while its legalization is preserved: all the highest bodies of the state were created according to the Constitution of 1993 and act in principle in accordance with it, but according to polls organized at the end of March 1995 on the instructions of the NTV channel, 6% of the respondents trust the President of Russia, 78% do not trust, 10% both trust and do not trust, 6% found it difficult to answer. Of course, polling data does not always paint the right picture, but these data should not be underestimated.

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

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

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

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

The Constitution as an instrument of legalization of state power

As already noted, the legalization of state power is associated with legal procedures that are very diverse. In this article, we will focus only on the role of the constitution as a form of legalization of state power, because the democratic way of preparing and adopting the constitution, its humanistic content, the compliance of the activities of state bodies with its norms are considered as the main evidence of the procedure for legalizing state power. Although in itself the adoption of the constitution testifies, as a rule; about a certain stability of state power, the methods of preparing and adopting the basic law do not always meet the requirements of genuine legalization.

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

In all these cases, the leading role is played by a special (constitutional) committee formed by a representative body. In Russia, an important role in the development of the draft Constitution of 1993 was played by the Constitutional Conference, which consisted of representatives of federal state bodies appointed by decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, functionaries of political parties, entrepreneurs, subjects of the federation, etc. Czechoslovakia, etc.) “round tables”, “civil assemblies” of representatives of state bodies, various parties, trade unions and social movements took part in the development of new principles of the constitution or changes to previous constitutions (new edition).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increasingly, constitutions in modern conditions are adopted by referendum. Theoretically, direct voting provides the greatest legalization of state power. This is how the French Constitutions of 1958 were adopted; Egypt 1971, Cuba 1976, Philippines 1967, Russia 1993 In practice, however, the referendum can be used in different ways. Without a preliminary discussion of the draft in parliament, by the population, voters, it can be difficult to understand such a complex document as the constitution. It is not uncommon to use a referendum or to adopt reactionary constitutions (for example, in Greece in 1978 under the regime of "black colonels"). Sometimes the constitutions of totalitarian regimes (Burma in 1974, Ethiopia in 1987, etc.) after a referendum were approved (or confirmed) by parliaments elected on the basis of these constitutions. Formally, such a double process of legalization reliably legitimized state power, but in its content it did not correspond to democratic principles. Some ways of adopting constitutions do not even formally entail the legalization of state power. Such are the constitutional acts of the military regimes, the constitutions approved by the military governments in Turkey, Nigeria and other countries, the constitutions adopted by the congresses and other supreme bodies of the ruling parties in the 70s in the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, the constitutions imposed by the monarch or the mother country.

