Legitimation of state power. What does the concept of "legitimacy" in the general sense and "legitimacy of political power" mean? What does the concept of legitimation of the state mean?

LEGITIMATING THE STATE

Legitimation of the state is a process, the result of which is the receipt by the state of the status of a legitimate state. Suppose there is a state in a country, this state is controlled by a monarch, and the state itself controls the population of the country (or country). The right of the monarch to govern the state is not questioned either by the subjects, or by the monarchs of neighboring and distant countries, or by the subjects of other monarchs. The right to exercise the government of the monarch from GOD, the monarch negotiates not with the Lord himself, but with his universally recognized representative, for example, the Pope. In the country of Russia, the tsar was crowned in the Orthodox Church. The population (people) had to consider as lawful all extortions of the state, all sorts of decrees and orders.
But at some historical moment in some countries, people suddenly felt that things were not so simple with monarchs and states. That the people themselves should have some rights, that it is they who can either recognize the states as legal, or deny them legality and overthrow the monarchs. It seems that the state can then be legal and have the right to violence when the people of the country give it this right. And not just a people, but a capable part of it - a part of the people, which is organized into a nation. To negotiate with the state, the nation must have the status of a legal entity. Only in this case two legal entities, one of which represents the state, and the other represents the nation of the country, can conclude a written agreement - the National Constitution. Any other situation, when, for example, the state issues laws, controls their implementation, judges for their violation and punishes them, is a situation where the state is not legitimate, i.e. illegal. It does not have a document, thanks to which it can be concluded that it has the right to rule the country and the right to violence.
Thus, peoples who achieve the state of statehood, but are not organized into a nation, do not have a legitimate state. Although in the recent past, states in countries without nations were legitimate, legal. And even earlier, principalities, kingdoms, empires were legal. In our time, states of such forms can be considered bandit and fraudulent states. They are based on force and can exist as long as they have the resources and means of violence to maintain power. The organization of the peoples of the country into a nation, the creation of a representative body of the nation that would organize and maintain the state of the country, is the legalization and legitimization of the state of the country, which becomes a national state. In such a country, not only nationalization is possible, but also nationalization. When nationalization is replaced by stateization, then this is simply a fraud that takes place under an illegal state.

“ARTICLE 15, part 3. Laws are subject to official publication. Unpublished laws do not apply. Any normative acts affecting the rights, freedoms and duties of a person and a citizen cannot be applied if they are not officially published for general information "(Reference edition, aniktamalyk basla, LAWS AND CODES, CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, as of 2014, LLC " Publishing house "Eksmo", M, 2014, p.5).
Where is the law located? What is the location of the law? Where to find the law? What does it mean to publish a law? This means organizing the production of certain writing media that will correspond to some original, which is also a writing medium. But a writing medium is a certain construction made of certain materials, for example, it is a construction made of paper and compounds introduced into the paper, for example, ink. It can be accurately stated (or denied?) that there can be no law in any construction made of paper and ink. The law is what the user of the construction receives in himself and considers the law. Thus, the law can be exclusively in a person as some of his body structure, which determines the nature of his activity in certain situations. Each individual has his own law. The harmonization of individual laws is carried out with the help of certain means, which can be identified by users with the law, taken for a law that exists independently of them. This inadequacy of people is the basis of their management. Thus, the violence of one over the other is hidden for a person by his own installation, according to which there is a law that everyone must comply with.
"ARTICLE 17 1. The Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in accordance with the generally accepted principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution" - (corresponds to the publications of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
The reason for applying to external international organizations for citizens of the Russian Federation is the fact that they do not have their representative body of power, which could be used by them in case of a conflict with their own state. Consequently, the appeal of a capable and active part of citizens to international organizations in the event of a conflict with their own state is justified. If the Russian Federation wants to change this situation, it must necessarily initiate its own nationalization - initiate the organization of citizens into a nation, initiate the creation of a representative body of the nation and subordinate itself economically and politically to this body.

