In most modern countries,there is a legal-rational type of legitimacy of power, based on faith in the authenticityof formal rules and the need for their implementation. It is based on the beliefin the legality of the holders of power. Individuals are subject to establishedlaws, and managers act in strict accordance with laws on strictly rational schemes.
Political power legitimacyis usually won by ideological and economic means. In traditional and authoritariansocieties, it is achieved primarily through means of ideological influence. Thus,in traditional societies, religion is the primary tool for legitimizing religion,which justifies the divine right of monarchs to power, and ensures recognition ofpower by the population. In authoritarian societies, political, socio-economic ideologyplays a decisive role in the legitimization of power.
In such societies, the powerto legitimize the regime actively uses democratic phraseology, but “such regimeseventually lose legitimacy, as this or that election is made, promises are not fulfilled,frustration is being developed.”Certainly, during the yearsof V.V. Putin’s legitimacy of political power in Russia has greatly increased. Theprocess of legitimizing power, restoring confidence in it was promoted by such factorsas relative prosperity in the economy, raising the standard of living of the population,recreating the security atmosphere, strengthening Russia’s international positions,skilful ideological processing of the masses, etc. However, the achieved level oflegitimacy contradicts the spirit and nature of legal-rationalist legitimacy, becauseit is based on a low level of development of political culture, manipulation ofpublic consciousness, as well as a development model proposed to society, whichinvolves the exchange of democratic freedoms for relative economic well-being.
The poll from the Russian non-governmentalresearch organization Levada Center on June 24 confirms the popularity amongthe public of Vladimir Putin, despite the war in Ukraine on the border withRussia, economic problems and Western sanctions. This year the record was setat 89 percent, in addition 64 percent of respondents approved the politicalcourse of Putin. In contrast Putin’srecord rating, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is satisfied with only 66 percentof public supporters, and the second trusted man after Vladimir Putin’s in thecountry according to a poll, is a Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. For a system with weak institutions,an inert society, corruption and bad faith in the rule of law, Putin’s highrating is a key source of legitimacy.
The high rating not only justifies theregime’s authoritarianism, but also protects it from a palace coup, so it isnecessary that the elite of the government maintain this rating high. TheKremlin does this by taking action, mobilizing the population on behalf of theleader and using its control over the media to form public views of Putin. “Faith in the rating supersedes all. Politicalinstitutions, ideologies, in fact, the state itself,” political scientistAleksandr Kynev said in a recent article.
Putin and his image-makers no doubtre-member the rapid drop in Boris Yeltsin’s standing and crisis of the late1990s. According to one recent study, someRussians perceive political power differently than people in the West: Russianssee the tsar as distant, almost sacral, they appeal to him to make things rightin a system over which they have no control. Putin’s high rating does notnecessarily mean that the Russian people love him, it rather means that heplays his role perfectly. In 2003, there were three key eventsthat became a turning point in Russia’s transition to authoritarianism. InJune, the press minister withdrew TVS from the air, the last nationwideindependent television channel of Russia, explaining his decision as”defending the interests of spectators”. In October, MikhailKhodorkovsky was arrested: the Yukos case would signal a ban on independentpolitical and civil activities for business and would destroy any remainingillusions about the independence of the Russian judicial system.
The latest andnot unimportant event was elections that did not meet democratic standards,according to the OSCE.1 1. The crisis of legitimacy of political parties and the fightagainst it In our time, much is saidabout the crisis of power : political partiesthat promise to resolve it in case of coming to power. It seems that this crisisis rooted only in individuals who occupy state posts.
But historical examples showthat overcoming the crisis of power is the result of the long creative activityof the whole society. In connection with the problem of crisis, the most interestingaspect is the power aspect, called legitimacy in science.The legitimate authorityis recognized, the legitimacy of which is justified by some higher sanction. Isthe authority recognized as God-established (in the Russian and Western EuropeanMiddle Ages), subordinate to the body of laws existing in thestate (the so-called rule-of-law state); or the corresponding opinion of the people(the democracy) – all this is the ground of legitimacy.Legitimacy presupposesa long-term unanimous agreement of society in relation to the authorities and theirinstitutions. It also includes, among other things, unofficial approval of powerby the people, recognition of this power by the people and justification of actionsfor the exercise of power2.
