Home Potato The concept of power. The ratio of political and state power, state power and the state. General signs of the state

Potato

The concept of power. The ratio of political and state power, state power and the state. General signs of the state

Introduction

1. Basic approaches to the concept of "power"

2. Definition of political power

3. Political and state power

4. Features of political power in Russia

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

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

In addition to purely substantive difficulties, the theoretical interpretation of the concept " political power”as in no other issue did it depend so much on the influence of political circumstances and ideological pressure, which essentially interrupted Soviet time the very tradition of studying this phenomenon and making it as difficult as possible for creative exchange with foreign scientists.

1. Basic approaches to the concept of "power"

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

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

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

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

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

2 . Definition of political power

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

People infected with political ideas become associates, associates. Like metal filings in a magnetic field, such people clearly oriented along the "lines of force" of the political idea perceived by them and begin to act and think synchronously. By virtue of the very (political) content of these ideas, they become a political organization - party.

Every organization of people united for the sake of practical goals, requires unity of will, and, consequently, a certain division into managers and controlled, giving orders and executing them, etc. The power of ideas, embodied in the political organization, thus subordinates people to each other, but not as natural individuals and personalities, but as servants them general ideas in such a way that serving each other, they thereby serve only the idea that unites them. Political power, therefore, is spiritual power, more precisely - basically spiritual, not physical or intellectual. Political power exists only within the framework and, so to speak, "under the auspices" of the corresponding ideas. Where there is no spiritual general political idea, there is no political power.

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

Against these arguments, the following should be objected. Firstly, power is also power, albeit non-political. Moreover, force is the most important "matter" of political power. The very essence of any political idea is how it should be organized strength(and natural power in general) in society, and force serves as a guarantor of the maintenance of this organization. And the political ideas themselves win only when it seizes a sufficient number of people - mass, thereby becoming irresistible by force.

Secondly, in the case of political power, the point is not at all in some special role of communication, communication, etc. Regulator in this, which has already become classic example it is quite possible to replace it with an ordinary pole, a traffic light, the "orders" of which the drivers will obey "as unquestioningly as the orders of the policeman. The point is not at all in" communication "with this pole, but in the fact that all drivers are controlled by the same accepted by them all the rules of conduct on the roads. They obey not the policeman as a person, but the order common to all of them (including the policeman). Power actually "sits" not in the policeman, but in the minds of the drivers in the form of all common rules.

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

3. Political and state power

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

The embodiment of the state idea is the totality of political laws and institutions officially recognized and operating in a given society. The power wielded by particular actors acting within the framework of these laws and institutions is state power. The power of subjects, whose idea did not become a state idea and was not embodied in the officially recognized institutions of a given society, is power simply political, and no more. For example, the Bolsheviks in Russia until October 1917 had merely political power (very limited at that), and after October they became state power.

We have already given above general definition the authorities of V.G. Ledyaev as "the ability of the subject to ensure the subordination of the object in accordance with his intentions". Political power is defined by him, respectively, as "the ability of the subject to ensure the subordination of the object in the sphere of politics." Therefore, in order to understand what political power is, according to V.G. Ledyaev, one must first understand what politics is. Obviously, in this case, the very definition of politics should not contain references to the political, otherwise we will have a definition according to the principle "the same through the same", or "butter oil". Let's see how he does it.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

state power state political

Power is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that manifests itself in various organizational forms, methods and ways of its implementation, system of relations, goals, etc. In the legal literature, some authors consider power as a certain function inherent in any team, society; other researchers - as a volitional relationship (power relationship) of the ruling and subject subjects; the third - as the ability of the ruling (manager) to impose his will on other persons; the fourth - as an organized force capable of subordinating to the will of a certain social community other people. Power is also understood as control associated with coercion.

The concept of power is one of the central ones in political science. It provides the key to understanding political institutions, political movements, and politics itself. The definition of the concept of power, its essence and nature is of paramount importance for understanding the nature of politics and the state, it makes it possible to single out politics and political relations from the total sum of social relations. In the conditions of reforming Russian society, the issues of studying the nature of political power, building its most advanced model, acquire significant practical significance, which is difficult to overestimate. The implementation of economic, political and legal reforms requires both leaders and any conscious member of civil society to expand their knowledge in the field of the features of the functioning of political power in order to better understand the processes of reforming power and forecasting possible consequences decision-making at any level of power relations in society.

In this work, an attempt is made to answer such questions as: what is "Political power" and "State power", what is their essence, structure, correlation of these concepts.

1. Features state power

1.1 The concept and features of state power

State power is a fundamental category of state science and the most incomprehensible phenomenon of people's social life. The concepts of “state power”, “power relations” refract the most important aspects of the existence of human civilization, reflect the harsh logic of the struggle of classes, social groups, nations, political parties and movements. It is no coincidence that the problems of power worried scientists, theologians, politicians, and writers in the past, and they worry now.

State power is partly social power. At the same time, it has many qualitative features; the most important feature of state power lies in its political and class nature. In scientific and educational literature, the terms "state power" and "political power" are usually identified. Such an identification, although not indisputably, is admissible. In any case, the state is always political and contains elements of class.

The founders of Marxism characterized state (political) power as "organized violence of one class to suppress another" Gomerov I.N. State and state power; P. 203. For a class-antagonistic society, this characterization is by and large true. However, any state power, especially a democratic one, can hardly be reduced to "organized violence." Otherwise, the idea is created that state power is a natural enemy to all living things, to all creativity and creation. Hence the inevitable negative attitude towards the authorities and persons personifying it. Hence, far from harmless social myth that any power is an evil that society forces to endure for the time being. This myth is one of a variety of winding down projects. government controlled, first belittling the role, and then the destruction of the state.

Meanwhile, truly people's power functioning on a scientific basis is a great creative force that has a real ability to control the actions and behavior of people, resolve social contradictions, coordinate individual or group interests, subordinate them to a single powerful will by methods of persuasion, stimulation, coercion.