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

Forms of legitimation of state power

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

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

Traditional legitimation is domination based on traditional authority, rooted in respect for customs, belief in their continuity, in the fact that power “expresses the spirit of the people”, corresponds to the customs and traditions accepted in society as stereotypes of consciousness and behavior. Traditions are of great importance for strengthening the power of the monarch in the Muslim countries of the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc.), in Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei. They determine the issues of succession to the throne, the structure of state bodies. In those Muslim countries where there are parliaments, they are sometimes created in accordance with the tradition of ash-shura (conferences under the monarch) as consultative parliaments. Traditions determine decision-making in the Indonesian Parliament mainly by consensus. Together with religious dogmas, traditions largely regulate public life in a number of developing countries. Traditions are important for the legitimation of state power in countries where the system of Anglo-Saxon law operates. Judicial precedent is one expression of the power of tradition. The British monarch is traditionally the head of the Anglican Church (an integral part of his title is Defender of the Faith). A similar situation occurs in some other European countries, where one of the churches is declared state (for example, Lutheranism in Denmark).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concept and classification of the functions of the state Functions of the state the main directions of the state's activity in solving the tasks facing it are called. The concept of the functions of the state. Factors influencing them The functions of the state are the main socially significant areas of activity at a specific historical stage of the development of society. In the process of functioning of the state, there is a purposeful impact on various spheres of life, social processes and communications. Performing certain functions, the state, through ongoing reforms, transformations, legal regulation of social relations, influences the state of social processes, their dynamics, and direction. The implementation of specific functions can both stabilize the development of society, exert a creative influence, and intensify its crisis state. In view of the foregoing, the functions of the state can be defined as a special mechanism of state influence on social processes and relations, which determines (the mechanism) the main directions and content of its activities in managing society. The essential features of the functions of the state are: 1) the stable objective activity of the state in the most important spheres of society; 2) a direct connection between the essence of the state and its social purpose, which is realized in the functioning of the state; 3) the focus of the state's activities on the implementation of major tasks and the achievement of goals that arise at each historical stage; 4) special forms of implementation of the functions of the state (legal and organizational), due to the use of specific management methods, including coercive ones. The essence of the state and its social purpose are the key factors in determining the direction of the state's activities, in setting its goals and objectives at the appropriate stage in the development of society. At the same time, the appearance of some new functions in the state is not always rigidly predetermined by its new essential characteristic. The change in the essence of the state is invariably reflected in the content of its activities, since the functions are the most "sensitive" to essential changes. This is clearly seen in the example of the functions of the modern Russian state, many of which have undergone significant modification compared to the previous stages of its development. The formation of the functions of the state occurs in the process of its formation, strengthening and development. The sequence of the emergence of functions depends on the order of tasks facing society in its historical development, as well as on the goals set. These tasks and goals depend on real conditions, including the needs and interests of the population, the economic capabilities of the state and society, its moral, cultural level, the professionalism of the state apparatus, etc. At different times, certain tasks, goals of the state, and, consequently, its various functions, acquire priority. At some stages, the center of gravity moves to the sphere of the economy, so the economic function acquires key importance, at others - to the sphere of politics, then increased attention is paid to the implementation of the political function of state power. Each function has a specific content, since it involves activities in a specific area of ​​public life. The content of the functions shows what the state does, what its bodies do, what issues they solve. The content of functions changes under the influence of various factors. Thus, the functions of the state during periods of revolutionary upheavals and other radical social changes are distinguished by great originality. The close connection of the functions of the state with its essence and social purpose means that the content of the functions of any state contains both class and general social principles. In a society where the social structure has a pronounced differentiation, antagonism between the ruling and the ruled, where classes and social groups oppose each other, the state acts as a political organization of the ruling class or group, it primarily serves the interests of these classes and groups and at the same time implements organized violence against their class opponents. However, the interpretation of the functions of the state solely from class positions leads to a distorted view of the performance of "common affairs" by it. For example, in the recent past, it was believed that in a society divided into classes and groups opposing each other, the state allegedly does not and cannot have supra-class general social functions. Meanwhile, society is a single social collective, a state community, where the ruling and the ruled not only coexist, but even cooperate. Therefore, the state, being a mechanism for managing society, carries out general social activities in which all classes and groups of the population, the whole society, are interested. These areas of activity include national security, the fight against natural disasters and environmental disasters, the maintenance of public order, the fight against crime, the use of state-legal means to resolve interethnic conflicts, etc. General social activity ensures a certain degree of stability of relations and ties within society, its integrity and unity on the basis of common interests. The greater the proportion of the general social principle in the functions of the state, the higher its role as an instrument for overcoming contradictions, a means of achieving a common compromise, and stabilizing social ties. The prestige of the state, political power, their support by the people directly depend on the democratic content of the functions of the state, "the ability and desire to reckon with and take into account diverse interests in their activities, rely on universal values. A state that openly violates human rights, ignores natural inalienable rights and freedoms, and exercises terror against one's own people or individual national groups that prevents contacts between people and organizations of different countries cannot be considered civilized. In such states, their functions also have a certain national content, which is associated with the preservation and development of national culture, national traditions, identity, etc. And although in the modern world there are