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.

The legitimization of state power is the acceptance of power by the population of the country, the recognition of its right to manage social processes, the readiness to obey it. Legitimation cannot be universal, since there will always be certain social strata in the country who are dissatisfied with the existing government. Legitimation cannot be imposed, since it is associated 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, and their protection.

39. The concept of the state apparatus (GA).

GA, covering all state bodies, directly personifies the state, being its material embodiment. Outside and without GA there is not and cannot be a state. The concept of GA is usually used in 2 senses - broad and narrow. In a narrow sense, GA is understood as an apparatus government controlled. It is in this sense that the term "GA" is used in the science of administrative law as a set of executive-administrative, administrative bodies. In a broad sense, the GA is the totality of all state bodies (GA=mechanism of the state). In TGP, it is usually used in a broad sense (unless otherwise noted). The concept of GA is revealed through characteristic features that make it possible to distinguish it from non-state structures in political system society, and individual bodies:

1. GA is a system of state bodies based on the unity of the principles of its organization and activities;

2. a complex structure that reflects a certain place that various groups of state bodies occupy in it. It is necessary to take into account what system-forming factor of the GA structure is enshrined in the constitution. Article 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is the fundamental principle of the separation of powers. Art. 12 K-and the Russian Federation: local governments are not included in the system of state authorities;

3. The functions of the state are carried out with the help of the GA - through the activities of the entire system of state bodies. At the same time, the structure of the GA bodies, the emergence, development and content of the activities of the GA bodies depend on the functions of the state;

4. To ensure the fulfillment of the tasks assigned to it for managing the affairs of society + performing the functions of the state, the GA has the necessary material resources, on which individual state bodies rely in their activities. Their peculiarity is that they stand out in the GA not as independent parts, but only as “material appendages”. These include: various material values, budgetary funds, property, facilities, utility rooms, organizations. But! they do not include local governments, political parties, trade unions and other public associations.

That. The GA is a system of state bodies permeated with uniform, legislatively fixed principles, based on the principle of separation of powers and having the necessary material resources, through which the functions of the state are carried out.

40. Principles of organization and activity of the state apparatus (GA).

These principles are the starting points, ideas and requirements that underlie the formation, organization and functioning of the GA. All principles are divided into: general (refer to GA as a whole) + private (act on separate groups of state bodies). Particular ultimately stem from the general, concretize them in relation to individual parts of the GA. General principles - two groups: enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and enshrined in the FKZ and the Federal Law.

1st group:

1) The principle of democracy - is manifested in the democratic organization of the state, the republican form of government, in which the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.

2) The principle of humanism - the Russian Federation is a social state, the activity of the GA of which is aimed at satisfying the spiritual and material needs of the individual, ensuring the well-being of man and society.

3) The principle of separation of powers - state power is exercised on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial, provides for the independence of bodies belonging to different branches of government. This principle is the systematizing factor of GA.

4) The principle of federalism - the Russian Federation consists of equal (formally) subjects, the equality of which is manifested both in relations with federal bodies and with bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation. To-I of the Russian Federation, federal and other agreements - the delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

5) The principle of legality - the requirement of universal observance and application of the laws of the Russian Federation. Requirements for the GA: the rule of law and the direct effect of constitutionally enshrined rights and freedoms of man and citizen; implementation of all state-power functions solely on the basis of laws and their corresponding by-laws; suppression of any violations of the law, as well as the inevitability of responsibility for their commission.

2nd group:

Considered general principles, expressed in the K-and RF, receive their reinforcement, concretization and development in the second group of principles enshrined in the FKZ and the Federal Law. The second group received a complex expression in the Federal Law "On the Basics public service RF":

1) the supremacy of the Constitutional Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law over other n / a acts;

2) the priority of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, their direct effect; the obligation of civil servants to recognize, observe and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen;

3) equal access of citizens of the Russian Federation to public service in accordance with their abilities and professional training;

4) binding for civil servants of decisions of higher state bodies and managers within their powers and on the basis of the legislation of the Russian Federation;

5) professionalism and competence of civil servants;

6) publicity in the performance of public service;

7) the responsibility of civil servants for the decisions they make, non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of their official duties; and etc.