A feature of state power is that its subject and object usually do not coincide, ruling and subject are most often clearly separated. In a society with class antagonisms, the dominant subject is the economically dominant class, while individuals, social, national communities, and classes are subordinate. In a democratic society, there is a tendency for the subject and object of power to converge, leading to their partial coincidence. The dialectic of this coincidence is that every citizen is not only subject; as a member of a democratic society, he has the right to be the individual bearer and source of power. He has the right, and must actively participate in the formation of elected (representative) bodies of power, nominate and select candidates for these bodies, control their activities, initiate their dissolution and reform. The right and duty of a citizen is to participate in the adoption of state, regional and other decisions through all types of direct democracy. In a word, under a democratic regime there is not and should not be only those who rule and only those who are subject. Even the highest organs of the state and the highest officials have the supreme power of the people over them, they are both an object and a subject of power.

At the same time, there is no complete coincidence of subject and object in a democratic state-organized society. If democratic development leads to such a (complete) coincidence, then state power will lose its political character, will turn into a directly public one, without state bodies and state administration.

State power is exercised through public administration - the targeted impact of the state, its bodies on society as a whole, one or another of its spheres (economic, social, spiritual) on the basis of known objective laws to fulfill the tasks and functions facing society.

Another important feature of state power is that it is manifested in the activities government agencies and institutions that form the mechanism (apparatus) of this power. That is why it is called state because it practically personifies, brings into activity, puts into practice, first of all, the mechanism of the state. Apparently, therefore, state power is often identified with state bodies, especially the highest ones. FROM scientific point of view, such an identification is unacceptable. First, state power can be exercised by the ruling subject itself. For example, the people, through a referendum and other institutions of direct (direct) democracy, make the most important state decisions. Secondly, political power initially belongs not to the state, its bodies, but either to the elite, or to the class, or to the people. The ruling subject does not betray his power to the organs of the state, but endows them with powers of authority.

State power can be weak or strong, but, deprived of organized power, it loses the quality of state power, as it becomes unable to carry out the will of the ruling subject in life, to ensure law and order in society. State power is not without reason called the central organization of power. True, any power needs the power of authority: the deeper and more fully the power expresses the interests of the people, all strata of society, the more it relies on the power of authority, on voluntary and conscious submission to it. But as long as state power exists, it will also have material sources of power - armed organizations of people or law enforcement agencies (army, police, state security agencies), as well as prisons and other forced material appendages. Organized force provides state power with coercive ability, is its guarantor. But it must be guided by the rational and humane will of the ruling subject. The use of all available force is unconditionally justified in repelling aggression from the outside or in suppressing crime.

Thus, state power is a concentrated expression of the will and strength, the power of the state, embodied in state bodies and institutions. It ensures stability and order in society, protects its citizens from internal and external encroachments through the use of various methods, including state coercion and military force.

Like any relationship, power relationships have a structure. The parties to these relations are the subject of state power and the object of power (subjects), and the content forms the unity of the transfer and subordination (voluntary or forced) of the latter to this will.

The subject of state power, as already noted, can be social and national communities, classes, people, on behalf of which state bodies act. The object of power is individuals, their associations, layers and communities, classes, society.

The essence of power relations lies in the fact that one side - the ruling one - imposes its will, usually erected into law and legally binding, on the other side - subordinate, directs their behavior and actions in the direction determined by legal norms.

Methods that ensure the dominance of the will of the ruling subject depend on the interests and volitional position of the parties. If the interests and will of the ruling subject and those subject to coincide, which is possible in democratic states, then power relations cannot be realized without external influence. If the government is respected by the people, then the method of persuasion is used, but if the interests and will of the parties diverge in some way, then the methods of persuasion, stimulation, agreement (compromise) are appropriate and effective. In those cases where the positions of the ruling and the ruled are opposite and irreconcilable, the method of state coercion is used.

The state, in order to perform its functions, creates a system of state bodies (the mechanism of the state), which, in the aggregate of all bodies, form the state apparatus. It is a properly organized, well-coordinated complex political mechanism, which includes numerous and diverse bodies. Each of the bodies has a certain structure, powers, tasks and goals, to achieve which their activities are aimed, and operates within strictly defined limits.

AT broad sense the state apparatus covers all organs of the state, including representative, judicial and administrative bodies. In a narrow sense, the state apparatus refers only to state bodies endowed with administrative power, that is, managerial and executive bodies.

The following features are characteristic of state bodies, which make it possible to distinguish them from other bodies:

the legal basis for the activity, i.e. organization, structure, functions, tasks and goals, the competence of state bodies is determined by the current legislation; the presence of power, including the use of coercion in necessary cases.

1.2 Forms and methods of exercising state power

The concept of the form of government explains what basic institutions form the organization of state power, how they are formed and how they interact with each other. In the form of government, first of all, monarchies and republics differ.

ATmonarchy the highest powers of state power (real or nominal) are acquired by the sole ruler, usually by inheritance and, as a rule, are exercised for life. But the dynastic principle of succession to the crown is not always respected:

Dynasties can change as a result of the seizure of power,

Elective monarchies are known, in which the fate of the crown was decided by the aristocracy. The power of the monarch (and the very institution of the monarchy) is legitimized by its divine origin. Even in a nominal monarchy, the monarch is not subject to legal liability. A monarch exercising real power does not bear legal political responsibility for his activities.

Monarchies are divided into absolutist and constitutional.

Constitutional monarchies are divided into dualistic and parliamentary.

ATrepublic the highest powers of state power are exercised by officials (president, deputies of parliament, etc.) elected for a fixed term. Signs of a real republic are electivity, collegiality of one or more higher state bodies, legality, short-term legislatures and the replacement of higher positions. executive power.

Three forms of government are characteristic of modern developed countries: presidential republic, parliamentary form of government, mixed (semi-presidential) republic.

Republics are divided into presidential, parliamentary and mixed.