practically no one-national states, nationality acts as a cementing base of society. National unity strengthens the state, since the political community is supplemented by ethno-cultural ties (language, national consciousness, customs, etc.). In society, political differentiation is often smoothed out (levelled) by national interests. World practice testifies to it. Today, ethnic conflicts have become more frequent than class conflicts. There is a struggle for territories, sovereignty, the possibility of free ethno-cultural development, disengagement and reunification, the deployment of national cadres, and so on. The situation, as a rule, is aggravated in a multinational state, where the problem of regulating relations between different nations and nationalities arises. Thus, in the development of Russian statehood, the national factor has always played an important role and remains important in the current conditions. Any state, especially a multinational one, in order to avoid the collapse of the state community of peoples living on its territory, must identify and coordinate national interests, take into account the national factor in its policy, including when making state decisions, timely identify sources of aggravation of national tension and use state- legal mechanisms for democratically resolving national contradictions. Among the factors affecting the functions of the state, the influence of scientific and technological progress is great, which has a dual effect on the activities of the state. On the one hand, the state should promote the development of fundamental science, the development of discoveries and inventions, and on the other hand, it should legally limit the negative consequences of the use of scientific achievements. Thus, the improvement of medical technologies, significant achievements of medical science in the field of transplantation of human tissues and organs, reproductive activity, and genetic engineering bring to the fore many moral and legal problems. Because of this, the state must protect people from illegal encroachments on their lives, physical integrity and at the same time establish the responsibility of medical institutions, their employees for medical errors, disclosure of medical secrets, misuse of treatment methods, abuse of patients' trust. The functions of the state also depend on the environmental factor. Each state is obliged to ensure the protection of human rights to life in a favorable ecological environment. At the same time, ecology in the conditions of scientific and technological progress acquires, in essence, planetary significance, since it is about the survival of mankind and civilization as a whole. The functions of the state are also affected by the processes of informatization of society, the creation of a planetary information space. The development of these processes is dictated by the needs of the formation of a free society, the participation of the general public in managing the affairs of the state, the need to control managers and, finally, the legitimate right of citizens to know what is happening in the world, in the state, to protest against illegal, unjust decisions. A democratic state is called upon to provide opportunities for the realization of freedom of information and its equal accessibility to everyone. Restrictions on this freedom are permissible only for reasons of national security, privacy, secrecy of investigative actions, state and commercial secrets. The nature and content of the functions of the state is influenced by the international situation. In recent years, there has been an increase in the influence of interstate relations, international organizations, international norms and principles on the internal life of the state. At the same time, a high level of integration processes has been achieved, which is due to the great interconnection and interdependence of various states. A new alignment of forces is being formed on the world stage: some states are losing their position as superpowers, others are being promoted to the ranks of the advanced. All this cannot but affect the activities of the state both within the country and at the interstate level. State functions are classified: - internal and external; - protective and regulatory; - permanent and temporary; - basic and non-basic. Classification of the functions of the state The functions of the state, diverse in content, are classified. Often the following are chosen as the basis for classification: objects of influence and spheres of state activity; its territorial scale; ways of state influence on public relations; content of functions; timing (duration) of implementation; legal forms in which they are clothed, etc. The main criteria include the classification of the functions of the state according to the forms of activity, based on the principle of separation of powers. Accordingly, the functions are divided into legislative, administrative and judicial (law enforcement). This classification reflects the mechanism for the implementation of state power. Each of them is carried out, as a rule, by a set of state bodies belonging to one of the branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial. According to the duration of the state functions are divided into permanent and temporary. The former are carried out for a long time and are most often inherent in the state at many stages of its existence, the latter are due to the specifics of social development at certain stages and, as such specifics disappear, lose their significance. The functions of the state in importance can be divided into main and derivative (auxiliary). The main ones include functions that are of priority importance at one stage or another (economic, social, environmental functions). Derivatives are functions of an accompanying or servicing nature, for example, the function of financial control, which is of an auxiliary nature in relation to economic, social functions, as well as to the function of ensuring law and order. At the same time, in each function, a number of sub-functions can be distinguished, in which there are processes of quantitative and qualitative accumulations for the implementation of tasks and goals that are important for society. Unlike independent functions that express the essence and social purpose of the state, subfunctions embody the specifically special within a specific area of ​​activity and in influencing social relations. It is generally accepted that the functions of the state are classified according to areas of activity: internal and external. Internal functions characterize the goals and objectives of the state within a given country, and external ones reveal the specifics of its interests in interstate relations, in international communication. External and internal functions are closely interconnected, operate in a certain unity, complementing each other. This gave grounds to some scholars to declare this division obsolete and argue that any state has common functions that are carried out both within the country and abroad. A classification of state functions is proposed without dividing them into internal and external. At the same time, five such general functions are distinguished: economic (ensuring the normal functioning and development of the economy, including through the protection of forms of ownership, the organization of foreign economic relations, etc.); political or security function, which is aimed at ensuring state and public security, social and national harmony, suppressing the resistance of opposing social forces, protecting sovereignty from external encroachment, etc.; social - protection of the rights and freedoms of the population or part of it, the implementation of measures to meet the social needs of people, maintain the necessary standard of living of the population, ensure proper working conditions, pay, life, etc.; ideological - the maintenance of a certain ideology, including religious, the organization of education, the maintenance of science, culture, etc.; ecological - environmental protection. However, most scientists distinguish between internal and external functions. At the same time, internal functions include political, economic, social, environmental, taxation and financial control, protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, ensuring law and order, and external functions include ensuring integration into the world economy, national defense, maintaining world order, cooperation with others. countries in various types of relations, including in solving global problems of our time. The characteristics of each of these functions allows us to reveal the content of the state's activities at the present stage of development. 