The listed principles of the formation and activity of the GA as a system of state bodies give the GA the purposefulness, unity and integrity necessary for its successful functioning.

41. The concept of state apparatus (OSA).

RSA - part of the state apparatus (GA), its main cell.

Signs:

1. powers of authority - legally fixed opportunities to exercise state power, make legally significant decisions on behalf of the state and ensure their implementation - the most important feature;

2. economic and organizational isolation and independence;

3. fulfillment, in accordance with its competence, of certain functions - the functions of the state;

4. possession of the necessary material resources - various kinds of material values, organizations, enterprises, institutions;

5. The physical embodiment of the RSA - civil servants.

The considered signs in their totality reveal the concept of the OGA, allow us to formulate its definition:

RSA- it is a legally formalized, organizational and economic separate part of the GA, consisting of civil servants, endowed with state-power powers and the necessary material means to carry out certain tasks and functions of the state within its competence.

The heterogeneity and complexity of GA activities entails big number RSA.

42. Classification of the bodies of the state apparatus (OSA)

Classification:

According to the legal source of legitimacy -

1) bodies established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law, constitutions and charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (President, Government, etc.) - primary bodies and

2) bodies established in the manner prescribed by law to ensure the exercise of the powers of primary bodies - secondary bodies;

Based on the principle of separation of powers:

1) legislative,

2) executive,

By action in space:

1) federal,

2) bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation;

By duration:

1) permanent,

2) temporary;

According to the principle of personal composition:

1) collective,

2) presented by one person.

43. State (G) and civil society (CS).

Genesis of GO - "Politics" of Aristotle, "State" of Plato, other ancient Greek teachings. The continuation is the Renaissance (Grotius, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, J. J. Rousseau), but the term GO itself has been used only since the 18th century (before that it was not used, because G = society) . However, even later, the distinction between these concepts was not made: the state is a form of organization of society. Only Kant, Hegel, Marx distinguished them. The institution of citizenship arose and received political and legal recognition only in the bourgeois era under the influence of natural human rights and the need for their legal protection. But this is only the formal side of the issue. In essence, the term GO has acquired its own special content in the literature and in the modern interpretation expresses a certain type of society, its socio-economic, political and legal nature, degree of development, completeness. Civil society is understood as a society that meets a number of criteria developed by history. This is a higher stage in the development of a social community, a measure of its maturity, rationality, justice.

GO principles:

1. Economic freedom, variety of forms of ownership, market relations;

2. Recognition and protection of the natural rights of man and citizen;

3. Legitimacy and democratic nature of power;

4. Equality of all before the law and justice, legal security of the individual;

5. Legal state based on the principle of separation and interaction of powers;

6. Political and ideological pluralism, presence of legal opposition;

7. Freedom of speech and press, independence of the media;

8. State intervention in privacy citizens, their mutual duties and responsibilities;

9. Class peace, partnership and national harmony;

10. Effective social policy.

That. the regulatory role of the state is reduced to a minimum: the protection of law and order, the fight against crime, the creation of normal conditions for property owners, the exercise by them of their rights and freedoms, activity and enterprise. At the same time, the activity of the state itself should proceed in democratic legal forms, be directed to the protection of human rights; there should be liberal legislation, soft methods of legal regulation, the guarantee of which is civil defense. And the duties of citizens to the state are reduced to law-abiding and paying taxes. Civil defense involves the denationalization of many aspects of his life, which, however, does not mean that it does not need statehood at all - the state must simply find its place in it, abandoning the totalitarian methods of legal regulation. GO exists, develops and functions in dialectical unity and contradiction with the state. Collisions are possible in their relations, but in any case, the state cannot interfere in the private life of people. GO and G should not oppose each other, but interact harmoniously. That. GO - a set of non-state and non-political relations (economic, social, cultural, etc.) that form a special sphere of specific interests of free owners and their associations.