According to the 1993 Constitution, Russia looks like a mixed republic, but the President has significantly more powers than, for example, the French one. The President of the Russian Federation is, first of all, a constitutional and legal institution of executive power. He has decisive powers in the sphere of executive power, in comparison with which the figure of the prime minister turns out to be weak and dependent. He forms the government of the Russian Federation and independently decides on the resignation of the Government, directly manages the activities of the most important federal ministries and departments, is the supreme commander. But the President of the Russian Federation has constitutional powers that take his power beyond the boundaries of executive power, upsetting the balance of the legislative and executive branches of power. Powers of the President of the Russian Federation in the region legislature include: the right of legislative initiative; the right to issue decrees on any issues not regulated by law, i.e. illegal decrees; the right of suspensive veto over federal laws. Taken together, these powers create a competing rule-making competence of the Parliament and the President of the Russian Federation.

Ways of exercising state power explains the concept « statemode» . This is a category that expresses the extent and nature of the participation of subjects of state generalization (citizens and subjects, social groups, public associations) in the formation and exercise of state power. There are regimes and authoritarian (dictatorial) and democratic.

Authoritarianism means such a way of public-powerful, state management of public relations, in which signals feedback, showing the reaction of society to management, are blocked and are not perceived by the organization of power. Under conditions of authoritarianism, there is no freedom of expression, free elections, freedom of association and other political freedoms (or they are significantly limited). There are no legal opposition political parties here, trade unions not controlled by the authorities, or the authorities obstruct the activities of opposition organizations. The mass media are controlled by the authoritarian government, depending on the severity of the authoritarian regime.

In the XX century. There are two types of authoritarian state regimes - progressive and conservative. Target progressive modes - catch-up industrial development based on economic coercion (for example, Pinochet's regime in Chile). Conservative modes(for example, Muslim fundamentalist regimes) arise in the conditions of the destruction of traditional society and represent the reaction of the traditionally ruling political elite to the weakening of its dominance.

Totalitarianism- this is not just an extreme version of authoritarianism. This is a kind of despotism, a relapse of despotism in the 20th century. in the era of industrial development. Despotism is unlimited power, power over the unfree, based on violence or the threat of its use. Under totalitarianism there is no freedom - political, economic, spiritual, etc. This regime creates a society based on non-economic, i.e. purely force, coercion.

Democracy in the modern sense of this concept means the formally equal participation of full-fledged citizens in the formation and exercise of state power. The principle of democracy is formal equality in politics, formal equality of political ideologies and associations, parties, formally equal opportunity for all subjects of state-legal communication to participate in the formation of state will.

A sign of modern democracy, first of all, are political freedoms - ideological and political pluralism, multi-party system, freedom of expression, freedom of the media, freedom of association, assembly and demonstration, universal and equal suffrage, the right to petition. In a democracy, free elections are regularly held for the highest state bodies, i.e. elected bodies are politically responsible to the voters. All full-fledged citizens and their associations are allowed to participate in elections, with the exception of those who pursue the goal of overthrowing the democratic regime and establishing a dictatorship, as well as other anti-legal goals.

It is customary to distinguish between direct (direct) and representative forms of democracy.

Democracy is usually explained as "rule by the people". This refers to the people as a kind of abstract subject of power. Democratic power claims to express the will of the people. But in reality, in a modern democratic state there is no “power of the people”, especially “direct power of the people”, but there is a democratically organized state power.

The “effect of democracy” in modern constitutions (for example, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993) The Constitution of the Russian Federation, M., “Legal Literature” is achieved as follows. Firstly, the people are declared to be the only sovereign source of power in the country and the bearer of some sovereignty, this position is recognized as an indispensable feature of democracy in the sense of "people's power". Secondly, it is proclaimed that the people are not only the source of power, but also "exercise their power directly", as well as through state authorities and local government". Thirdly, the referendum and free elections are called the highest direct expression of the power of the people.

In reality, in a pluralistic democracy, the source of power is not the people (an abstract collective whole), but the majority (often a relative majority) of politically active citizens who participate in the formation of state power and constitute a minority of the people. The elections of the highest bodies of state power are contested by parties backed by organized groups, each of which represents the interests of a part of the people - often a very small part. Parties that have great resources of influence on voters win elections. The electorate of the winning party is usually a minority of the people, but the ruling elite always claims that they received power "from the people" or "by the will of the people."

Thus, elections are a state-organized process of electing representative bodies. This is participation in the formation of state power, and not the implementation of "the power of the people."

The widespread use of elective principles in the formation of public authorities and local self-government has led to the active development of the electoral system in the Russian Federation, electoral legislation and relevant practice.

However, a big and as yet unresolved problem we have is that " electoral system turns into a means of generation and reproduction of corruption. In the absence of sufficient state funds for elections, election campaigns are financed mainly from private sources. Elections have turned into competitions of moneybags. Representatives of the capital support candidates for deputies and for elective positions in state and local government bodies, or even strive for power themselves.

Money is spent recklessly. The winner is expected to respond adequately. There is a skillful game. Outwardly, it is necessary to play before the voters an ardent fighter for their aspirations, but in reality - to ensure security and all sorts of blessings for patrons.

Today, deputies and elected officials have only rights, and no legal obligations to voters. Many deputies and elected officials do not cope with their duties, and deputies often simply do nothing, using the mandate for selfish purposes.

The responsibility of a deputy should be understood not so much as sanctions, but as the awareness of each chosen one of his duty to the people. But there must also be a threat of early loss of the mandate. This will stimulate the participation of voters in the elections.

2. Political power: essence, structure, forms of implementation

Despite the many approaches to the definition of political power and power in general, the following “essential characteristics of political power” are distinguished:

* substantive conditionality of property and the social structure of society;

ѕ expression and protection of socio-political general or group interest;

* organization of political management of a state-organized society as a whole and its individual areas;

ѕ the existence and implementation in the forms of political power of specific carriers. In this regard, political power should be understood as a strong-willed authoritarian expression of various political interests(of the people, its constituent communities and individuals), manifested in the organization of socio-political management and acting in the forms of power of various specific carriers” Lyubashits V.Ya. "Theory of State and Law" Rostov-on-Don, 2002 .