3. Internal functions of the state Political function. Describing this function, it is appropriate to note that all the functions of the state are political in nature, however, in the sphere of political relations there is a whole system of political institutions, institutions, state and other bodies through which the direct influence of state power is exercised, including ensuring democracy. First of all, these are representative bodies elected by the people and authorized on their behalf to exercise state power in the country; local self-government bodies, through which the population of a particular region decides their local affairs; forms of direct participation of the people in the exercise of power through a referendum. In addition to the formation of state bodies and participation in solving state issues, the population of the country should be able to control the functioning of state power and the implementation of decisions made. In view of the foregoing, the content of the political function in a democratic society is to ensure democracy. This implies: 1) the implementation of the will of the people in the form of lawmaking and other state decisions; 2) ensuring state sovereignty, determining the legal status of specific territories and managing them; 3) creation of conditions for self-organization and self-government of the people, for the formation of a democratic civil society, where the people have the main prerogatives in managing their own affairs; 4) the official representation of society, since the function of ensuring democracy means the existence of legal relations between the state and society, the dependence of the state on society and responsibility to it; 5) protection of the constitutional order, implemented by special bodies (for example, the Constitutional Court), as well as directly by the people by exercising the right to oppose any attempt to forcibly change or eliminate the existing constitutional order. The function of the state in the political sphere has as its strategic focus the creation of a viable democratic society. However, democratic institutions alone are not enough to implement genuine democracy, since democratic institutions can also be used for anti-democratic purposes. At the same time, there is a danger of establishing the tyranny of the majority, which is possible in any system of democracy. And here the role of the state is great, which, performing a political function, is called upon to act as an arbiter in the conflict of interests of various social groups and strata in society, to prevent violations of human rights, minority interests in the name of the common good. The activity of the state in the political sphere is complex, multifaceted and, in essence, is key, as it creates conditions for the effective performance of other functions. This function allows you to establish a kind of climate in society, favorably develop other areas of the state. The economic function of the state depends on whether it is carried out in a distributive or market economy. In the conditions of a distributive economy, the dominance of state property, the state monopoly regulates economic relations, directly determining the volume of production, trade, distribution of resources, establishing a strictly centralized system of economic management. With market relations, freedom of entrepreneurial activity, diversity and equality of all forms of ownership, fair competition, the economy develops mainly on the basis of self-government, supplemented by purposeful regulation by the state. Under these conditions, the state "threw" some of its responsibilities in the economic sphere. State intervention in the economic sphere is to a certain extent reduced and is reduced mainly to the following measures: 1) the development of economic policy on the scale of society; 2) management of enterprises and organizations that are state property. The range of these objects should be limited to industries of national importance, for example, nuclear energy, space activities, national transport, communications, etc.; 3) establishing the legal foundations of the market and pricing policy, in particular, stimulating entrepreneurship and free labor by state means, ensuring equality of all forms of ownership, legal protection of the owner, taking measures to suppress unfair competition (monopoly), protecting consumer rights from an unscrupulous manufacturer; 4) regulation of foreign economic relations in order to protect the state of its economic sovereignty, security, stimulate the development of the national economy in the implementation of foreign trade and other activities. During economic crises, depressions, and in transitional stages, state intervention in the economy increases. World experience shows that in market relations it is not enough to rely only on the elements of self-regulation, but a combination of self-regulatory and regulated means and levers is necessary. Planning is used as an effective method of regulating economic relations in countries with a developed market economy. As the experience of foreign countries shows, the market is not only compatible with planning the process of economic development, but is practically impossible without certain goals, mechanisms for their implementation, without calculation, forecasting results. And this is impossible without planning. However, the nature and content of planning in market conditions have their own specifics. Planning under market relations: a) is not rigid; b) based on the use of economic methods (taxation, subsidies, concessional lending, etc.); c) has a recommendatory character in relation to private owners and private producers; d) combines the mutual interests of society, the state, individual producers. When characterizing the economic functions of the state, it should be borne in mind that the market is a dynamic phenomenon that is constantly changing over time, therefore the scale and methods of its regulation also change, otherwise such regulation loses its effectiveness. The social function of the state is diverse in content and scope of activity. Its content is determined by the tasks of the state in the social sphere and the proclamation of many states as social. The main purpose of this function is to ensure public welfare, i.e. worthy life and development of each person, creation of equal opportunities for all citizens in achieving such well-being. An important part of the social function is the social protection of those who need state financial support: the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly, large families, orphans, children in single-parent families, and in the context of interethnic conflicts, refugees and internally displaced persons have been added to this category. In the social function, the general social principle is most clearly expressed - the removal or mitigation of social contradictions through the use of civilized means of resolving them; providing a person with proper living conditions by guaranteeing a certain amount of benefits at the expense of the state. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) proclaims the right of everyone to a standard of living necessary to maintain the health and well-being of each person, as well as his family (part 1, article 25). The standard of living guaranteed by the state is the universally recognized standard of social protection of the individual. With the transition to the market, the growth of inflation, social support by the state for low-income citizens acquires special significance. The state is obliged to take the necessary measures of social protection of people from the negative consequences of inflation. Another important component of the social function is to ensure the right of everyone to freedom of work, employment, labor migration, control over the safety of working conditions and compliance with hygiene, social insurance and security requirements. All these problems are predetermined by the action of market regulators. The market economy makes it necessary, on the one hand, to abolish the right of everyone to receive a job (the right to work), and on the other hand, to form a system of insurance against unemployment, training and retraining of personnel in connection with technological changes in production, ensuring state employment of the able-bodied population. But the achievement of full employment is an ideal goal, which many states that have declared themselves social seek to achieve, but none of them has reached this goal. Moreover, unemployment is rising all over the world. And although, according to experts, there is no universal plan for the elimination of unemployment, a state that calls itself social should take care that reforms and other transformations in the country are oriented to the needs of people in order to mitigate the social consequences of its policy, if possible, by expanding social guarantees, support for the most socially vulnerable sections of society. In the implementation of the social function, a large place belongs to the state policy in the field of education, culture, health of citizens, in the housing sector. In these areas, the social function is carried out in the form of state support (financial, material, program, etc.) of educational, educational, scientific institutions, and cultural institutions. As for the management and organization of the work of these institutions, they are autonomous, and state intervention is unacceptable here, including through state censorship of printed publications, theatrical productions, cinematographic products, etc. In market conditions, the state must free these areas from market mechanisms, taking them to its full support. Health care, education, culture should be publicly available, because in this case we are talking about the main social values: the health and intellectual potential of society. At the same time, it is obvious that the proper fulfillment by the state of a social function largely depends on the material capabilities of society, on the availability of a certain material base. The ecological function is closely related to the social one, since it is determined by the state's social duty to ensure the environmental well-being of citizens and the country's environmental security. In the context of the deterioration of the environmental situation around the world, a number of environmental disasters, this direction of the state's social policy acquires independent significance. Intensive exploitation of the natural environment, violation of environmental requirements, the harmful consequences of various kinds of disasters require constant state intervention. It establishes the legal regime for nature management, defines environmental requirements, conditions and procedures for the use of natural resources, conservation, restoration and improvement of the quality of the natural environment, and takes measures in extreme environmental situations. The right to a safe (favorable) environment is one of the natural human rights. In Art. 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: "Everyone has the right to a favorable environment, reliable information about its condition and compensation for damage caused to his health or property by an environmental offense." This constitutional right implies the ability to require appropriate behavior from individuals and legal entities, as well as to resort to state assistance to ensure this right. State guarantees of human rights to a favorable environment consist in the fact that the state is obliged to carry out: planning and state regulation of the quality of the environment; take measures to prevent environmentally harmful activities, prevent and eliminate accidents, natural disasters, catastrophes; state and public insurance of citizens, formation of reserve funds for assistance, compensation for harm caused to the health of citizens as a result of pollution of nature and other harmful effects; state control over compliance with environmental legislation; hold accountable individuals and organizations guilty of violating environmental requirements. An important function of the state is taxation and financial control. The market economy uses taxes as an instrument of economic and social policy. Taxes are intended to: a) cover the costs of maintaining the state apparatus; b) redistribution of income among various groups and strata of the population; c) ensuring the long-term economic, cultural and other development of the country. Market relations can develop effectively only on the basis of a stable tax system, therefore, the function under consideration is the implementation of the relevant state powers. At the same time, the market economy dictates the need to consider this function as a specific obligation between the state and the taxpayer. And although this type of relationship is clearly "vertical" in nature, nevertheless, the democratization of the state's activities involves the introduction of legal mechanisms, including judicial ones, into the sphere of taxation to protect the rights and legitimate interests of taxpayers. Another part of this function is financial control. It acts as one of the types of state control over the formation, distribution and use of all resources of the country's financial system. This system includes not only public finances, but also the securities market, currency values, etc. Financial control has its tasks: verification of financial obligations to the state; verification of compliance with the rules of financial transactions; control over the correct use by legal entities of the state financial resources at their disposal; prevention and elimination of violations of financial discipline, etc. The state has a wide range of subjects of financial control. In Russia, these are the Accounts Chamber, the Central Bank, the Ministry of Finance, the Tax Service, the State Customs Committee, control and audit bodies of federal executive authorities, etc. Non-state audit organizations can also participate in control. In the legal literature, the function of taxation and financial control is often interpreted not as an independent one, but as an auxiliary and largely serving in relation to other functions. Of course, it is impossible to deny its such nature. But at the transitional stages of the development of society, during the period of its reform, accompanied by the formation of new market structures and mechanisms, this function acquires special significance and can be singled out as an independent one. It differs from other functions not only in its special scope, but also in the forms and methods of implementation: conducting audits, inspections, setting standards for the activities of subjects, measures of influence, etc. The value of the function of taxation and financial control depends on the role that the state seeks to play in the economy , and also on whether it assumes a full social function. A state that proclaims itself as a legal and social state must maintain strict financial control in all areas in order to maximize the protection of the interests of society, the state, and the individual. The transition to a democratic state elevates the function of protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, ensuring the rule of law