The crisis of the legitimacyof political parties in Russia from a civilizational point of view was caused bythe crisis of etatism and paternalism, as the basic principles of the normativevalue system merging into Russian civilization with statehood. On the social level,the crisis of legitimacy of political parties in Russia is due, on the one hand,to skepticism and discontent of a large part of the population by the activitiesof the state authorities, as well as political parties representing specific interestgroups; on the other hand, the weakness of the government itself, its inabilityto effectively address the pressing problems of modern Russian reality.As A.V.
Lubsky points out,Russia has a situation described in the theories of “state overload” (Brittenand Nordhaus), “the law of the crisis” (Habermas). These theories explainthe fall in the legitimacy of political parties by two circumstances: first, bythe fact that state power assumes far more obligations than it is able to fulfill;and secondly, the fact that in the pre-election campaigns the government and theparties, give much more promises than they can fulfill. Irresponsibility of thegovernment, parties, political leaders leads to disillusionment and skepticism inthe mass consciousness, and to the politicalpower’s loss of legitimacy3.Political power, in orderto be legitimate, must correspond more or less to different cultural types, inRussia, for example: archaic – the Old Russian folk type; traditionalist – Orthodox-Slavicand socio-socialist; sovremennomu – liberal-western type of culture.In a modern State, thereis a need for moral policy.
In the country there is a situation when in the publicopinion the idea that all the difficulties experienced by the country is directlyrelated to dishonesty, fraud, corruption and warfare at all levels of the socio-politicalhierarchy begins to prevail, which is confirmed by corruption scandals in powerstructures. On the wave of massive moral indignation, the idea is born that it isworth putting an end to plundering the country and plundering the people, how everythingwill be adjusted and all problems will be solved by themselves.A number of circumstancesencourages people to view the power of political parties through the prism of moralvalues: a low standard of living for a significant part of the population, whichcauses discomfort, irritation and anger; confidence in the fact that political powerloses the ability to change anything “from above”; the conviction of societyin non-participation in “troubles” and “turmoil” in the country;The presence in society of demagogic political forces and figures who denounce theimmorality of politicians in power. A significant part of the population in ourcountry begins to turn to the idea of “honesty” of power as the only possiblemeans to establish life and bring order to the country4. 5For the most comprehensive ideaabout the level of legitimacy in modern Russia, I will analyze a survey data bythe ANO Levada Center between 1994 and 2016. According to a survey,it can be concluded that in general during the period from 1994 to 2000 trust placed in the President has been rapidly declining, but this rate hassoared to 63,5% after V.
V. Putin came to power in 2000. Relatively steady hasremained the trust in State institutions, such as Federation Council, StateDuma and even less in political parties.
This is partly explained by the traditionalpersonal authority in Russia (paternalism and etatism). But what’s the point oferosion of the credibility of the government components, except president Putinin person? It seems that the main reason for theinability of political parties to fulfill their social functions is the gap betweenthe government and the people. But this gap is not only due to power, which is evidenceof a unilateral approach. Power becomes the same as a person does, based on hisneeds, understanding of the essence of power and the corresponding expectationsfrom it.
The government must manage adequatelythe requirements that are imposed on it in accordance with the dynamic and qualitativechanges of the modern world. Most countries are moving to a new stage of socialself-organization, with increased demands on the individual, state and public institutions.Due to new tasks, the system of power must be built in such a way as not to suppressthe diversity of interests in society, to strive for the consent and solidarityof all its members, and citizens should show tolerance to each other and mutualunderstanding.
To a greater extent, thelegitimacy of political parties has been acquired through the legal way of formingpower institutions. Political power, which has found support among the populationof the country, has a chance to be effective in its political, economic and socialactivities, as it enjoys support, authority and does not encounter opposition inits functioning.Legitim?cy ?ttr?cts attenti?nwhen its crisis arises.