Turning to the consideration of the structure of political power, it should be noted that this structure is an ordered holistic formation that has integrative qualities that are different from the qualities of its elements. A number of large institutions are distinguished as such elements: the state, political parties, political movements, public organizations and other organized groups of political interests that directly or indirectly contribute to the exercise of political power.

One of the most common definitions of power within the framework of the sociological approach belongs to M. Weber. Power is the ability of one subject to exercise his will within the data social relations despite the resistance of the other. Therefore, structurally, the main components of power are the subject, object, means (resources).

Thus, the mechanism of power has a complex, hierarchical structure, in which the formal primary “subject” and source of power is the people, transferring power functions to their official representative, i.e. mediating agent - the state. The state, in turn, distributes powers among the “bearers” along the “horizontal” (legislative, executive and judicial branches of power) and along the “vertical” (central, regional and local authorities authorities) in order to govern the country's population (the "object" of ruling) on behalf of the whole society (the "subject" of ruling). It is precisely such a formal legal mechanism that is embedded in the system of political power of the Russian Federation, defined by Article 3 of its new Constitution. This article reads as follows: “1) The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people. 2) The people exercise their power directly, as well as through state authorities and local self-government bodies” Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Yes, the people in a democratic society are the subject of power (this circumstance is emphasized in the constitutions of all democratic countries), but at the same time it is also the object of power, because, having transferred the performance of power functions to the relevant power structures of their own free will ("consent of the governed"), the people, society in generally assume the obligation to obey their chosen political authority.

Of course, in societies with non-democratic political regimes (for example, totalitarianism, etc.), one can speak of the concept of “people” only as an object of political power. By at least, this is the real situation, although the appearance may be different.

The subject and object of political power are its two important components, but there is one more component in its structure - the resources of power. We are talking about those means, the use of which provides influence on the object of power in accordance with the goals of the subject.

In view of the diversity of power resources, there are several classifications. A. Etzioni divides the resources of power into utilitarian (material and social benefits associated with the daily needs of people), coercive (various penalties), normative (law, traditions, value orientations).

In O. Toffler's classification of resources, three main resources of power are distinguished - strength, wealth, knowledge. In his opinion, knowledge is the decisive resource in modern society. Power and wealth lose their influence.

In accordance with the most important areas of life, the resources of power are divided into:

Economic: material assets necessary for social production and consumption; money; fertile lands; minerals, etc.

Socio-political: population size, its quality; social unity; social stability and order; democratism of public relations; participation of the population in politics; patriotism of civil society, etc.

Moral and ideological: ideals, interests, beliefs of people; ideology, faith, trust, public mood; feelings (patriotic, national, religious), people's emotions, etc.

Information and cultural: knowledge and information; institutes of science and education; language; propaganda in all its forms; mass media, etc.

Power: weapons and apparatus of physical coercion (army, police, security services, court, prosecutor's office).

As regards the forms of political power, there are different approaches to its typology: Classification according to the sources of subordination of the object of political power to the subject of political power (Corresponding forms of power: power as force, power as coercion, power as persuasion, power as manipulation, power as authority.) Classification of political power according to its subject: individual political power , collective political power, their specific manifestations.

In the real political space, power is expressed in various forms of ensuring group domination. In this regard, the Italian scientist N. Bobbio singled out three forms of political power, which, to one degree or another, are inherent in all political regimes.

Thus, power in the form of visible, explicit government is a form of activity of structures and institutions focused on public interaction with the population or other political entities. Power in this form is exercised in the form of actions of state bodies that develop and, in full view of the whole society, apply certain procedures for making and coordinating decisions; political leaders who discuss with the public Taken measures; opposition parties and media that criticize government actions, etc. Thus, political power publicly demonstrates its interest in public support for its own decisions, it fundamentally turns to society, demonstrating that political decisions are made in the name of the interests of the population and under its control. The public form of power characterizes politics as the interaction of those in power (managers) and subordinates (managed), the presence of certain mutual obligations, the operation of mutually developed norms and rules of complicity of elites and non-elites in the management of the state and society.

Along with this, forms of semi-hidden (shadow) government are also taking shape in the political space. They characterize either the priority influence on the formation of political goals of any structures (individual state bodies, lobbies) that formally do not have such rights and privileges, or the dominance of various elite informal groups in the decision-making process. The presence of this kind of power processes shows not only that the interpretation of state tasks or the development of government decisions is in fact a process much less formalized than it is officially announced or seen from the outside. The shadowy nature of this professional process is also demonstrated by the fact that it is open to the influence of various centers of power (resources) and often, in principle, is oriented towards removing the public from discussing subtle and delicate problems that do not need wide publicity.

The third form of political power is designated by the Italian scientist Bobbio as hidden rule, or crypto-government. It demonstrates the methods of power that are practiced either by secret political police, or by army groups and other similar structures, which de facto dominate in determining the political goals of individual states. The activities of criminal communities that put state institutions at their service and turned them into a kind of mafia associations can also be attributed to the same type of domination. These examples show that the structure of political power of individual states may include institutions and centers of influence that act against the state itself.

As the forms of exercise of power that it takes in the process of its implementation, leadership, management, coordination, organization and control are distinguished. Let's take a closer look at the specific content of these forms:

1) Management - an activity consisting in determining the general directions of activity of institutions subordinate to a certain person (president, prime minister) and their structural divisions, and in inducing them to this activity with the help of various means (coercion, stimulation, etc.);

2) Management involves activities aimed at solving current problems related to specific areas of public life (economy, social security, culture, etc.) while maintaining control over the general state of affairs in these areas;

3) Coordination - the activities of special institutions and individuals to ensure the coordinated work of various institutions and structural units that are part of the power system (most often involved in solving any one specific or close in meaning problems);

4) The organization involves maintaining a hierarchical order and forcing the authorities to follow certain formal (or formally bureaucratic) rules of conduct;

5) Control - carried out either by the governing body itself (president, government), or by special coordinating or control bodies (administration, personal representatives, inspectors, experts) over the implementation of subordinate institutions and persons of their orders and orders.