44. Rule of law (PG): concept and principles.

PG (according to Matuzov and Malko) is an organization of political power that creates conditions for the most complete provision of human and civil rights and freedoms, as well as for the most consistent binding of state power with the help of law in order to prevent abuse. There are 2 main elements in the idea of ​​GHG:

1. Freedom of a person, the most complete provision of his rights;

2. Restriction of the rights of state power.

Philosophically, freedom can be defined as a person's ability to act in accordance with their interests, based on the knowledge of objective necessity. In PG, in relation to a person, it is necessary to create conditions for his legal freedom, a kind of mechanism of legal incentives, which is based on the principle “what is not prohibited by law is permitted”. Man as an autonomous subject is free to dispose of his forces, abilities, property. Law, being a form and measure of freedom, should maximize the boundaries of the limitations of the individual. Human rights and GHGs are characterized by common patterns of emergence and functioning, since they can exist and operate effectively only if they interact. Both phenomena are based on law, although the role of the latter for them is practically directly opposite, but at the same time internally one. This indicates that the connecting link between a person and the state should be precisely the right, and the relationship between them is truly legal. It is in the limitation of the law of the state that the essence of GHG lies. Here law acts as the antipode of arbitrariness and as a barrier on its way.

GHG principles:

1. The most complete provision of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen;

2. The most consistent binding of political power with the help of law, the formation of a regime of legal restriction for state structures;

3. Separation of powers;

4. Federalism;

5. Rule of law;

6. Mutual responsibility of the individual and the state;

7. High level of legal awareness and legal culture;

8. The presence of civil society and the exercise of control on its part over the implementation of laws by all subjects of law, etc.

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 to the Chechen war of 1994-1995, etc.) sharply raise the issue of state power, its legality and legitimacy in society. that is, 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 e. 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 different 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 temporary 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). Monarchs single-handedly "granted" constitutions to "their faithful people" (Nepal, Saudi Arabia and 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 an 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 true situation. Thus, if democratic procedures for adopting a constitution or other acts of constitutional significance are violated, 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 humane values ​​of mankind, a 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 factual, although legal elements may be its integral part. In essence, the Confucians proceeded from this in their dispute with the aforementioned legalists; supporters of both secular and spiritual authorities had in mind it, 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. Recognition of state power, its actions as legitimate is formed on the basis of sensory perception, experience, rational assessment. It is not based on external signs (although, for example, the oratorical abilities of leaders can have a significant impact on the public, contributing to the establishment of charismatic power), but on internal incentives, internal incentives. "The legitimation of state power is not associated 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 of the state power; its bodies of 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 opening a "good" constitution by a monarch to 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 is the belief of people that their goods depend on

from the preservation and support of this order, this state power, the conviction that. That they express the interests of the people. Therefore, the legitimization 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 not legitimate 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 legitimation is not associated with the approval of the whole society (this is an extremely rare option), but with the acceptance of it 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 legitimization 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 legitimation of the state power, the wider the possibilities of managing society with minimal "power" costs and expenditures of "administrative 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. The majority of Germans under the Hitler regime adopted a policy of "racial cleansing" and 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 and the people, on the other. From here, as evidenced by systematic surveys of the population, the erosion of the legitimacy of state power in Russia (legitimacy was high after August 1991) results, while maintaining its legalization: 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 comply with the norms of justice, general democratic values, and 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 another legitimation occurs in the course of revolutionary events, national liberation movements. Anti-state, insurgent, central state power that has developed in the liberated areas, which. then becomes state power. This is how events unfolded in China, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, and 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, if not the majority, of the population supports state power that satisfies some of its current interests to the detriment of its fundamental 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 the legal analysis of the preparation and adoption of the constitution, with the study of the decisions of constitutional courts and other bodies of constitutional control, the analysis of the data of elections and referendums ... Less attention is paid to the content of constitutional acts, the nature of the activities of state power, the comparison of programs of political parties and that policy, carried out 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. In 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 the adoption of a constitution in itself indicates, as a rule, a certain stability of state power, the methods of preparing and adopting a basic law do not always correspond to the requirements of genuine legalization.