Where is the legitimacy of power in Ukraine?

Probably every adult and educated person has heard in life concept of legitimacy. But not everyone thought about the origin and meaning of this concept. In everyday and colloquial life, probably, few people use this concept. It is most used in politics when it comes to the legality of resolving any issues or situations.

The word legitimacy comes from the Latin "legitimus" and is translated as legal or lawful. Politicians use this word when the people agree with the current government and accept all its decisions in terms of legality. In other words, when the people trust the management of the state (a separate subject, city), agree with the decisions made by the authorities, obey this authority, then this authority is considered legitimate.

In history, unfortunately, there are many cases when coups d'etat took place and self-proclaimed persons began to rule the people, naturally this power was not recognized by the people and was considered not legitimate, since it was not chosen by the people and the people naturally do not trust this power. All actions and decisions, as a result, are usually called not legitimate actions. The concept of the legitimacy of power is closely connected with the recent events in Ukraine, since it was after the coup d'état that self-proclaimed persons began to commit illegitimate actions. And the power itself is not considered legitimate.

The difference between the concept of legitimacy and the legality of power

Do not confuse the concept of legitimacy and legality. These are two different concepts. Legality is a legally justified action for compliance with regulatory legal acts. The slide below shows the concepts of legality and legitimacy.

The difference between legitimacy and legality

Types of legitimacy of power

1. Traditional;
2. Democratic;
3. Charismatic;
4. Technocratic;
5. Ontological
The meanings of certain types of legitimacy concepts mentioned above can be found on the slides below. The general concept of legitimacy is revealed.

The concept of traditional legitimacy

The concept of rational legitimacy

The concept of ideological legitimacy