At the same time, it should be remembered that the isolation of the above forms of power is artificial, and all of them are combined and superimposed on each other in the process of management Krasnov BI Theory of power and power relations. Socio-political magazine, 1994, No. 6. With. 34. .

Before analyzing the role of law in the political system, it is necessary to define the terms. Consider the concepts of legitimacy and legality of power.

The viability of power largely depends on its legitimacy (from Latin legitimus - legal). This is one of the indicators of the effectiveness of political power. Legitimacy reflects the attitude of citizens to power. It can be defined as a state of power when it is recognized by the majority of the people as lawful and just. The legitimacy and authority of power are phenomena to a certain extent coinciding.

legitimacy means the consent of the people with the government, when it voluntarily recognizes its right to make decisions that must be implemented. The lower the level of legitimacy, the more often the government will rely on coercion.

From legitimacy distinguish legalityauthorities. This is a legal concept, meaning the correspondence of power to the current positive law. For example, the power of the president is legal, because he is elected in accordance with the law and in the exercise of his powers is based on the law. There can be a contradiction between legitimacy and legality. Not all laws can be assessed by the population as fair; finally, a legally elected government in case of failure to fulfill its promises, an unsuccessful economic course that led to a sharp drop in living standards, may lose the trust of society. In this case, there is a process of delegitimization of power.

There is no ideal legitimacy (the level of 100% support by the population). In any society, there are people who break the law or are apathetic towards authority. Finally, in a democratic society there is opposition official authority. Consequently, any power must confirm its authority, prove to the population that it is it that best suits its interests.

Legitimation is the means or process by which power is justified.

How does power acquire legitimacy? German political scientist and sociologist M.Weber identified three possible types of legitimacy (dominance) depending on its sources.

Traditionallegitimacy relies on tradition, on the once established order. Types of traditional power: gerontocracy (the power of the elders); patriarchal (power of tribal leaders); patrimonial (the power of the monarch, which can be consecrated religious norms); sultanism where the tradition is the use of violence, and the power of the ruler is freed from traditional restrictions (ancient oriental despotisms); the power of the sovereign over the feudal vassals, which dominated in the medieval era, and in modern society is manifested in such phenomena as loyalty to the oath, the code of honor, etc.

Charismaticlegitimacy(from the Greek. charisme - divine grace) is based on faith in a leader, a leader who is credited with super-outstanding personal qualities: wisdom, holiness, heroism. They have such power religious prophets, revolutionary and totalitarian leaders. Charismatic legitimacy is built on reckless trust in the leader. Weber saw examples of charisma in Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, and others.

Legal(rational)legitimacy has as its source rationally established rules, norms (laws). In democratic countries, this is the main type of legitimacy, based on constitutions and specific legal norms.

Weber's typology has received general recognition, although a number of scholars supplement it with other types of legitimacy. American political scientist D. Easton singled out ideological legitimacy, which is based on the conviction of individuals in the correctness of those ideological values that are proclaimed by the authorities (this is the most effective type of legitimacy); structural legitimacy arising from the trust of the population in the structures and norms of the regime (in laws, authorities), personal legitimacy, which has as its source the belief of citizens in the competence of the leader, his ability to properly use power, etc. The French political scientist J. L. Chabot speaks of the possibility democratic(based on the will of the governed), technocratic(associated with the ability to rule) and ontological(correspondence of power to the universal principles of human and social existence) legitimacy.

In real practice, different types of legitimacy can complement each other. the greatest potentiallegitimacy have democratic regimes in which additional sources of legitimacy of power are the economic and social efficiency of the regime, expressed in a high standard of living of the population. Coercive dictatorial regimes seek to secure legitimacy. Thus, totalitarian regimes (USSR, Nazi Germany) relied on ideological and charismatic legitimacy. Here, with the help of ideological myths and propaganda, cults of leaders were created.

Preconditionsmaintaininglegitimacyauthoritiesare:

1. Improvement of legislation and public administration in accordance with new requirements.

2. Creation of such a political system, the legitimacy of which is based on the traditions of the population, and therefore is not only more stable, but also indirectly affects the behavior of citizens.

3. Personal charismatic traits of a political leader.

4. Successful implementation public policy maintaining law and order.

Returning to the consideration of the role of law in the political system, it should be noted: First, from its normative side, law is a way of legal registration of the elements of the system of power, as well as a means of regulating the relations between them. In addition, the legal norms fix the basic requirements presented by the subject of political power to the functioning of both individual elements and the system of political power as a whole. Therefore, law is a way of regulating the system of power, both in structural and functional aspects. Secondly, law fixes a certain state of political relations. The political content of law determines its role as a means of exercising power in society and one of the main elements of the system of political power.

The legislative, legal field forms a formalized regulatory infrastructure of the entire political system, formalizing, legalizing political structures and political relations on the basis of developed legislative rules that are binding on all members of society.

The legality (legal legitimacy) of the actions of the state, political parties and other structures is a hallmark of democratic political systems.

The legal part of the normative subsystem of the political system formalizes such concepts as the constitutional system, fills them with real content.