The drafting of the 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 when preparing the Constitution of 1947, India when drafting the Constitution of 1950) or parliament (Constitution of Sri Lanka 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, the government. Draft Constitution of France of 1958 (in addition to this text, the French Constitution includes two more documents - the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789, and the preamble of the Constitution of 1946) was prepared by a constitutional commission ... appointed by the government, and submitted to a referendum, bypassing parliament. AT; The FRG 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 government-appointed commissions, 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 Colonies (Nigeria in 1964) by local authorities with the participation of advisers from the metropolis (Madagascar in 1960), at meetings of "round tables" where representatives of parties or national liberation movements were present, and led meetings of 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 and 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 (USSR, Cuba, Benin, Ethiopia, etc.), as a result of the discussion by the people, substantial, and in some cases very important, amendments were made to the draft.

o 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 is 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 a draft, but with the procedures for adopting a constitution and its content. One of the most democratic ways is considered to be 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, etc. However, the Constituent Assembly is not always, as noted, formed by 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, for the purposes of adopting a constitution, some of these parliaments declare themselves Constituent Assemblies (for example, in Tanzania in 1977), and then continue to work as usual 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. Thus, the Constitutions of France in 1958, Egypt in 1971, Cuba in 1976, France in 1967, Russia in 1993 were adopted. In practice, however, the referendum can be used in different ways. Without a preliminary discussion of the draft in parliament, it can be difficult for the population 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 highest bodies of the ruling parties in the 70s and 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 Covenants on Human Rights 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 political power of the only allowed 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, but by their nature, authorities often arrange meetings and conferences with prominent representatives of the intelligentsia, organize visits to various regions of the country, meetings with enterprise teams, etc. for influential journalists. The purpose of these events is to find support, primarily through actions, but also through 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 have importance to legitimize 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 head of the Church of England ( component 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 will create a special image. In the past, this was a belief in a "good tsar" capable of delivering 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, occupation is associated with charisma. the most important state post of prime minister by representatives of the Gandhi family - Nehru (father, then daughter, and after her murder - son). The same generation was and is in power in Sri Lanka (Banderanaix's father, then his wife, now the president is their daughter, and his mother is the prime minister).

To strengthen charisma, special rituals are widely used: torchlight processions of demonstrations in support of power in a special uniform, the coronation of a monarch. The rational legitimation of state power is based on a rational assessment 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 (in modern Russia many good laws are not enforced), and above all, the practical activities of state authorities, officials, especially senior officials, serve as the basis for rational assessment.

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 and 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 elections. supreme bodies states. 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 legitimation of these bodies, we are talking only about the forms of legitimation established by 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 is decisive or consultative, but in any case, if voters approve the constitution or support government measures, the referendum legitimizes power. The strength of the 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 answer of at least 50% of the votes (according to the South African Constitution of 1984, 2/3 of the votes are required), while elections in a number of countries are recognized as valid with a turnout of 25% of voters (France, Russia) and a majoritarian 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 compared to another candidate.

(It is important for the legitimation of state power to sign 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 respects 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 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, designed to reduce friction between the branches of government and thus give it more legitimacy in the opinions 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 developed new rules for organizing state 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.

Legalization- confirmation of the authenticity of the signatures of competent officials on the documents.