The crisis of legitim?cy is devel?ped, on the part of the pe?ple, in m?ss opposition to p?wer, and in an ?ttempt to ?verthrow the government.?hestrength?ning of c??rci?n, the represent?tive`s loss of the belief in the legitim?cy of the exercise of authorities power theseare ?lear signs ?fa crisis of ?uthoritieslegitim?cy. Trust in the EU, national governments andnational legislatives alike has fall straight down to record lows, since theeconomic crisis in 2007.6 Nick Perks, TrustSecretary of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust speaks about the reasons whypeople were losing trust in politics: “I think there are probably differentreasons for that. I think we’re becoming more suspicious of authoritygenerally. I think if you were 100 years ago, or 500 years ago, we lived invery hierarchical societies where decision-makers, whether that was politics orin the church, had a lot of power and people didn’t tend to question authority.
And I think in the modern era we tend to question authority, and so I thinkthat’s one of the driving factors. Then there have been examples of poor behaviorby politicians and decision-makers. And, I think there’s also something of acycle of distrust; the media tends to run stories about politicians whenthey’re not behaving well, and it makes it more difficult to build a positiverelationship between ordinary people and decision-makers.”7 Resolution of the crisis of legitimacy in eachspecific case, of course, individually.
But this is always the same problem. This is the restoration of the basisof legitimacy. The people are not rebelling because they don’t live well, but because they don’t believe that power is based on the idea thatit considers legitimate8.The course of the crisisof legitimacy is often complicated by the fact that different groups of rulers andsubordinates have different criteria for legitimacy. The criterion of legitimacyis a way of testing the legitimacy of the ruler and his actions. When a societyrecognizes the same basis of legitimacy, the criteria may be different.
And if thereis no unanimity about the grounds for legitimacy, then the chaos of anarchy in societyis assured.But in the presence ofa crisis, it is important not only to disclose its causes, but also to overcomeit. Conclusion Thus, we can draw the followingconclusions.The realities in modern Russiaare such that authoritarian tendencies are growing in its political life. The manifestationsof these tendencies include the narrowing of the political field, the reductionof political competition, the lack of conditions for the formation of a multi-partysystem, the corruption of the elite, the distrust of business to the state, therevision and elimination of some elements of direct democracy.
Objectively, thesefactors reinforce paternalistic sentiments and contribute to the personificationof political parties’power. In turn, personalized power, as world experience shows,needs major political, economic, social projects, rituals, and new symbols, includinga linguistic one. As such, in modern Russia, the direct video bridge of the presidentwith the population of the country, the gathering of young people on Seliger, toughrhetoric of the state, international image events (Universiade, Olympiad, the plannedWorld Cup, etc.) have become regular. Undoubtedly, not all the above-mentionedmeasures are without positive significance, but at the same time they are just acover for real policies based on “manual management” of the state andsociety.The political stabilityof the system as a whole—thus will be determined to a significant degree bywhether his popular standing begins to drift significantly downward in thecoming months, either as the patriotic fervor resulting from the invasion ofUkraine fades or economic problems mount.
Further development of Russia, it shouldbe assumed, will continue along the path of strengthening the authoritarian regimeand minimizing political competition. All possible channels of influence on publicconsciousness will link the well-being of Russia for many years to come with a personalizedpower, the need to combat internal and external enemies. To this end, the optionof a partial revision of the results of the privatization of the 1990s, the encouragementof moderate nationalism, is not excluded.
On this wave, mass consciousness, formedby authoritarianism, can easily take any, even not quite legal steps for the sakeof future prosperity.1 https://imrussia.org/ru/ 2 Blyakher LE, Ogurtsova TL Theadventures of the legitimacy of power in Russia, or the re-creation of the presumptionof guilt. – The policy. Political studies. – 2006.
– No. 3. P. 53-67.3 Grigorieva E.
B. Political effectsof authoritarian syndrome in the current political process in Russia. -Bulletin of Tomsk State University.
– 2014. – No. 379. P. 46-54.4 Rose R.
The Impact of PresidentPutin on Popular Support for Russia’s Regime. – Post-Soviet Affairs. – 2007.
-?2. Vol. 23. P.
eu/debates/8 Kalachev K. Putin without options.- The newspaper. RU. 16.01.
S. 1. Access: http: //www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/01/14 (circulation date 04.11.2017).