A feature of the political system of modern Russia, in contrast to the systems that preceded it, in our historical past, is, first of all, that its very formation took place under the influence of legal framework. “While there was no constitution in pre-revolutionary Russia, a significant part of political and social life, the actions of the authorities were outside the scope of laws, and legal nihilism dominated society; while in the USSR, despite the existence of constitutions and laws, the principle of the primacy of ideological ("class") interests over the law prevailed, the constitution was not a law of direct action, and the activities of the ruling party were removed from the legislative field; very modern political state, the state system in the form in which they exist today, received a one-time registration with the Constitution and the constitutional system. At the same time, the state itself was constitutionally declared and constitutionally formalized as a legal one, and the constitution - as a law of direct action. Legislation is formalized and developed on the basis of the constitution, and the state and its special body - the Constitutional Court monitor the compliance of legislation - federal, regional and local - with the fundamental law of the country” Truevtsev K.M. "Political system of modern Russia" NFPK. .

In this regard, as well as with the process of filling the legal field today, it can be stated that the impact of the legal infrastructure on the modern political system of Russia is immeasurably higher than on the systems of the previous period.

This does not mean that there are fewer violations of laws or that there are no entire public sectors (criminal structures), the very activity of which falls outside the legal field. But this means that the foundations for regulating political life on the basis of law exist, and they are quite deep and weighty.

With all the great importance of the legal infrastructure of the regulatory system, its other, informal part is no less important. Presence of informal rules of political action, political participation and political behavior forms a less tangible due to its informal nature, but no less significant part of the regulatory infrastructure.

The level of political legitimacy is based on certain norms and values by which citizens measure how the state, power structures, parties and leaders operate.

At the same time, the political structures themselves operate, along with the framework of the law, on the basis of rules and norms that are informal. And such rules and norms always exist. In cases where there is no formal regulatory framework or insufficient, this shortcoming is compensated strong impact informal norms, often taking the form of political rules, the violation of which historical Russia, for example, was often very severely punished. In Soviet times, there were also a lot of informal (for example, nomenklatura rules), and punishments often followed precisely for their violation, and not for breaking the law (as, for example, was the case with dissidents who demanded the implementation of the Constitution and thereby violated an informal rule, which was not direct action).

From this example follows the fact that formal and informal norms can come into conflict and conflict with each other.

This also happens in modern political systems, finding manifestation in the contradiction between law and political efficiency, law and political expediency.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that legislation is always conservative, it always lags behind the phenomena of real life, including political life. And situations always arise and will arise that cannot be resolved within the framework of the existing law. Then the action of compensatory mechanisms of informal norms arises, but at the same time there is always a danger that actions based on informal norms will go beyond the legal field.

Russian political, political-moral and other informal norms are associated with other traditional foundations, with other attitudes that have been developing for centuries, including the tradition of legal nihilism. In this regard, the choice is often not in favor of the law, but in favor of political expediency, political efficiency, and often in favor of shadow political methods in the "Byzantine" traditions of Russian politics.

Despite the actively developing and filling legal field in Russia, the influence of these negative factors informal political norms with deep historical roots cannot be ignored.

3. State and political power: correlation of concepts

In the literature, the relationship between the categories of "state power" and "political power" is understood differently.

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

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

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

It includes:

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

The totality of non-state (non-political) economic, social, spiritual, moral and other public relations;

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

The sphere of self-government of free individuals and their organizations, protected by law from direct interference in it by state power and politics ”Dmitriev Yu A. Correlation between the concepts of political and state power in the conditions of the formation of civil society // State and Law. 1994. No. 7. S. 28-34. .

Thus, the following differences are distinguished between state and political power: firstly, as a part of the subjects possessing the corresponding imperious powers. The direct subjects of state power are federal state bodies and state authorities of the subjects of the federation. And the subjects of political power are political parties, other political public associations and subjects of the electoral process (electoral associations), as well as local governments. The attribution of the people to the number of subjects of a particular type of power depends on which part of the people is a participant in this power relationship. If a we are talking about the multinational people of the Russian Federation, exercising power in the forms of direct democracy, enshrined in law, then it acts as a subject of state power at the federal level.

At the same time, the population of a subject of the federation, exercising the same powers provided by law within the territory of the subject, becomes a subject of state power. regional level. And the local community, acting within its territory, as a non-state institution is the subject of political power. The subjects of political power will also be those associations of citizens that are created in order to realize the right of citizens to unite and pursue political goals.

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

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

Thirdly, the difference between the types of power under consideration lies in the methods used by them to achieve their goals. Both types of power use a fairly wide range of methods of power influence. The only difference is that the subjects of political power cannot directly use the method of state-imperious influence (coercion), which is inherent exclusively in the subjects of state power.

...

General signs of the state

Despite all the variety of types and forms of state formations that arose earlier and currently exist, one can single out common features that are more or less characteristic of any state. In our opinion, these features were most fully and reasonably presented by V. P. Pugachev.

These signs include the following:

public authority, separated from society and not coinciding with social organization; the presence of a special layer of people who carry out the political management of society;

a certain territory (political space), delineated by the boundaries, to which the laws and powers of the state apply;

sovereignty - sovereignty over all those living on certain territory citizens, their institutions and organizations;

monopoly on the legal use of force. Only the state has "legitimate" grounds for restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens and even depriving them of their lives. For these purposes, it has special power structures: the army, police, courts, prisons, etc. P.;

the right to levy taxes and fees from the population, which are necessary for the maintenance of state bodies and the material support of state policy: defense, economic, social, etc.;

compulsory membership in the state. A person receives citizenship from the moment of birth. Unlike membership in a party or other organizations, citizenship is a necessary attribute of any person;

a claim to represent the whole of society as a whole and to protect common interests and goals. In reality, no state or other organization is able to fully reflect the interests of all social groups, classes and individual citizens of society.

All functions of the state can be divided into two main types: internal and external.

While doing internal functions the activity of the state is aimed at managing society, at coordinating the interests of various social strata and classes, at maintaining its power. By implementing external functions, the state acts as a subject of international relations, representing a certain people, territory and sovereign power.