Government is usually legal authority(legalized). It is based on law, legal (legal) laws. Its carriers, subjects and objects, as members of a certain state, have certain legal rights and obligations. Their activity and relations are regulated by the laws adopted in this state, as well as by the norms of international law. The rights and obligations of subjects and objects of state power are characterized by appropriate legitimacy. They are recognized by all the members of a given state and by other states, by their majority or a decisive part of them. This legitimacy differs from legitimacy, which is based only on personal, or personal, qualities and "emotional devotion" of subjects and objects of power, or on their belief in the significance of such "conventions" as the norms of party life and other public associations, public opinion customs, customs, traditions, moral norms. Members of the state believe, in particular, in the importance of the rights and obligations of its other members to appropriate, retain, transform, regulate and use state power in certain interests. It is on the faith of the members of the state in the significance of laws that the legitimacy of modern state authorities and powerful state institutions, subjects of state power and employees of the state apparatus, their rights and obligations, the legitimacy of the state power itself is based, first of all.

The legitimacy of state power can be established in a variety of forms and in a variety of ways. In the Middle Ages, in order to look like the legitimate successors to the power of their predecessors, emperors, kings, kings and other reigning persons, and after them all the nobles, led, and sometimes invented or forged, the corresponding genealogies. State power and its highest subjects - emperors, kings, tsars, as a rule, were consecrated by the church. This gave them a status given by God.

Today, one of the most common forms of establishing the legality and, consequently, the legitimacy of the power of officials in the state is their election by its citizens. In order to fulfill this role, the elections themselves must be legitimate, including legal ones, must be held in accordance with the procedure established by law and recognized by the majority of the members of the state. Violation of the electoral procedures established by law calls into question the legality of officials elected by these procedures.

Legitimation- proof of the citizen's rights to receive payment, perform any actions, etc.

The term "legitimacy" itself is sometimes translated from French as "legality" or "legitimacy". This translation is not entirely accurate. Legality, accepted as an action through the law and in accordance with it, is reflected in the category of "legality". "Legitimacy" and "legality" are close, but not identical concepts. The first of them is evaluative, ethical and political in nature, the second is legal and ethically neutral. Any power, even if not popular, is legal. At the same time, it may not be legitimate, that is, it may not be accepted by the people, legislate at its own discretion and use them as an instrument of organized violence. In society, there can be not only non-legitimate, but also illegal power, for example, the power of mafia structures.

Today, the prevailing point of view is that the basis of legitimacy is the belief in the legitimacy of a given system. The conclusion about the existence of conviction can be made, first of all, on the basis of the free expression of their will by citizens. The stability of the system in a particular country can also be seen as a sign of the legitimacy of power. Power becomes legitimate due to its achievement of stability, certainty, the establishment of order. And vice versa, the government, formed democratically, but not able to prevent civil and interethnic wars, confrontation between the center and places, a "parade" of sovereignties, is not legitimate.

In a society undergoing a transitional state, a change of power, legitimacy exists rather as a problem, in an established society it exists as a natural quality of political relations. Speaking about state power as an object of legitimacy, it is necessary to focus on the concept of “power”. This concept is one of the widely used, with all the heterogeneity and ambiguity of this concept, one can, however, note one unifying characteristic of its many definitions - they all reflect relationships in which the will and actions of some dominate over the will and actions of others. Power is one of the main and most capacious concepts, which is confirmed both by the absence in modern political thought of one generally recognized definition of it, and by the variety of concepts of power.

Power is the main object of desires and interactions of groups, communities, organizations. But power turns out to be the most mysterious phenomenon in politics, the nature of which is not easy to reveal. Indeed, what is power - an abstraction, a symbol or a real action? After all, one can talk about the power of a person, organization, society, but at the same time about the power of ideas, words, laws. What makes a person, a society to obey someone or something - the fear of violence or the desire to obey? For all its mystery and uncertainty, the authorities did not leave anyone indifferent to themselves: they admired her and cursed her, she was elevated to heaven and "trampled into the mud."