47. The ratio of state, political and public power

Political power is inextricably linked with state power. Indeed, the political power of the dominant social community is most fully realized under normal conditions through the state, its power, administrative and other activities. It can be difficult to distinguish between political and state power also because of the “double” (actually political and state) role of the ruling political parties. In a totalitarian state, the only legally permitted ruling party actually exercises power as a "state party". But even in democratic countries, the party that won, for example, the presidential elections, parliamentary elections and formed the government, in fact, receives the levers of state power. In the United States, for example, either Democrats or Republicans come to the leadership of the country as a result of elections, in Great Britain the Laborites or Conservatives alternately rule the state, in Germany the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats changed in power. The political power of the social community does not directly dispose of the means of coercion in relation to the whole society. But the legal institution of legalized coercion in relation to the whole society, as you know, is only the state. Only state power can use such coercion, which is not only legal, but in most cases also legitimate. Thus, the connection between state and political power lies in the fact that state power is the main form of political power and, at the same time, the main channel for the implementation of the latter. It is a relationship in which one of the parties is always a special subject - the state representing its body or official. The essence of this specific power relationship is that the social community, which economically, politically and ideologically determines the state of society, makes its will (formed in the course of confrontation, compromises, consensus of political and social forces) universally binding under the threat of special, state coercion.

difference between state and political power

The state, in contrast to the political power of a certain social community, which, although forced to take into account the interests of other strata, is primarily focused on its own interests, is such an institution, the most important task of which is the "common affairs of the whole society." In addition, the state, state power are forced to take into account the interests of many opposing groups, striving to maintain order and stability in society. These tasks are not essential for political power by virtue of its very nature, which does not seek to solve common affairs. In this state power is alienated from political power, has its own existence, a certain autonomy, its own patterns of development. Political and state power should be distinguished, but not opposed. Under normal conditions, their social character is the same. Political power is the power of the social community (communities), which determines the direction of the country's development in confrontation and interaction with other forces; state power is the power of a special organization that has a political character - the state, its bodies, officials, ultimately realizing the will of that political community (communities) to which political power belongs. Unlike political power, state power is exercised in special procedural forms inherent in the state by means and methods. On behalf of the state, it is carried out, first of all, by state bodies, officials and the state apparatus authorized to do so by the constitution.

State power is a special kind of social power. In the literature, the relationship between the categories "state power" and "political power" is understood in different ways. According to one point of view, state power is a narrower category than political power, because the latter is exercised not only by the state, but also by other parts of the political system of society: bodies local self-government, parties, political movements, public organizations, etc. So, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, local governments are not included in the system of state authorities, although they exercise power (Articles 3, 12, Chapter 8). However, if state power acts on behalf of the whole society, then political - often from any part of it or a social group that is the subject of political domination. Unlike political power, state power has three main branches characteristic of it - legislative, executive and judicial with the corresponding prerogatives (Article 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). In other words, just as the political system of society cannot be reduced only to the state, so political power cannot be identified with state power. According to another point of view, the concept of "political power" is identical to the category of "state power", since political power comes from the state and is realized only with his (direct or indirect) participation, permission, etc. State power is a public-political relationship of domination and subordination between subjects, based on state coercion. Such power performs a function related to the leadership, management and coordination of volitional actions of people. State power leads to the establishment of such relations in which it acts as the highest authority, voluntarily or involuntarily recognized by all members of the social community that has developed in a given territory. Powerful leadership implies, on the one hand, the ability of the bearers of power functions to determine the behavior of people, on the other hand, the need for those who are subject to subordinate their behavior to the command of power. Submission is a consequence of both persuasion and coercion. Power is the power to subjugate

The state is the main structural element of the political system, which is based on the relationship of power-subordination. Therefore, the state as a social superstructure and a system for managing human society is unthinkable without state power.

State power is the core, the essential core of the state. Strictly speaking, the state is a special form of organization of power, which has an external expression in its carriers - the administrative apparatus.

Power is the necessary and main link between the state as a management structure and the political system of society. It is the foundation and meaning of the existence of any political system, since the relations of power and subordination are always present in a politically organized society.

What is power? What is the nature and essence of this phenomenon of social relations?

In the most general sense power as a phenomenon presupposes the subordination of the will of some subjects to the will of others. Power is a determining influence on the will, consciousness and behavior of the subject, prompting him to obey the will of the bearer of power, based on authority or coercion.

That is, the basis of submission is either coercion (or the possibility of its application), or authority, manifested in the ability to persuade.

Signs of power:

1) develops, manifests itself in relations between people (individuals);
2) the main purpose of power is to organize interpersonal relationships and interaction;
3) has a strong-willed character. Power is a manifestation of the will, expressed in the interaction of the will of those in power and the will of those who are subject. Will this is an element of the individual's consciousness, which consists in an active, active desire to change something (the environment, the behavior of another subject, social relations);
4) every power has certain means of its implementation. That is, there must be tools in order to impose one's will. Otherwise, the will of those in power, and hence the power itself, cannot be realized.

Power, manifested in a relatively large community of individuals and built on the socio-biological laws of community and management, is called social.

In a social sense, power- this is a means of functioning of any social community, corresponding to the nature and level of social life, consisting in the ability and ability of certain subjects to exercise their will, influencing the consciousness and activities of individuals, their associations through the use of authority, persuasion, coercion.

Signs of social power:

1) develops, manifests itself in relations within and between groups of people (individuals);
2) the main purpose is to organize social relations;
3) is aimed at meeting the interests of society as a whole.

To life, the relationship of power and subordination causes, at the initial stages of the development of society, the need to manage and coordinate the activities of the social community. Power gives society integrity, manageability, serves the most important factor organization. In other words, it is a system-forming element that ensures the viability of society. Under the influence of power, social relations become purposeful, acquire the character of managed and controlled relations, and life together in society becomes orderly. Consequently, social power is objective in society, is a fundamental property of any community of individuals.

AT further development power relations is due to the emergence of various disparate interests among individuals, where some interests must be subordinated to others or a compromise must be reached. And as long as these interests are of an objective nature, and the goals of society as a whole are the same, power continues to retain a social character.