In political literature, the correct definition of power is the definition given by the famous scientist Max Weber, who believed that power is “the possibility that one person within a social relationship will be able to exercise his will, despite resistance and regardless of what such opportunity is founded.” The political science dictionary defines power as “a strong-willed special relationship of the subject to the object of this relationship. It consists in an impulse to act, which the second subject must perform at the request of the first. Power, therefore, is seen as a special relation of domination, as a way of influencing someone, as “power over”, as coercion, as force. With the democratization of society, power began to be viewed not only as domination, but also as an attitude of subjects based on conviction, authority, as the ability to reach an agreement and resolve conflicts. Thus, power is also interpreted as a symbolic means of social communication.

The essence of power lies in the fact that this is a specific relationship of the subject to himself (power over himself), between subjects, which involves a certain interaction between them (power can be approved, tolerated or resisted), within which the ruling subject realizes his will and interests. The power based only on force, according to B. Russell, is “naked power”.

Legitimacy is a basic element of the existence and functioning of state power, as well as its consolidation in society. Everything in the life of society has a beginning. There is a beginning and the state power that dominates in a particular country. As historical experience shows, much depends on what this beginning was in its further fate. In most cases, state power can be formed as a result of free democratic elections, but it can also be the result of a military coup or political revolution, which will be a terrible tragedy for many sections of the population and will claim millions or more human lives and may completely destroy the economy of the country.

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 (monarch meetings) 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 legitimization of the state authorities in countries where the system of Anglo-Saxon law operates.Judicial precedent is one of the expressions of the strength 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 from churches 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 will create a special image. In the past, this was a belief in a "good tsar" capable of delivering 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, occupation is associated with charisma. the most important state post of prime minister by representatives of the Gandhi family - Nehru (father, then daughter, and after her murder - son). The same generation was and is in power in Sri Lanka (Banderanaix's father, then his wife, now the president is their daughter, and his mother is the prime minister).

To strengthen charisma, special rituals are widely used: torchlight processions of demonstrations in support of power in a special uniform, the coronation of a monarch. The rational legitimation of state power is based on a rational assessment 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 (in modern Russia, many good laws are not enforced), but, above all, the practical activities of state authorities, officials, especially senior ones, serve as the basis rational assessment.

Tragedies, closely linked to the establishment of power, the people do not forget and remember. Decades pass, generations change, but the feeling of distrust of the people in the authorities that illegally led the country remains ineradicable, the relationship between the ruling and the masses is based, as a rule, on the fear of the latter.

People have different attitudes towards power, originally legal, officially recognized by society itself and foreign states. Such an initial legal formation of power contributes to the approval of consent in relation to society and political power, the recognition by society, the people, of its right to a managerial role. It should be noted that in itself, the initially legal establishment of power is not always a guarantee that in the future this political power will fully justify the trust of the people. There are numerous examples of bitter disappointment in society. There are a lot of such examples, including in the history of Russia there are a lot of such examples, especially in recent years.

So, the recognition by society of the legitimacy, legitimacy of official power is its fundamental characteristic. Speaking about legitimacy, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that we are talking about public recognition of power, about the trust and support that society and the people provide to it, and not about the legal, legal consolidation of political power in the relevant state documents. It is not difficult for those who have taken power into their own hands to obtain legal, legal legitimacy. Therefore, the price of such a formal recognition of power is not so great in comparison with the recognition of state power by the people, i.e. legitimacy of state power. Accordingly, one should distinguish between the concepts of "legitimate power" (public recognition of its legitimacy) and "legal power" (legal, formal consolidation).

In modern conditions, the legalization of state power means the establishment, recognition, support of this power by law, primarily by the Constitution; reliance on law.

Legalization of state power - this is a legal declaration and consolidation of the legality of its occurrence (establishment), organization and activity:

1. 
   
   1. its origin must be legal (usurpation, seizure of state power, its appropriation are illegal);
   
   
   2. the organization of power must be legal (in a modern state it is established by the constitution, other laws and cannot be carried out without the direct participation of the people - elections, a referendum, etc.);
   
   
   3. should be legal scope of authority state power, the range of relations that state power has the right and can regulate;
   
   
   4. should be legal forms and methods of implementation authorities, activities of state power (they should be based on the application of the rule of law, taking into account universal values).
   
   

Under normal conditions, the legalization of state power is carried out primarily by constitutions adopted democratically (at a referendum, by a constituent (constitutional) assembly, etc.).

The legalization of public authorities, the procedure for their creation, and activities is also carried out by other legal acts: laws (for example, laws on elections of the State Duma and the President of the Russian Federation), presidential decrees (for example, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation approved provisions on the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and etc.), government resolutions, resolutions of constitutional control bodies.

Under anti-democratic regimes, constitutions can only be adopted by outwardly democratic methods. The legalization of state power under such conditions would be illusory.

Legitimation of state power

Legitimacy - essential property of state power.

legitimacy- this is a form of support, justification of the legitimacy of the use of power and the implementation of a specific form of government either by the state as a whole or by its individual structures.

Legitimacy began to mean not only the legality of the origin and method of establishing power, but also such a state of power when citizens (subjects) of the state recognize (agree, are convinced) the right of this power to prescribe one or another way of behavior. It also follows from the latter that the existing state institutions at least no worse than any other possible institutions, and therefore they must be obeyed.

legitimacy

• 
  
  • in a broad sense- this is the acceptance of power by the population of the country, the recognition of its right to manage social processes, the readiness to obey it;
  
  
  • in a narrow sense, legitimate authority is recognized as legitimate, formed in accordance with the procedure provided for by legal norms.
  
  

Thus, one should distinguish

1. 
   
   1. Legitimacy of the primary source of power(the ruling subject) is reflected and legally enshrined in the constitution of the country. So, paragraph 1 of Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: "The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people."
   
   
   2. Legitimacy of representative bodies- on the basis of holding elections provided for and regulated by law; these bodies receive power directly from the source of power.
   
   
   3. Legitimacy of governing bodies- through competitive selection, their appointment most often by representative bodies and in the manner prescribed by law.
   
   

The powers exercised by state bodies, methods of activity, especially the method of state coercion, must also be legitimate.

According to Max Weber's classical theory, legitimacy is characterized by two fundamental features:

1. 
   
   1. recognition of the power exercised by the existing institutions of the state;
   
   
   2. the obligation of individuals to obey it.
   
   

Simultaneously essential characteristic of legitimacy is that this is precisely the idea (belief) of citizens about state power present in their minds.

Legitimacy and legality of power are not the same concepts:

• 
  
  • legality means the legal justification of power, its compliance with legal norms, which is its legal characteristic,
  
  
  • legitimacy is the trust and justification of power, which is its moral characteristic.
  
  

Any government that issues laws, even unpopular ones, but ensures their implementation, is legal, at the same time it can be illegitimate, not accepted by the people.

At all times, the subject of constant concern of the ruling elites is the legitimization of their power and policies, i.e. ensuring their recognition and approval by those under their control. In order to achieve strengthening of their support by society, they seek to influence people's minds by all means - ideological, scientific, legal, moral, emotional and psychological, etc.

The degree of legitimacy of state power can be judged by:

• 
  
  • by the level of coercion necessary to carry out a particular policy in society;
  
  
  • on quantitative and qualitative analysis of attempts to overthrow the rulers;
  
  
  • by social tension, the strength of the manifestation of civil disobedience, riots, uprisings, etc.;
  
  
  • according to the results of the elections;
  
  
  • by mass demonstrations, sudden manifestations of support or, on the contrary, opposition to the existing regime, etc.