But as soon as common interests are replaced by group interests in the system of interests of individuals and their groups, power begins to acquire a political character. As S. N. Kozhevnikov correctly notes, “ political life, and with it political power arose in a society where people are divided by unequal positions, different interests, and in this regard they enter into a state of a certain struggle.

In this way, political power- this is power in a socially differentiated society, capable of managing social processes and influencing decisions made in society in the interests of certain social groups.

In a state-organized society, political power is exercised over the conquest, retention and use of state power in order to use it as the most effective means to satisfy the interests of the ruling social group.

Signs of political power:

1) occurs only in a socially differentiated society (i.e., in the presence of diverging interests among various social groups);
2) influences decisions made in society;
3) manages social processes in the interests of certain social groups;
4) in a state-organized society, it is realized with regard to the conquest, retention and use of state power.

The main type of political power is state or administrative-managerial power.

Government- this is a kind of political power that has a monopoly right to issue decrees binding on the entire population, and relies on a special state apparatus as one of the means to comply with the laws and orders issued by it.

We can say that state power is a public-political relationship of domination and subordination between the state and the subjects of social relations, based on state coercion or the possibility of its application. State power is exercised by state bodies and officials or delegated (sanctioned) by them to other entities, i.e. is carried out on behalf of, under the authority and with the support of the state.

Features (properties) state power:

1) comprehensive nature (universality) - state power extends to the entire territory and to the entire population of the state, to all persons located in this territory;
2) the supremacy of state power - state power can allow, suspend, prohibit, recognize as null and void the manifestation of any other power on its territory. State power stands above all other organizations and communities of the country, which are obliged to obey it;
3) the sovereignty of state power - its independence from any other state power, both within the state and outside it;
4) the institutionalization of state power - power manifests itself outside in the form of special complex structured state institutions - state bodies and institutions that form the state apparatus;
5) publicity of state power - state power is exercised by a professional state apparatus, separated from society as an object of power;
6) has the exclusive right (prerogative) for law-making activities. Only state power has a special means for making its decrees binding, which other types of power do not have - law, which is the most effective regulator of social relations;
7) has special means of influencing society that other types of power do not have - a specific coercive force implemented by the system of correctional institutions, the police, internal troops, the army, etc.;
8) is carried out in specific, legalized forms, primarily law-making, law enforcement and law enforcement activities;
9) state power is always authority, i.e. has not only the ability to influence the behavior of the subject, but this influence is unconditional. Most often, authority is based on violence and coercion, but there can also be genuine authority based on voluntary recognition and submission to authority. But in any case, everyone is obliged to obey the state authority;
10) has a dualistic nature of the function performed: general social and class.

Power is a social phenomenon. Social power is present (albeit in a hidden form) wherever there are stable associations of people: in the family, in production teams, in the state, i.e. where there are real opportunities and the ability to influence people's behavior through any means. The dynamics of development of any organized community of people is a struggle between power and chaos.

In the broadest sense, power is always a strong-willed relationship of an individual to himself (power over himself), between individuals, groups, classes in society, between a citizen and the state, between an official and a subordinate, between states. It is realized in the sphere of personal and social activity - political, economic, legal.

Social (public) power - strong-willed (leadership - subordination) relations between people regarding the organization of their joint activities, the development and implementation of a common will (interest) for a given social team.

State power is a special kind of social power. If in a primitive society social power has a public (social) character, then in a class-organized society it is political. In the state we deal with political power. In the analysis of the political systems of society, power occupies the same place as money in economic systems: it has strong roots in the social and privacy citizens.

The ratio of political and state power:

“political power” and “state power” are identical concepts, since political power comes from the state and is exercised with its direct or indirect participation;

“Political power” and “state power” are not identical concepts, but any state power is political.

Indeed, political power is inextricably linked with state power, and finds its continuation in it. State power is the main/typical way of exercising political power.

Differences between political and state power are difficult to distinguish, but they exist:

1. Every state power has a political character, but not every political power is state power. An example would be the dual power in Russia in 1917 - the power of the Provisional Government and the power of the Soviets. Possessing political power, the Soviets at that time did not have independent state power. Another example is the political power in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, which ceased to be colonies of Portugal (before independence was declared in 1974 and 1975). Such power can be called pre-state. Only with time does it become state, acquires a general character.

2. State power plays the role of an arbitrator in relations between different social strata of society, softens their confrontation, and performs "common affairs". The state is the central institution of political power. The core of politics as a sphere of activity, which is connected with the relations between classes, nations and other social groups, is the problem of conquest, retention and use of state power.

Political activity not exhausted state activities. It is carried out within the framework of various political parties, trade unions, and international organizations. With the help of political power, the vital interests of large and influential groups of society (classes, nations, ethnic communities, etc.) are realized.

Unlike state power, the political power of a class or other social community is not capable of fulfilling the role of pacifier of the opposing forces of society or of carrying out “common affairs”.

3. Political and state power have different implementation mechanisms. State power is characterized by the presence of a control apparatus and an apparatus of coercion. It has an authoritative-coercive influence on the behavior of people and their organizations, provided by state-legal methods.

The political power of a class and other social community is exercised through: a) their organization (indirect way); b) political speeches (direct way). If the power of the class is realized with the help of the state apparatus, relying on the apparatus of coercion, we can speak of state power.

State power cannot be opposed to political power, since political power in society is inconceivable without the state. The state is the main universal accumulator of political power, because it has the ability to:

a) to give the interest (will) of the authorities a generally binding character;

b) use special bodies(apparatus) for its implementation;

c) apply coercion if necessary.

Political power - public, strong-willed (leadership - subordination) relations that develop between the subjects of the political system of society (including the state) on the basis of political and legal norms.

State power - public-political, strong-willed (leadership - subordination) relations that develop between the state apparatus and the subjects of the political system of society on the basis of legal norms, with support, if necessary, on state coercion. State power is relatively independent and forms the basis for the functioning of the state apparatus.